HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 04082019 - TWIC Agenda Pkt
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
April 8, 2019
9:00 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, 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.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
3. Administrative Items, if applicable. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation
and Development)
4. REVIEW record of meeting for February 11, 2019, Transportation, Water and
infrastructure Committee Meeting. This record was prepared pursuant to the Better
Government Ordinance 95-6, Article 25-205 (d) of the Contra Costa County Ordinance
Code. Any handouts or printed copies of testimony distributed at the meeting will be
attached to this meeting record. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and
Development).
5. CONSIDER Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Account Project List for unincorporated Contra Costa County, and DIRECT staff
as appropriate including bringing the report to the full Board of Supervisors with
a recommendation from the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure
Committee. (Nancy Wein, Public Works Department)
6. ACCEPT report on 2018 Bike-to-Work Day and DIRECT staff as appropriate,
including 1) recommending measures that will increase the County's participation
in future Bike-to-Work Days and 2) bringing this report to the full Board of
Supervisors. (Robert Sarmiento/Jody London, Department of Conservation and
Development)
7. REVIEW the Proposition 1 grant application, and DIRECT staff as appropriate
including sending the application to the full Board of Supervisors with a
recommendation to approve and authorize the Public Works Director, or
designee, to execute grant application documents to secure grant funding with the
California State Coastal Conservancy, not to exceed $200,000, for the Montarabay
Green Infrastructure and Drainage Project. (Carl J. Roner, Department of Public
Works)
8. CONSIDER report on Local, State, Regional, and Federal Transportation
Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate. (John Cunningham,
Department of Conservation and Development)
9.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, May 13, 2019.
10.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 96 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
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:04/08/2019
Subject:Administrative Items, if applicable.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
This is an Administrative Item of the Committee.
Referral Update:
Staff will review any items related to the conduct of Committee business.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER Administrative items and Take ACTION as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:04/08/2019
Subject:REVIEW record of meeting for February 11, 2019, Transportation,
Water and Infrastructure Meeting.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
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.
Referral Update:
Any handouts or printed copies of testimony distributed at the meeting will be attached to this
meeting record. Links to the agenda and minutes will be available at the TWI Committee web
page: http://www.cccounty.us/4327/Transportation-Water-Infrastructure
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the February 11, 2019,
Committee Meeting with any necessary corrections.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
2-11-19 TWIC Sign-In Sheet
2-11-19 TWIC Mtg Minutes
D R A F T
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
February 11, 2019
9:00 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, 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
Present: Candace Andersen, Vice Chair
Attendees: Alicia Nuchols, Office of Supervisor Diane Burgis
Warren Lai, CCC Department of Public Works
Frank Di Massa, CCC Department of Public Works
Tanya Drlik, CCC Health Services
Gretchen Logan, IPM
Cece Sellgren, IPM
Yuan Zhang, SunPower
Jody London, CCC Dept of Conservation/Dev.
John Cunningham, CCC Dept of Conservation/Dev.
Michael Kent, CCC Health Services
Kevin Johnston, SunPower
1.Introductions
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be
limited to three minutes).
There was no public comment under this item.
3.CONSIDER Administrative items and Take ACTION as appropriate.
4.Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the November 8, 2018, Committee Meeting
with any necessary corrections.
The Committee APPROVED the meeting record.
5.REVIEW, REVISE as appropriate, and ADOPT the 2019 Calendar.
The Committee APPROVED the 2019 Calendar.
6.CONSIDER recommendations on referrals to the Committee for 2019, REVISE as necessary, and DIRECT
staff to bring the list to the full Board of Supervisors for approval.
The Committee APPROVED the 2019 referral list and DIRECTED staff to bring the list to the Board of
Supervisors for consideration.
7.CONSIDER report on Local, Regional, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take
ACTION as appropriate.
The Committee RECEIVED the report.
8.Accept Integrated Pest Management report, and take ACTION as appropriate.
The Committee APPROVED the Integrated Pest Management report and DIRECTED staff to 1) bring the
report to the Board of Supervisors (on consent), 2) return to TWIC by May with a report on the status of the
recommendations (if the recommendations cannot be fulfilled then an alternative approach to fulfilling the
intent of the recommendations will be provided), and 3) when a new coordinator is hired a full
report/presentation will be brought to the Board of Supervisors.
9.DIRECT staff to process of the review and vetting of the Power Purchase Agreement for Solar Photovoltaics
project through TWIC.
The Committee RECEIVED the update, DIRECTED staff to continue working with County Counsel and
SunPower, if there are no major changes bring the final agreement to the Board of Supervisors, and if the
agreement changes substantially bring it back to the Committee for an update and reconsideration.
10.REVIEW Status Report and DIRECT staff to forward the report to the Board of Supervisors with revisions as
appropriate.
The Committee APPROVED the TWIC Referral Status Report for 2018 and DIRECTED staff to bring the
report to the Board of Supervisors.
11.RECEIVE information and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
The Committee RECEIVED the Communication, News, Miscellaneous Items report.
12.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, March 11, 2019.
13.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 96 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
For Additional Information Contact: 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
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:04/08/2019
Subject:CONSIDER Fiscal Year (FY) 2019/2020 Road Maintenance and
Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Project List for unincorporated Contra
Costa County.
Submitted For: Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer
Department:Public Works
Referral No.: 1
Referral Name: Review legislative matters on transportation.
Presenter: Nancy Wein, Public Works
Department
Contact: Nancy Wein
(925)313-2275
Referral History:
On April 28, 2017, the Governor signed Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which is known as the Road Repair
and Accountability Act of 2017. SB1 invests more than $5 billion annually statewide to go
directly for maintenance, repair, and safety improvements on state highways, local streets and
roads, bridges, tunnels and overpasses. Locally, SB1 significantly increases the annual gas tax
revenue the County will receive.
SB1 includes performance and reporting requirements in order to be eligible for the RMRA
funds. The information and recommendations in this report, once approved by the TWIC and the
Board of Supervisors, will fulfill these requirements.
Referral Update:
California cities and counties are seeing a significant influx of new revenue to invest in the local
street and road system from SB1.
SB1 increased several taxes and fees to raise over $5 billion annually in new transportation
revenues. SB1 also includes inflationary adjustments in the revenue to local agencies so that the
purchasing power of the funds does not decrease as it has in the past. SB1 prioritizes funding
towards maintenance and rehabilitation and safety improvements on state highways, local streets
and roads, and bridges and to improve the state’s trade corridors, transit, and active transportation
facilities.
SB1 Funds were available to cities and counties starting in FY 2017/2018 and are comprised of
two parts—an increase in the original gas tax revenue that local agencies have been receiving for
years and Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) program funds. The California
State Association of Counties (CSAC) has provided an estimate of the total revenues the County
can expect from this transportation bill, including the total estimated revenue for RMRA program
funds. CSAC estimates the County will receive about $39.3 million in total transportation funding
in FY 2019/2020 from SB1, which is almost double what the County received just a few years
ago. Approximately $14.2 million of that amount is from the RMRA program. This amount will
continue to grow in future years with the built-in inflationary index.
SB1 emphasizes the importance of accountability and transparency in the delivery of California’s
transportation programs. Therefore, in order to be eligible for RMRA funding, state statute
requires cities and counties to provide basic RMRA project reporting to the California
Transportation Commission (CTC).
Prior to receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds from the State Controller in a fiscal year, a
city or county must submit to the CTC a list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds.
All projects proposed to receive funding must be reviewed and approved by the applicable city
council or county board of supervisors at a regular public meeting.
The list of projects must include a description and location of each proposed project, a proposed
schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement. (See
Attachment A - a project list using the CTC recommended template) The project list does not
limit the flexibility of an eligible city or county to fund projects in accordance with local needs
and priorities so long as the projects are consistent with RMRA priorities as outlined in the
applicable code sections. Some example projects and uses for RMRA funding include, but are not
limited to the following:
Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Safety Projects
Railroad Grade Separations
Complete Streets Components (including active transportation purposes, pedestrian and
bicycle safety projects, transit facilities, and drainage and stormwater capture projects in
conjunction with any other allowable project)
Traffic Control Devices
Streets and Highways Code Section 2030(b)(2) states that funds made available by the program
may also be used to satisfy a match requirement in order to obtain state or federal funds for
projects authorized by this subdivision.
The County currently uses the majority of the Gas Tax funds towards public roadway
maintenance and repair for approximately 660 miles of the roadway network in the
unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County to ensure a safe and convenient public travel in a
variety of modes: driving, walking and bicycling. These funds are also used to improve traffic
safety throughout the County by using it as the local match to leverage funds from state and
federal grant programs.
In FY 2019/2020 it is proposed to designate the majority of the RMRA funds for maintenance
activities. The range of proposed projects in future years is expected to broaden as the amount of
RMRA funds increases.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
REVIEW the recommended list of Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA)(SB1)
REVIEW the recommended list of Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA)(SB1)
funded road projects, RECEIVE public comment and DIRECT staff to perform any changes or
revisions to the recommended project list. RECOMMEND the Board of Supervisors approve
project list, and direct staff to proceed with submitting the Fiscal Year 2019/2020 list of projects
to the California Transportation Commission prior to the May 1, 2019 submittal deadline for
approval.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
If a project list is not reviewed by the TWIC, forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for approval,
and submitted to the CTC by the May 1, 2019 deadline, the County will not be eligible to receive
its portion of RMRA funds and the projects listed above will not be constructed.
Attachments
04-19 SB1 RMRA Proj.List Apprvl FY 19-20 Appx A
Page 1 of 5
Appendix A
Local Streets and Roads Project List
As required by the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 – Local Streets and Roads Funding, Road
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA)
General Information
Name: Unincorporated Contra Costa County
Point of Contact:
Nancy Wein
Senior Civil Engineer
Contra Costa County Public Works Department
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
(925) 313-2275
Nancy.Wein@pw.cccounty.us
Legislative Districts:
• Senate – 3, 7, 9
• Assembly – 11, 14, 15, 16
Jurisdiction’s Average Network PCI and date/year of measurement:
• County Average PCI = 71 (as of September 2018)
Fiscal Year (FY): 2019/2020
Rationale for Project List Selection for FY 2019/2020 RMRA allocation
Staff has developed a recommended list of projects for the Transportation Water and Infrastructure
Committee (TWIC) and the Board of Supervisors to consider for submitting to the Commission.
The following criteria will be used by staff when developing the current and future project lists for
RMRA funds:
• Eligibility criteria for RMRA funds
• Emergency storm damage projects that exceeded existing road fund revenue capacity
• Maintenance and rehabilitation priorities
• Roadway safety
• Expiring grants where local funds are necessary to complete the funding package
• Geographic equity
• Projects where expenditures had already occurred for design of the project and had been shelved
due to declining gas tax revenues
• Multi-modal benefits in accordance with the Board of Supervisor’s Complete Streets policy
• Positive impact to Road Program performance metrics
• Clearing the queue of delayed projects that were a result of declining gas tax revenues
• Meeting customer expectations
Page 2 of 5
The County will receive about $39.3 million in total transportation funding in FY 2019/2020 from
SB1, with approximately $14.2 million of that amount from the RMRA program. The County
currently uses the majority of the Gas Tax funds towards public roadway maintenance and repair for
approximately 660 miles of the roadway network in the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County
to ensure a safe and convenient public travel in a variety of modes: driving, walking and bicycling.
These funds are also used to improve traffic safety throughout the County by using it as the local
match to leverage funds from state and federal grant programs.
In FY 2019/2020 it is proposed to designate the majority of the RMRA funds for maintenance
activities. The range of proposed projects in future years is expected to broaden as the amount of
RMRA funds increases. It should be noted that project list below is a small subset of projects in
overall road program and only focuses on how the RMRA funds will be expended as required by the
Commission.
PROPOSED PROJECTS (Total RMRA = $14.2 million)
Proposed Project No. 1: Road Drainage Maintenance (RMRA = $1.15 million)- Countywide
Description:
• Ditch Cleaning – This routine maintenance item is to perform drainage ditch cleaning to remove
debris and vegetation which may obstruct the passage of stormwater and cause local flooding.
(RMRA = $300,000) County Project No.: 0672-6U2303
• Clean Catch Basin – This routine maintenance item is to perform cleaning of sediment and
prevent obstructions of catch basins (drainage inlets) and related pipe systems. The county has
over twenty thousand catch basins throughout the unincorporated portions of the County. (RMRA
= $550,000) County Project No.: 0672-6U2308
• Inspect Catch Basin – This routine maintenance item is to perform inspections of catch basins
and associated systems. This includes a visual inspection of the drainage inlet and any clean water
inserts. Follow-up video inspections may be required for deeper inlets and/or suspected structural
issue concerning the inlets. (RMRA = $300,000) County Project No.: 0672-6U2316
• RMRA Priority: Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Location:
• Countywide
Proposed Schedule for Completion:
• Anticipated construction year – 2019
Estimated Useful Life:
• 15 - 40 years (ditch – dirt roadway to concrete V-ditch)
• 40 years (concrete structures)
Page 3 of 5
Proposed Project No.2: Traffic Safety Devices Maintenance (RMRA = $700,000) - Countywide
Description:
• Traffic Signing – This routine maintenance item is to perform sign repair, replacement, and
installation along the unincorporated County roadways. (RMRA = $350,000) County Project No.:
0672-6U2504
• Traffic Striping – This routine maintenance item is to perform new painting, routine painting and
replacement of pavement striping along the unincorporated County roadways to enhance public
safety. (RMRA = $350,000) County Project No.: 0672-6U2505
• RMRA Priority: Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Location:
• Countywide
Proposed Schedule for Completion:
• Anticipated construction year – 2018
Estimated Useful Life:
• 10 years (roadway signage)
• 2 - 4 years (roadway striping - thermoplastic)
Proposed Project No. 3: Pavement Repairs and Preparation (RMRA = $4.5 million)- Countywide
Description:
• Pot Hole Patching – This routine maintenance item is to perform spot pavement repairs of pot
holes along the unincorporated County roadways to eliminate surface hazards. (RMRA =
$500,000) County Project No.: 0672-6U2101
• Pavement Fabric Patching – This routine maintenance item is to perform pavement fabric
patching along the unincorporated County roadways to correct minor pavement defects and
prevent further cracking. An area of existing damaged asphalt will be removed and excavated to
allow a fabric patch to be placed. The roadway base will be compacted and leveled to support the
new fabric layer and asphalt layer. (RMRA = $500,000) County Project No.: 0672-6U2102
• Pavement Failure Repair - Backhoe – This routine maintenance item is to conduct pavement
failure repair along the unincorporated County roadways. This task requires the removal of a
larger area of cracked or damaged pavement with a backhoe. The roadway base will be
compacted and overlaid with new asphalt. (RMRA = $600,000) County Project No.: 0672-
6U2103
• Pull Box Paving – This is a roadway paving operation to place asphalt on localized roadway
depressions to provide a smooth riding surface for the motorized public along the unincorporated
County roadways. (RMRA = $625,000) County Project No.: 0672-6U2104
• Hand Patching – This is similar to pot hole patching to conduct spot pavement repairs along
unincorporated County roadway, but on a smaller scale. (RMRA = $600,000) County Project No.:
0672-6U2105
Page 4 of 5
•Crack Sealing – This pavement preservation task is to seal cracks in the roadway. Cracks are
typically filled in to seal the roadway structural section from water penetration. The goal is to
prolong the service life of the pavement and/or prepare the roadway surface for an overlay.
(RMRA = $700,000) County Project No.: 0672-6U2106
•Leveling – This task is associated with leveling of large settlements, depressions, surface
irregularities and recent large pavement repairs. This is to provide a smooth riding surface for the
motorized public along unincorporated County roadways. (RMRA = $475,000) County Project
No.: 0672-6U2107
•Pavement Failure Repair – Grinder – This task is to remove badly cracked or broken pavement.
The roadway is then replaced with new asphalt and roadway base rock. This task supports
pavement preservation operations and also extends the service life of the roadway pavement.
(RMRA = $500,000) County Project No.: 0672-6U2123
•RMRA Priority: Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Location:
•Countywide
Proposed Schedule for Completion:
•Anticipated construction year – 2018
Estimated Useful Life:
•7 years (pavement surface treatment)
Proposed Project No. 4: County-Wide Surface Treatments (RMRA = $4.50 million)
Countywide:
•Single Chip Seal Project (2019) – This project will apply a single chip seal to various roads
as a pavement preservation project in the unincorporated Contra Costa County. Work will also
include surface preparation and pavement striping and markings. (RMRA = $700,000) County
Project No. 0672-6U2181
•Double Chip Seal Project (2019) – This project will apply a double chip seal to various roads
as a pavement preservation project in the unincorporated Contra Costa County. Work will also
include surface preparation and pavement striping and markings. (RMRA = $800,000) County
Project No. 0672-6U2182
•Microsurface Project (2019) – This project will apply a microsurface seal to Pleasant Hill
Road and Taylor Boulevard in the unincorporated area of Martinez and Lafayette area. Work
will also include surface preparation and pavement striping and markings. (RMRA =
$500,000) County Project No. 0672-6U2183
•Asphalt Rubber Cape Seal Project (2019) - The project will apply an asphalt rubber chip
seal covered with a type II slurry seal to various roadways in the Bay View (19 streets),
Montalvin (18 streets), and unincorporated Lafayette and Martinez (67 streets), Work will also
include surface preparation and pavement striping and markings. (RMRA = $2,500,000)
County Project No. 0672-6U2184
•RMRA Priority: Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Page 5 of 5
Location:
•Countywide (Bay Point and Central County)
Proposed Schedule for Completion:
•Anticipated construction year – 2018
Estimated Useful Life:
7 years (pavement surface treatment)
Proposed Project No. 5: Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lanes ($3.35 million)
•The project consists of pavement widening for a truck climbing lane with 8 foot paved shoulders;
relocation of HMA dike, concrete ditches, and other drainage features; retaining wall construction;
installation of signage and striping; construction of two C.3 bioretention areas; relocation of
existing roadside features, and pavement rehabilitation on Kirker Pass Road which consists of 0.1
feet grind and overlay of open grade rubberized hot mix asphalt (HMA). There are significant
roadway conforms at Hess Road due to change in grade
•RMRA Priority: Roadway Safety, Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Location:
•Kirker Pass Road from Concord Pavilion to about 4,200 feet north of North Hess Road
Proposed Schedule for Completion:
•Construction year – 2019-2020
Estimated Useful Life:
•40 years (roadway widening)
•15 years (pavement surface treatment)
NW:sr
G:\transeng\TWIC\2019\04-08-19 - TWIC - SB1_RMRA project list approval FY 19-20 Appendix A.docx
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:04/08/2019
Subject:ACCEPT report on 2018 Bike-to-Work Day and DIRECT staff as
appropriate.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: Robert Sarmiento, DCD Contact: Robert Sarmiento
(925)674-7822
Referral History:
This issue has not been heard at TWIC in the past.
Referral Update:
On Bike-to-Work Day, which in 2018, took place on May 10, the public is encouraged to
commute by bicycle to the workplace, with the intention of getting people to continue to bike to
the workplace on a regular basis.
5,756 riders1 in Contra Costa County participated in Bike-to-Work Day, including County
supervisors and staff from the Department of Conservation and Development and the Public
Works Department. 48 bike energizer stations1 , which were staffed by bicycle advocacy groups
and volunteers, were set up around Contra Costa County to provide refreshments and promotional
materials to riders who participated. Nearly 50 organizations in the East Bay sponsored
Bike-to-Work Day2 , including Contra Costa County, which was a 'Silver'-level sponsor.3
The County's participation in Bike-to-Work Day helped meet County policies in the General Plan
and Climate Action Plan and policies in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's Countywide
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, which the County regularly refers to, that promote Bike-to-Work
Day and encourage bicycle use.
1 Statistics provided by 511 Contra Costa.
2 Bike East Bay, "Find Your Local Energizer Station 2018,"
https://bikeeastbay.org/Energizer2018.
3 Silver-level sponsors receive specific recognition and benefits, which are listed here-
https://bikeeastbay.org/sites/default/files/blog_files/BTWD2018-Sponsor-packet_Final_Email_lr.pdf
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT report on 2018 Bike-to-Work Day and DIRECT staff as appropriate, including 1)
recommending measures that will increase the County's participation in future Bike-to-Work
Days and 2) bringing this report to the full Board of Supervisors.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
None.
Attachments
2018 Bike to Work Day in Contra Costa County
Bike to Work Day in Contra
Costa County
May 10, 2018
Supervisor
Mitchoff
Supervisor Andersen and
Chief of Staff Gayle Israel
Pleasant Hill BART
Energizer Station
Thanks, REI and Bike
Concord!
Contra Costa Canal Trail
Energizer Station
Thanks, Pleasant Hill
Parks and Rec!
Antioch
Energizer Station
Lucas Stuart-Chilcote and City of Antioch
Resource Coordinator Julie Haas-Wadjowicz.
Lucas is in his 2nd year at Los Medanos
College. Julie first met him at her energizer
station about 5 years ago. He used to ride
every day to high school, including one Bike
To Work Day in a 3 piece suit for a
presentation.
This year Lucas hosted his first energizer
station at Los Medanos College!
511 Contra Costa
Energizer Station
Iron Horse Trail/Canal Trail
Crossing, Walnut Creek
Meet Steve Biggs.
Has been biking to work most days from
Clayton to Concord for 10 years.
10 years ago Steve only cycled recreationally
and was encouraged by Bike To Work Day to
try bicycling to work. Yesterday was his 10th
anniversary of biking to work!
Steve says cycling to work has increased his
fitness level for his double century bike
rides.
Todos Santos Plaza
Energizer Station
Concord
Danville Energizer
Station
Thomas Valdriz and Mark Ballock
from Street Smarts San Ramon
Valley joined Supervisor Andersen
And Gayle Israel
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 7.
Meeting Date:04/08/2019
Subject:APPROVE & AUTHORIZE to secure Proposition 1 grant funding with the
California State Coastal Conservation.
Submitted For: Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer
Department:Public Works
Referral No.: 2
Referral Name: Review application for transportation, water and infrastructure grants to be
prepared by Public Works & Conservation and Development Departments.
Presenter: Carl J. Roner, Public Works
Department
Contact: Carl J. Roner
(925)313-2213
Referral History:
N/A
Referral Update:
The purpose of the proposed Coastal Conservancy Proposition 1 Grant* will be to fund the design
phase of a green infrastructure project which will provide drainage to the Montarabay parking lot.
The facility’s parking lot, which is 1.82 acres in size, is completely paved and does not have any
drainage facilities. During much of the winter it is flooded by rainfall, restricting parking and
access to the community center. The adjacent ballfields do not dry out until late summer. These
flooding events limit public access to the facility during the winter months and interfere with food
distribution events that are held in the Montarabay parking lot on a monthly basis.
The overall site is set between higher ground to the west and elevated railroad embankments to
the north and south. The only way to provide for surface runoff drainage is to construct a pipeline
to Garrity Creek, to the east. Due to the large surface area of the parking lot, the former industrial
use of the site as a sewage treatment plant, and the sensitivity of adjacent Garrity Creek, which
discharges to San Pablo Bay, any drainage improvements to the parking lot should incorporate
bioswales and other green infrastructure techniques to treat surface drainage prior to discharge.
Bioswales are landscape elements designed to concentrate or remove debris and pollution out of
surface runoff water.
Placing bioswales in the parking lot to break up and slow down traffic (precluding illegal street
racing) would be a benefit to the users of the community center, particularly the less mobile
elderly. Bioswales would also make the site more attractive and parklike, adding an element of
urban greening to the site requested by the grant application.
The grant will pay for the engineering and landscape design for the bioswales and drainage
pipeline. Public Works will need to obtain additional funding from outside sources at a later date
to permit and construct the bioswale and drainage pipeline.
* Coastal Conservancy Proposition 1 grants fund multi-benefit ecosystem and watershed
protection and restoration projects.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
REVIEW the Proposition 1 grant application, and DIRECT staff as appropriate including
sending the application to the full Board of Supervisors with a recommendation to approve
and authorize the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute grant application
documents to secure grant funding with the California State Coastal Conservancy, not to
exceed $200,000, for the Montarabay Green Infrastructure and Drainage Project.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
None. The grant will pay for the engineering and landscape design for the bioswales and the
drainage pipeline. Public Works will need to obtain additional funding from outside sources at a
later date to permit and construct the bioswales and drainage pipeline.
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 8.
Meeting Date:04/08/2019
Subject:CONSIDER report: Local, Regional, State, and Federal Transportation
Issues: Legislation, Studies, Miscellaneous Updates, take ACTION as
Appropriate
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 1
Referral Name: REVIEW legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure.
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7883
Referral History:
This is a standing item on the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee referral list
and meeting agenda.
Referral Update:
In developing transportation related issues and proposals to bring forward for consideration by
TWIC, staff receives input from the Board of Supervisors (BOS), references the County's adopted
Legislative Platforms, coordinates with our legislative advocates, partner agencies and
organizations, and consults with the Committee itself.
This report includes four sections, 1: LOCAL, 2: REGIONAL, 3: STATE, and 4: FEDERAL .
1. LOCAL
Accessible Transportation Strategic (ATS) Plan
Background: With assistance from Contra Costa County staff, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority
(CCTA) submitted a successful grant to Caltrans under the Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant program in
February 2017 to conduct the ATS Plan. The ATS Plan is a comprehensive study of how accessible
transit/paratransit is provided in the County.
Update: CCTA and County conducted a Request for Proposals solicitation which ended in late March and are in
the process of awarding a contract.
2. REGIONAL
No report in April.
3. STATE
3.1 April State Legislative Report. A report from Mark Watts will be provided at the meeting. Mr.
Watts has a conflict and will not be able to attend in April
3.2 Iron Horse Corridor - Removal of Encumbrances
Background : The County's State Legislative Platform includes:
"239: SUPPORT regional coordination that provides for local input in addressing
transportation needs....Consistent with that position, relief from the requirements
imposed on the County by the state relative to the Iron Horse corridor would foster
coordination along this multi-jurisdictional corridor. Such relief could be provided through
administrative action or County sponsored legislation."
3.3 Legislation For Discussion/Action
A list of all legislation being tracked by staff is attached. For the specific bills below, a copy of the bill text is
attached and the County's prior position and/or communication when available.
AB 907 (Salas) California Department of Aging: grants: transportation. See attached letter.
AB 1568 (McCarty) Housing Law Compliance: Withholding of Transportation Funds
SB 137 (Dodd) Federal Transportation Funds: State Exchange Programs
SB 228 (Jackson) Master Plan on Aging
4. FEDERAL
No written report in April.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER report on Local, Regional, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative
Issues and take ACTION as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
There is no fiscal impact.
Attachments
SB 137 - Dodd Fed-State Exchange
FINAL BOS to AM Salas: GGRF/SPD Grants
AB 1568 McCarty
AB 970 - Salas
SB228 - Jackson
April 2019 TWIC Bill Tracking
OFFICE OF SENATOR BILL DODD Marisol Prieto-Valle PHONE: 916-651-4003
SB 137 – DODD
Federal transportation funds: state exchange programs
Summary
SB 137 reduces duplicative federal
transportation permitting and environmental
review by expanding the State’s existing
program to exchange federal surface
transportation revenues for state transportation
revenues. Referred to as the Match-Exchange
Program, this streamlining mechanism is
currently only available to regional
transportation planning agencies with
populations below 200,000.
Background
The California Department of Transportation
(CalTrans), Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPOs), Regional Transportation Planning
Agencies (RTPAs), and cities and counties all
receive federal surface transportation funding
for a variety of transportation projects ranging
from capital improvements, safety projects on
existing roads and bridges, and bicycle and
pedestrian related infrastructure projects.
All transportation projects in the state fully or
partially funded with federal, state, regional or
local revenues, and regardless of what level of
government is acting as the lead agency, are
required to go through California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) review and apply for other
necessary permits. When a project includes any
amount of federal funding, the State, regional
agencies, and cities and counties also have to go
through the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process.
CEQA is in many ways more robust that NEPA, as
are many of our natural resource and wildlife
laws. As such, undergoing federal review in
addition to state review is duplicative and adds
time and cost to transportation projects without
any added benefit to the public process or the
environment. Counties estimate that going
through federal environmental and permit
review in addition to California’s robust
processes adds anywhere from fifteen- to forty
percent to the cost of a project.
Existing Law
Section 182.6(g) of the S&HC permits a Regional
Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) not
designated as, nor represented by, a
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) with
an urbanized area of greater than 200,000
population, to exchange its annual
apportionment of Regional Surface
Transportation Program (RSTP) funds for non-
Federal funds (State cash). If an eligible RTPA
elects not to exchange, Section 182.6(h)(1)
permits an eligible county represented by that
RTPA to exchange its entire annual sub-
apportionment, pursuant to Section 182.6(d)(2)
(110 percent 1990/91 Federal-aid Secondary
minimum), for State cash.
In addition, Section 182.6(h)(2) of the S&HC
permits an eligible county, located within an
MPO boundary, to exchange its entire
apportionment of Section 182.6(d)(2) funds, if it
receives less than one percent of the total
statewide apportionment under Section
182.6(d)(2) or that portion, if any, received in
excess of 3.5 percent of the total statewide
apportionment
This Bill
SB 137 will allow the state, regions, and cities
and counties to reduce the cost of transportation
projects and provide for more projects to be
completed with the same amount of revenue by
expanding the Match Exchange Program to
regions over 200,000 in population and to other
OFFICE OF SENATOR BILL DODD Marisol Prieto-Valle PHONE: 916-651-4003
federal surface transportation programs
including the Transportation Alternatives
Program, Highway Safety Improvement
Program, and local bridge projects. This bill does
not require, but authorizes the state to expand
the Match Exchange Program to the extend state
funds are available and would not compromise
other state funded projects or activities.
Support
California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
(Sponsor)
Contact
Marisol.prietovalle@sen.ca.gov
Sponsor Contact: Chris Lee (CSAC)
clee@counties.org (916)650-8180
The Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, California 94553-1293
John Gioia, 1st District
Candace Andersen, 2nd District
Diane Burgis, 3rd District
Karen Mitchoff, 4th District
Federal D. Glover, 5th District
March 29, 2018
Honorable Rudy Salas
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0032
Re: Assembly Bill 970 – California Department of Aging: Grants: Transportation: Support with
Amendments
Dear Congressman Salas,
On behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, I am writing to thank you for
bringing forward the visionary legislation, AB 970 - California Department of Aging: Grants:
Transportation. The bill would provide grant funding for transportation programs to/from
nonemergency medical services for older individuals and persons with a disability who reside
in rural, desert, or mountain areas. The bill is timely, improvements to this type of
transportation are critical if we are to improve emergency response to this vulnerable
population.
Transportation services for this population have long been in need of improvement, your bill is
an excellent response to those needs. Contra Costa County has been developing a similar
proposal that would benefit the entire state, directly fund locally identified needs including in
Assembly District 32, and is consistent with the intent of AB 970.
We have attached two documents which describe the proposal in detail. The first is an
unbacked bill (Transportation funding: services for seniors and persons with disabilities)
proposing a new program, and the second is a report (Seniors/Persons with Disabilities State
Transportation Funding Program Proposal) establishing the rationale and describing the
strategy for a statewide program.
In summary, the proposal leverages existing federal requirements for the development of
Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plans. These plans are developed
nationwide and are required to be, “…developed and approved through a process that
includes participation by seniors, individuals with disabilities, representatives of public, private,
and nonprofit transportation and human services providers and other members of the
public…”
As suggested by the requirements, these Coordinated Plans establish specific local needs
and define a strategic approach to transportation investments. The attached approach would
leverage these plans resulting in 1) expedited implementation, and 2) a program that is
inherently tailored to each locality complete with documented effectiveness and support.
David Twa
Clerk of the Board
and
County Administrator
(925) 335-1900
Contra
Costa
County
g:\transportation\cunningham\memo-letter\letter\2019\draft bos to am salas-aging<c.doc
The County respectfully requests that AB 970 be amended to incorporate the approach described
in the attached documents and summarized below:
There is a need for both capital and operations funding programs. The capital program would
fund vehicle purchase as currently envisioned in AB 970.
Funding should be provided statewide with eligible expenditures guided by the existing
Coordinated Public Transit‐Human Services Transportation Plans. These locally produced
plans include recommendations reasonably forecasted1 to simultaneously increase cost
effectiveness, expand service, and increase service quality. Implementation of the
Coordinated Plans is hampered by a lack of dedicated funding.
The creation and operation of Consolidated Transportation Service Agencies (CTSAs) and
other systemic or organizational improvements2 should be an eligible expenditure of funding.
The CTSA structure was authorized under the Social Service Transportation Act (AB 120 –
1979) and encourages coordination among transportation providers improving access, quality
of service and cost-effectiveness. Implementation of the CTSA mechanism is hampered by a
lack of dedicated funding.
If you have any questions or concerns on this request please don’t hesitate to reach out to the
County. Our staff and legislative advocate are available to provide assistance, John
Cunningham, Principal Transportation Planner (john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us, (925) 674-
7833) and Mark Watts (mwatts@swmconsult.com, (916) 446-5508).
Again, thank you for bringing this important bill forward.
Sincerely,
John Gioia, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
cc: Hon. Adrin Nazarian, Chair - Assembly Aging and Long-Term Care Committee
L. Vance Taylor, Chief - Office of Access and Functional Needs – Gov. Office of Emergency Services
MTC Legislation Committee c/o Rebecca Long
Erik Turner, Assembly District 32 Staff
Attachments
Seniors/Persons with Disabilities State Transportation Funding Program Proposal
Transportation funding: services for seniors and persons with disabilities
1 Transportation Research Board/National Academy of Sciences: Report 91: Economic Benefits of Coordinating Human Service
Transportation & Transit Services: “Significant economic benefits — including increased funding, decreased costs, and increased
productivity — can be obtained by coordinating human service transportation and transit services.”
2 Systemic operational or organizational improvements include the creation of new service models and organizations such as CTSAs,
mobility management centers, one‐call/one‐click operations, nonprofit agencies, joint powers, technology investments that increase
cost‐effectiveness of operations, facilitate client payment accounting systems (supporting client/fund comingling and cost allocation),
improve client ease‐of‐access (one call/one click, interactive voice response), and enhance/enable access to TNCs.
79731
02/12/19 09:16AM
RN 19 05897 PAGE 1
=
=
=
79731
02/12119 09:16AM
RN 19 05897 PAGE 2
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The "aging tsunami," brought about by the aging of the baby boomers has
long been forecasted to increase the demand for public transportation services for
seniors and persons with disabilities. This is a well-documented issue. The California
State Plan on Aging indicates that by 2030 senior age groups will increase anywhere
from 70 percent up to 274 percent. These age groups have cognitive and physical
characteristics that either require public transportation services or results in the loss of
ability to drive themselves, or both.
(b) In order for transportation programs and systems to adequately serve seniors
and persons with disabilities (SPD) in the current regulatory environment, both of the
. following are required:
( 1) An increase in funding for capital programs that enable efficiencies and
reduce greenhouse gases (GHG).
(2) An increase in transportation operations funding to respond to the forecasted
increase in demand for services.
(c) Increases in regional or local supplemental funding for these services have
not been provided even asmajor new transportation sources have been enacted or
approved, including Regional Measure 2 and Regional Measure 3 in the Bay Area,
and Senate Bill1 (Chapter 5 of the Statutes of2017).
(d) Victims of wildfires are often disproportionately seniors and persons with
· disabilities .. These outcomes can be related to limited access to quality transportation.
However, with a significant level of new investment, coupled with better coordinated
·services the state can see significant, systemic improvements to transportation services
for this population and this will indirectly but significantly improve emergency
responses for this population. Any specific effort intended to directly improve
emergency responses for this population will require a modem SPD transportation
framework.
(e) There is a strong nexus between SPD transportation services and GHG
production. This nexus supports the use of revenue from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Fund for transportation services for the SPD population. This nexus is demonstrated
by both of the following:
(1) Federal Highway Administration and American Public Transit Association
data establish that para transit shuttle operations are a significant source of GHGs.
(2) Operational improvements made possible by technology investments and
administrative changes can demonstrably decrease GHGs production by increasing
the number ofshared trips in a demand-response or paratransit operation.
(f) It is appropriate to efficiently and effectively respond to the demographically
driven expansion of the population being served and to increase the efficiency of this
segment of the transportation system by providing additional funding for these services.
SEC. 2. Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 991 00) is added to Part 11 of
Division 10 of the Public Utilities Code, to read:
79731
02112/19 09:16AM
RN 19 05897 PAGE 3
CHAPTER 2. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FoR SENIORS AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
99100. It is the intent of the Legislature that 5 percent of the annual proceeds
of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund be appropriated in the annual Budget Act for
the purpose of the program established pursuant to this chapter to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions in the state in accordance with the requirements of Section 3 9712 of the
Health and Safety Code.
99101. The Controller shall establish a program for the purpose of providing
funding for transportation services for seniors and persons with disabilities.
99102. The Controller shall annually allocate funds made available for the
program established pursuant to this chapter on a formula basis as follows:
(a) Fifty percent of the funds to be allocated to local or regional transportation
agencies that have sought and received voter approval of taxes or that have imposed
fees, including uniform developer fees as defined by subdivision (b) of Section 8879.67
of the Government Code, which taxes or fees are dedicated solely to transportation
improvements, and that provide transportation services to seniors and persons with
disabilities.
(b) Fifty percent of the funds to be allocated to counties.
99103. (a) An entity that receives an allocation pursuant to Section 99102 shall
provide grants from that allocation to a qualified service provider to provide
transportation services to seniors and persons with disabilities.
(b) If an entity receives an allocation pursuant to Section 99102 whose source
.. is· the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the ·entity shall ensure that a grant provided
to a qualified service provider is consistent with the guidelines adopted by the State
Air Resources Board pursuant to Section 39715 of the Health and Safety Code.
-0-
79731
Bill No.
02/12/19 09:16AM
RN 19 05897 PAGE 1
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
as introduced, --:---:=--
General Subject: Transportation funding: services for seniors and persons with
disabilities.
Existing law provides various sources of funding for transportation purposes,
including funding for paratransit and other transportation services for seniors and
persons with disabilities.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designates the State Air
Resources Board as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources
of emissions of greenhouse gases. The act authorizes the state board to include the use
of market-based compliance mechanisms. Existing law requires all moneys, except
for fmes and penalties, collected by the state board as part of a market-based compliance
mechanism to be deposited in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and to be available
upon appropriation. Existing law continuously appropriates 35% of the annual proceeds
of the fund for transit, affordable housing, and sustainable communities programs and
25% of the annual proceeds of the fund for certain components of a specified high-speed
rail project.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature that 5% of the annual proceeds
of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund be appropriated in the annual budget act to
fund transportation services for seniors and persons with disabilities. The bill would
require the Controller to establish a program for the purpose of funding transportation
services to seniors and persons with disabilities. The bill would require the Controller
to annually allocate funds made available to the program on a formula basis with 50%
to be allocated to local or regional transportation agencies that meet certain requirements
and 50% to be allocated to counties. The bill would require the entities that receive
these allocations to provide grants to qualified service providers to provide transportation
services to seniors and persons with disabilities.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local
program: no.
Seniors/Persons with Disabilities State Transportation Funding Program Proposal
Concept Approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: September 25, 2018 (revised December 2018)1
Issue Summary: In order for transportation programs and systems to adequately serve seniors and persons with
disabilities (SPD) in the current regulatory environment, the following is required: 1) an increase in funding for
capital programs that enable efficiencies, and reduce greenhouse gasses (GHGs), and 2) an increase in
transportation operations funding to respond to the forecasted increase in demand for services. Both programs
include incentives to implement more cost effective, user‐friendly systems that reduce GHG production.
Both of these changes are necessary in order to efficiently and effectively respond to the demographically driven
expansion of the population being served and to increase the efficiency of this segment of the transportation
system. As described further in this proposal, there has been substantial analysis of these issues. However, no state
or federal funding program makes use of that analysis and responds to the scale or complexity of the issue
adequately.
The issue is best summarized in the Coordinated Public Transit‐Human Services Transportation Plan for the Bay Area
although the stark assessment is applicable statewide as described in the Statewide Need section of this proposal:
Current senior‐oriented mobility services do not have the capacity to handle the increase in people over 65 years of
age…the massive growth among the aging …points to a lack of fiscal and organizational readiness…the closure and
consolidation of medical facilities while rates of diabetes and obesity are on the rise will place heavy demands on an
already deficient system.
The “already deficient system” serving the SPD population requires a robust policy and funding response that is
comparable to improvements seen in other transportation system sectors. California’s response to automotive
congestion is justifiably robust and systematic, freeway widening, transit expansion, express lanes, etc. These
activities all saw increased funding under the Road Repair and Accountability Act (SB 1 2017). Bicyclists are
benefiting from substantially increased infrastructure investment with green lanes and separated bikeways as a
result of the Complete Streets Act (AB 1358[2008]) and the creation of the Active Transportation Program (SB 99
[2013], Chapter 359 and AB 101[2013], Chapter 354). This proposal establishes some parity in transportation
system investment and progress between the SPD population and the general public (which also reduces GHGs).
Impacted Population: Due to the overlapping disadvantaged factors (age, disability poverty, chronic conditions,
etc.) defining a population figure is challenging. However, the growth in the senior population, and the associated
characteristics of that population, are compelling as a standalone data point even without the addition of the
population with disabilities (but not elderly).
During the 2010 to 2060 time period, California’s over 60 population will have a 166% increase. During the same
period, the over age 85 population will increase by 489%. For comparison’s sake, the working age population (25‐
64) will increase just 21% during that time.2 Actual population figures from the Department of Finance are as
follows: Age 65+: 5,460,081 (2016), 10,371,162 (2036), 13,488,801 (2060).
The simple numerical increase in the senior population is compounded by demographic complexities, there will be
more single and/or childless seniors (reduced ability to rely on close family members for transportation assistance),
and the population as a whole will experience a decreasing number of working aging people supporting (financially,
direct services) a growing number of elderly people.3
The impact of this broad systemic degradation of the State’s ability to support this population is described by the
Public Policy Institute for California4 as follows, “…a greater share of the state’s human and economic resources
being used to provide health care and other types of support for this group.” This proposal is a strategic approach to
allocating those resources.
1 The proposal has been revised but is still consistent with the original intent as approved by the Board of Supervisors.
2 Population figures from the California Department of Aging: https://www.aging.ca.gov/data_and_statistics/facts_about_elderly/
3 The “aged dependency ratio” (the ratio of the number of seniors to the number of people of working ages supporting [directly and financially]) is set to
increase from 19 to 32, there will be fewer adults of prime working age relative to the senior population.
4 Planning for California's Growing Senior Population, August 2015, https://www.ppic.org/publication/planning‐for‐californias‐growing‐senior‐population/
Timeline: The intent is to have this Seniors/Persons with Disabilities (SPD) Transportation Funding Program proceed
in the 2019 legislative session. While there is no set timeline driving this effort, the aforementioned spike in
demand for service, and the lack of progress in this field have been observed and analyzed for decades5. This
proposal leverages existing tools to quickly operationalize strategies and actions that have long been identified but
underdeveloped due to a lack of funding.
Background: The impending increase in the senior population and the transportation systems serving the same
have been the subject of considerable analysis with limited action for some time5. This situation is summarized in
the National Academy of Sciences sponsored report, “Economic Benefits of Coordinating Human Service
Transportation and Transit Services: 6
Ideas about coordinating human service transportation and public transit services should shift from the research arena
to operational practice. Local transportation services for the disadvantaged are often delivered by a variety of nonprofit
organizations, operated independently by multiple entities in a community, and result in duplicative, overlapping, and
uncoordinated services. The analysis concludes that although coordination sounds like an easy and magical policy
solution to be effective, state‐level policies must, at a minimum, target and fund the coordination process.
This proposal targets and funds the coordination process. Nearly immediate operational implementation is
possible by leveraging existing analysis and tools:
The statewide inventory of locally developed Coordinated Public Transit‐Human Services Transportation Plans7
(hereafter “Coordinated Plans”) all include implementable recommendations. The Coordinated Plans are
planning documents consistently produced throughout the state in response to federal requirements7. These
documents include recommendations reasonably forecasted6 to simultaneously increase cost effectiveness,
expand service, and improve service quality.
Consolidated Transportation Service Agencies: (CTSAs) were created under the Social Service Transportation
Act (AB 120 – 1979). The Act required agencies throughout California to conduct regional inventory reports and
prepare/implement action plans. The intent was to encourage coordination among social service transportation
providers so existing transportation resources are used more effectively.
Issue Details:
1) Fragmented/Inefficient Services: This transportation sector is funded by numerous local, state, and federal
programs across multiple governmental sectors (transportation, social services, public health, etc.). These
programs, in many areas, have resulted in the unintended consequence of fragmented and duplicative
programs.8 In addition to the administrative and fiscal problems resulting from this fragmentation, these
silos result in arbitrary transit service boundaries requiring unnecessary passenger transfers9. These
transfers simultaneously increase costs, decrease safety, extend trip times, and significantly compromise
service quality and ease of access for this categorically disadvantaged population10.
5 Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports 109878, 591707, 650079, 658766, 660247, 667361, et al: “…duplication of effort and inefficiency in
providing transportation when agencies do not coordinate…”, “….state and local agencies are unaware that they are...providing transportation services
identical and parallel to those of another agency“…transit agency officials that we spoke with said that they would like to implement coordination efforts,
but have been unable to get various parties to come together…”, “continuing challenges such as insufficient leadership at the federal level and limited
financial resources and growing unmet needs at the state and local level.”, “…state and local officials expressed concern about their ability to adequately
address expected growth in elderly, disabled, low‐income, and rural populations.”, “…agencies providing similar transportation services to similar client
groups may lead to duplication and overlap when coordination does not occur.”
6 Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences: Transit Cooperative Research Program, Report 91: Economic Benefits of Coordinating
Human Service Transportation and Transit Services: “Significant economic benefits — including increased funding, decreased costs, and increased
productivity — can be obtained by coordinating human service transportation and transit services.”
7 A 2004 Executive Order resulted in federal transit law requiring that eligibility for certain funding streams be established through “…a locally developed,
coordinated public transit‐human services transportation plan," and that the plan be "developed and approved through a process that included participation
by seniors, individuals with disabilities, representatives of public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human services providers and other members of
the public". As a result, throughout the country there are consistently developed and adopted coordinated plans. These plans identify the transportation
needs of individuals with disabilities, older adults, and people with low incomes and provide strategies for meeting these needs, and prioritize
transportation services for funding and implementation.
8 GAO: Transportation Coordination: Benefits and Barriers Exist, Planning Efforts Progress Slowly: “As HHS and FTA have recognized, the lack of coordination
among human services transportation providers and public transit operators contributes to the duplication or overlapping of transportation
services…particular clients may be left unserved or underserved…”
9 Martin Wachs, Professor Emeritus of Urban Planning, testified at a December 5, 2018 CPUC hearing (TNC Access for All Act) that problems with making cross
county trips for this population have been discussed since the 1960s.
10 GAO: Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Safe Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue., “…GAO and others have reported
In summary, current arrangements are a lose‐lose‐lose scenario with all parties suffering sub‐optimal
outcomes, the client population experiencing inadequate service, the agency providing the service is
logistically and fiscally overwhelmed, and the tax paying public receives a poor return on their investment.
2) Demographically Driven Increase in Demand: The “aging tsunami” 11, brought about by the aging of the
baby boomers has long been forecasted to increase the demand for the subject transportation services.
This is a well‐documented issue, the California State Plan on Aging indicates that by 2030 senior age groups
will increase anywhere from 70% up to 274%. These age groups have cognitive and physical characteristics
that either require this type of service and/or results in the loss of ability to drive themselves. These
increases will magnify the negative fiscal impact of the fragmented systems mentioned above.
Proposal/Solution Details: The two identified issues, administrative/operations fragmentation and
demographically driven increases in demand are addressed by two components of this proposal: 1) a Capital
program focused on efficiency‐improving, GHG reducing investments, and 2) an Operations program with
allocations based on population served by the program and subsequently indexed to the growth (or contraction) in
the same population.
This proposal exclusively serves disadvantaged individuals that is not only consistent with, but above and beyond
the definition of disadvantaged communities in Senate Bill 535 (2012 – DeLeón).
1) Capital
Capital funding will be disbursed through competitive grants to projects which are included in the applicable
Coordinated Plan or meet other program requirements. Projects will implement systemic operational or
organizational improvements proven to result in more efficient use of resources, improve service quality,
increase shared trips, and reduce GHGs.
Eligible activities include but are not necessarily limited to planning including study and/or creation of new
service models and organizations such as CTSAs, mobility management centers, one‐call/one‐click operations,
nonprofit agencies, joint powers, other service area consolidation activities, technology investments12 including
software/hardware solutions that increase cost‐effectiveness of operations, facilitate client payment
accounting systems (supporting client/fund comingling and cost allocation), improve client ease‐of‐access (one
call/one click, interactive voice response), enable access to shared and autonomous mobility services, and
support coordination or consolidation of separate operations or jurisdictions.
2) Operations
Operations funding will be appropriated annually, on a continuing basis, with funding levels reflecting:
o The population served and responding to the growth or contraction of that population over time
(See Proposal Notes), and
o An incentive program with substantial increases in funding for operations that serve countywide
(or larger13) service areas (no‐transfer), and/or co‐mingling of different populations, ADA
Paratransit, senior, Medicaid, general public, etc.14 (See Proposal Notes for geographic and
that the variety of federal programs providing transportation services to the transportation disadvantaged has resulted in fragmented services that can be
difficult for clients to navigate and narrowly focused programs that may result in service gaps”
11 California State Plan on Aging 2017‐2021: “The impact of an aging population, described by some as an “age wave” and others as an “aging tsunami,”
will be felt in every aspect of society. The economic, housing, transportation, health, and social support implications of this phenomenon must also be
viewed in the context of the State’s tremendous population growth, which continues to challenge the State’s overall infrastructure planning.”
12Technology investments are sizable immediate and ongoing costs. These investments are only cost and operationally effective in larger geographic areas
with diverse and comingled passenger categories. With every service silo and geographic contraction, these investments have a substantially reduced
return on investment.
13 Larger service areas are more efficient in a demand response system for several reasons. The ability to build shared trips (critical for cost and GHG
savings) requires a critical mass of riders not possible in a small service area or with exclusive clientele (Medicaid for example) . Second, technology to build
shared rides is expensive to purchase/maintain and is not cost effective on smaller scales.
14 Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences: TCRP, Report 91: Economic Benefits of Coordinating Human Service Transportation and
Transit Services: “There are numerous viable strategies for coordinating the operations of human service transportation and public transit operations
…strategies generate significant economic benefits: When transit agencies coordinate with human service agencies to provide trips to human service agency
clients, the transit agencies can realize significant additional funds… human service agencies typically receive substantial trip cost savings....Coordinated cost
reduction strategies generated impressive savings...Transit authorities can receive substantial cost savings through contracts with other agencies that may
have more freedom to combine trips or to use volunteers and may provide service at lower cost....arrangements often lead to significantly increased
revenues for the other transportation providers...when human service agencies coordinate or consolidate their separate transportation services to create
operational restrictions)
Agencies should be granted provisional eligibility for operations funding under the following scenarios:
o The programs and projects seeking funding are found to be consistent with the applicable
Consolidated Plan. The legislative body that originally approved the Consolidated Plan will pass a
resolution in a noticed hearing making that determination.
o Consolidated Transportation Services Agencies (CTSAs) that are active and otherwise in good
standing (as confirmed by the original, approving authority) are categorically eligible for operations
funding.
Provisional eligibility will be subsequently confirmed by the State (see Proposal Notes below)
Emergency Services: Repatriation Fund
The Program would close an existing gap in emergency response funding and programs. Evacuation activities
for seniors/persons with disabilities (referred to as “access & functional needs” [AFN] population in the
emergency services profession) are categorically eligible for disaster relief funding. However, there is no
funding or authority to return (repatriate) the AFN population to their origin during the post‐disaster period.
The transportation needs of this population can vary greatly from the general population often requiring special
vehicles and staff to accommodate mobility/medical devices or support individuals with cognitive or physical
limitations. A Repatriation Fund within the SPD Program will fund these activities and make any statutory
changes necessary to authorize reimbursement.
The Repatriation Fund is not integral to the intent of the SPD Transportation Funding Program but is being
included as this initiative may be an expeditious mechanism to close this gap in services.
Revenue Options
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF)
There is a strong nexus between SPD transportation services and GHG production. This nexus supports the use of
GGRF revenue for transportation services for the SPD population when expenditures are made consistent with the
Proposal/Solution Details section above.
High Paratransit GHG Production Levels:
The United States Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy uses Federal
Highway Administration and American Public Transit Association data to establish that paratransit shuttle
operations are a significant source15 of greenhouse gasses (GHGs).
Capacity for SPD Program to Reduce GHG Production:
Operational improvements made possible by technology investments and administrative changes have a
demonstrable16 ability to decrease GHGs production by way of increasing the number of shared trips in a
demand‐response or paratransit operation.
Significant Co‐Benefits
Disadvantaged Communities: In addition to being explicitly consistent with the core principle of the
Cap‐and‐Trade Program (GHG reduction) the SPD program specifically serves a categorically and acutely
disadvantaged population statewide without geographic restrictions.
Currently, there are no GGRF revenues specifically dedicated to this population other than the broad
preference for projects in disadvantaged communities in limited areas. The Low Carbon Transit
Operations Program (LCTOP) is silent on service to seniors/persons with disabilities, this proposal
addresses that gap.
larger transportation services, the typical benefits to human service agencies include reduced unit costs; improved quality of service; and increased efficiency,
effectiveness, and cost effectiveness...creates much lower per trip costs, thus generating real savings for public transit operators...can provide substantial economic
benefits…provide very substantial economic benefits."
15 U.S. Department of Energy: Maps and Data ‐ Average Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled of Major Vehicle Categories: Average Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled
of Major Vehicle Categories; Ranking of highest VMT categories (highest to lowest): Class 8 Truck, Transit Bus, Refuse Truck, Paratransit Shuttle, Delivery
Truck, School Bus, Police, Light Truck, Light‐Duty Vehicle, Car, Motorcycle.
16 University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies, "Evaluating the Impact of ITS on Personalized (demand response/paratransit) Public
Transit” “Benefits of ITS: They describe the following benefits of ITS implementation. • Increase in the percent shared rides (the percentage of time that
there are two or more requests in vehicle) from 38% to 55% • 13% savings in the unit transportation cost per passenger mile • Total personnel salaries
decreased by 28%”
Public Health: Given the fragile nature of the target population, and the fact that the lack of
transportation is a common barrier to routine medical appointments17, mobility improvements from this
program are reasonably assumed to increase public health and quality of life.
Operational Cost Savings: An increase in shared trips, in addition to reducing GHGs, also reduces
operational costs as established by the Institute of Transportation Studies – Benefits of Intelligent
Transportation Systems citation16. Considering the oft‐cited high costs of operating demand responsive
paratransit service, this is only a “co‐benefit” in the GGRF context but would be considered a substantial
primary benefit in any other context.
Emergency Response Capacity: Victims of wildfires are often disproportionately seniors and persons
with disabilities. These outcomes can be related to limited access to quality transportation. This
proposal does not directly address this situation (with the exception of the Repatriation Fund which
addresses after‐incident activities). However, this proposal will make significant, systemic improvements
to transportation services for this population and will indirectly but significantly improve emergency
response to this population. Any specific effort intended directly improve emergency response to this
population will require a modern SPD transportation framework, as described in this proposal, if it is to
be effective.
Proposal Notes: In order to administer the programs in this proposal the State would have obligations to administer
this proposal:
1. Technology investments can be sizable in both immediate and ongoing costs. These investments are only cost
and operationally effective in larger geographic areas with diverse and comingled passenger categories. With
every service silo and geographic contraction, these investments have a substantially reduced return on
investment. There should be substantial incentive for service areas which are county level (or larger) and
systems which co‐mingle different passenger types and funding programs. Smaller geographic operational
areas and service to a siloed passenger population should not be eligible for funding.
2. The State Auditor, with assistance from the Department of Transportation, should conduct a meta‐analysis of
the numerous state and federal studies (see note below) on this topic for the purpose of identifying best
practices and establishing metrics by which systemic improvements and operations are evaluated. No
new/original study is warranted.
3. As mentioned in this document, there is a wealth of research on optimizing and improving this transportation
service sector in addition to the CTSA and Coordinated Plan mechanisms. In particular, recommendations from
Economic Benefits of Coordinating Human Service Transportation and Transit Services, (TCRP Report 91, 2003),
Sharing the Costs of Human Services. Volume 1: The Transportation Services Cost Sharing Toolkit (TCRP Report
144, Transit Cooperative Research Program, 2011), and other resources available here:
https://nationalcenterformobilitymanagement.org/by‐topic/coordination/
4. A maintenance of effort requirement shall be imposed, SPD funds will not supplant existing revenue streams.
5. Included in the meta‐analysis recommendation above should be the identification of statutory, administrative
or other barriers to coordination (specifically the co‐mingling of different client types and revenue streams) and
identification of solutions.
6. Entities receiving funding under this program should be subject to a) a review of CTSA and Coordinated Plan
eligibility and effectiveness, and b) performance audits (with an obligation to implement corrective actions).
Program implementation should be a dynamic and iterative process.
7. The Department of Finance should establish a mechanism to index operations funding to the target population.
17 Health Outreach Partners, “Overcoming Obstacles to Health Care: Transportation Models That Work”.
Statewide Need: The following excerpts from Coordinated Plans throughout the state demonstrate the need:
Kings County: “Increasing revenue resources: Identified as the core issue…an efficient coordination
process must be established…there are many benefits to consolidating on a large scale…there has been
no movement towards consolidating transportation entities…The greatest barrier to coordination is lack
of funding…There is simply not enough money available to meet all transportation needs for the target
population…human service agencies piece meal together trips for the most critical needs.”
Kern County: “Priorities for the 2007 Coordinated Plan were identified as… Identify and pursue new
funding sources…Barriers Identified: insufficient agency funding for Transportation…Very limited
transportation funding was reported…difficulty in securing operating dollars to expand or develop new
services in both rural communities and Metropolitan Bakersfield…transit systems are operating at their
limits of their present funding base is among the most significant of constraints…”
Los Angeles County: “Roadblocks to further coordination. Several were identified, including the following:
Funding restrictions; capacity constraints…”
Butte County: “Top‐ranked barriers to accessing needed transportation: Funding challenges for directly
operating or contracting for transportation…”
Inyo‐Mono Counties: “The greatest barrier to coordination for all rural counties is lack of funding. There
is simply not enough money available to meet all transportation needs for the target population…
particularly in light of the dispersed communities and long travel distance…as such, the various human
service agencies piece meal together trips for the most critical needs. Lack of funding/resources
contributes to the limited staff time available for all agencies to pursue further coordination efforts”
Lake County: “PRIORITY 1 – Critical: Pursue and secure funding to support, maintain, improve safety and
enhance the Lake County public transportation network…”, “…Continued priority must be placed on
securing new funding sources…”
Madera County: “The greatest barrier to coordination for many smaller counties is lack of funding. There
is simply not enough money available to meet all transportation needs for the target population,
particularly in light of the dispersed development pattern and long travel distance in Madera County”
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco Bay Area): “Current senior‐oriented mobility
services do not have the capacity to handle the increase in people over 65 years of age…the massive
growth among the aging …points to a lack of fiscal and organizational readiness…the closure and
consolidation of medical facilities while rates of diabetes and obesity are on the rise will place heavy
demands on an already deficient system.”
Sacramento Area Council of Governments: “…gaps in service remain due to geography, limitations in
fixed‐route and demand responsive services, program/funding constraints, eligibility limitations,
knowledge and training.”
San Bernardino: “…Coordinated Plan strategies can be supported with 5310 funds …however, this
competitive funding source is modest…”, “…agencies and their transit programs need for assistance
continues as they face funding uncertainties “, “…First Priority Strategies: Secure funding…to maintain,
enhance and expand transit and specialized transportation services…”
San Diego: “…gaps in service remain due to geography, limitations in transit service, funding constraints,
eligibility, knowledge, and training….”
Shasta County: “…limited resources in the form of staff availability, interest, leadership, service and/or
capital capacity, funding, and time…”,
Stanislaus Council of Governments: “While public transportation services do receive Local Transportation
Funds…and State Transit Assistance (STA) funds, it is generally not sufficient to address many of the
service challenges, such as limited frequencies and longer service hours, which were common themes…”
Ventura County: “…limited funds suggest that it will be critically important to seek other funding sources
to address many of the proposed strategies. Such additional funding sources could include but are not
limited to…State cap and trade funding…”
John Cunningham, Principal Planner | Contra Costa County | Dept. of Conservation and Development | john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 1, 2019
california legislature—2019–20 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1568
Introduced by Assembly Member McCarty
(Coauthor: Senator Wiener)
February 22, 2019
An act to add amend Section 65400.5 to 65585 of the Government
Code, and to amend Section 2034 of, and to add Section 2036.5 to, the
Streets and Highways Code, relating to state government finance.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 1568, as amended, McCarty. General plans: housing element:
production report: Housing law compliance: withholding of
transportation funds.
The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a
general plan for land use development within its boundaries that
includes, among other things, a housing element. The Planning and
Zoning Law requires a planning agency, after a legislative body has
adopted all or part of a general plan, to provide an annual report to the
legislative body, the Office of Planning and Research, and the
Department of Housing and Community Development on the status of
the general plan and progress in meeting the community’s share of
regional housing needs. Existing law requires a planning agency to
include in its annual report specified information, known as a production
report, regarding units of net new housing, including rental housing and
for-sale housing that have been issued a completed entitlement, building
permit, or certificate of occupancy. Existing law, the Housing Element
Law, prescribes requirements for the preparation of the housing element,
including a requirement that a planning agency submit a draft of the
98
element or draft amendment to the element to the Department of Housing
and Community Development prior to the adoption of the element or
amendment to the element. Existing law requires the department to
review the draft and report its written findings, as specified. Existing
law also requires the department, in its written findings, to determine
whether the draft substantially complies with the Housing Element Law.
Existing law also requires the department to review any action or
failure to act by the city or county that it determines is inconsistent with
an adopted housing element or a specified provision of the Housing
Element Law and to issue written findings, as specified, whether the
action or failure to act substantially complies with the Housing Element
Law. If the department finds that the action or failure to act by the city
or county does not substantially comply with the Housing Element Law,
and if it has issued findings as described above that an amendment to
the housing element substantially complies with the Housing Element
Law, existing law authorizes the department, after allowing no more
than 30 days for a local agency response, to revoke its findings until it
determines that the city or county has come into compliance with the
Housing Element Law. Existing law also requires the department to
notify the city or county and authorizes the department to notify the
Office of the Attorney General that the city or county is in violation of
state law if the department makes certain findings of noncompliance
or a violation of specified provisions related to housing.
This bill would require the department, on or before June 30, 2022,
and on or before June 30 every year thereafter and until June 30, 2051,
to review each production report submitted by a city or county in
accordance with the provisions described above to determine if that
city or county has met the applicable minimum housing production goal
for that reporting period. The bill would provide that, if the department
determines that a city or county has met its applicable minimum housing
production goal for that reporting period, the department shall, no later
than June 30 of that year, submit a certification of that result to the
Controller. department to also notify the Controller that the city or
county is in violation of state law if the department makes certain
findings of noncompliance or a violation, as described above. The bill
would authorize the city or county to submit evidence that the city or
county is no longer in violation of state law to the department and to
request the department to issue a finding that the city or county is no
longer in violation of state law. If the department finds that the city or
98
— 2 — AB 1568
county is no longer in violation of state law, the bill would require the
department to notify the city or county and the Controller.
Existing law creates the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Program and, after certain allocations for the program are made, requires
the remaining funds available for the program to be allocated 50% for
maintenance of the state highway system or to the state highway
operation and protection program and 50% for apportionment to cities
and counties by the Controller pursuant to a specified formula. Before
receiving an apportionment of funds under the program from the
Controller in a fiscal year, existing law requires an eligible city or county
to submit to the California Transportation Commission a list of projects
proposed to be funded with these funds. Existing law requires the
commission to report to the Controller the cities and counties that have
submitted a list of projects and requires the Controller, upon receipt of
the report, to apportion funds to eligible cities and counties included in
the report, as specified. Existing law requires cities and counties to
maintain their existing commitment of local funds for street, road, and
highway purposes in order to remain eligible for an allocation or
apportionment of these funds.
This bill would, commencing with the 2022–23 fiscal year and through
and including the 2051–52 fiscal year, also require prohibit cities and
counties to be certified in the prior fiscal year from being found by the
Department of Housing and Community Development, Development
to be not in violation of state law, as described above, in order to remain
eligible for an apportionment of these funds. For each city and county
that is not in compliance with this requirement, found by the department
to be in violation of state law, the bill would require the Controller to
withhold the apportionment of funds that would otherwise be
apportioned and distributed to the city or county for the fiscal year and
deposit those funds in a separate escrow account for each city or county
that is not in compliance. found by the department to be in violation of
state law. The bill would require the Controller to distribute the funds
in the escrow account to the applicable city or county after the city or
county is certified to found by the department to no longer be in
compliance violation of state law and meets other specified
requirements. The bill would make other technical and conforming
changes.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
98
AB 1568 — 3 —
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 65400.5 is added to the Government
line 2 Code, to read:
line 3 65400.5. (a) For purposes of this section:
line 4 (1) “Department” means the Department of Housing and
line 5 Community Development.
line 6 (2) “Production report” means the information reported by a
line 7 city or county pursuant to subparagraph (H) of paragraph (2) of
line 8 subdivision (a) of Section 65400 as a part of the annual report
line 9 described in Section 65400.
line 10 (b) The department shall, on or before June 30, 2022, and on
line 11 or before June 30 every year thereafter and through and including
line 12 June 30, 2051, review each production report submitted by a city
line 13 or county to determine if the city or county has met the applicable
line 14 minimum housing production goal for that reporting period. The
line 15 minimum housing production goal shall be calculated using the
line 16 following schedule:
line 17 (1) For a production report that covers a reporting period for
line 18 each calendar year commencing January 1, 2022, to January 1,
line 19 2027, inclusive, the minimum housing production goal means that
line 20 the production report reflects that the number of units of housing
line 21 available in that city or county is at least 20 percent of the city or
line 22 county’s share of regional housing needs for each income category.
line 23 (2) For a production report that covers a reporting period for
line 24 each calendar year commencing January 1, 2028, to January 1,
line 25 2032, inclusive, the minimum housing production goal means that
line 26 the production report reflects that the number of units of housing
line 27 available in that city or county is at least 40 percent of the city or
line 28 county’s share of regional housing needs for each income category.
line 29 (3) For a production report that covers a reporting period for
line 30 each calendar year commencing January 1, 2033, to January 1,
line 31 2038, inclusive, the minimum housing production goal means that
line 32 the production report reflects that the number of units of housing
line 33 available in that city or county is at least 60 percent of the city or
line 34 county’s share of regional housing needs for each income category.
line 35 (4) For a production report that covers a reporting period for
line 36 each calendar year commencing January 1, 2039, to January 1,
line 37 2044, inclusive, the minimum housing production goal means that
line 38 the production report reflects that the number of units of housing
98
— 4 — AB 1568
line 1 available in that city or county is at least 80 percent of the city or
line 2 county’s share of regional housing needs for each income category.
line 3 (5) For a production report that covers a reporting period for
line 4 each calendar year commencing January 1, 2045, and January 1,
line 5 2050, the minimum housing production goal means that the
line 6 production report reflects that the number of units of housing
line 7 available in that city or county is 100 percent of the city or county’s
line 8 share of regional housing needs for each income category.
line 9 (c) Any calculation made by the department pursuant to
line 10 subdivision (b) that results in a fractional unit shall be rounded
line 11 down.
line 12 (d) If the department determines that a city or county has met
line 13 its applicable minimum housing production goal for that reporting
line 14 period as described in subdivision (b), the department shall no
line 15 later than June 30 of that year submit a certification of that result
line 16 to the Controller. A certification is valid for the next fiscal year.
line 17 SECTION 1. Section 65585 of the Government Code is
line 18 amended to read:
line 19 65585. (a) In the preparation of its housing element, each city
line 20 and county shall consider the guidelines adopted by the department
line 21 pursuant to Section 50459 of the Health and Safety Code. Those
line 22 guidelines shall be advisory to each city or county in the
line 23 preparation of its housing element.
line 24 (b) (1) At least 90 days prior to before adoption of its housing
line 25 element, or at least 60 days prior to before the adoption of an
line 26 amendment to this element, the planning agency shall submit a
line 27 draft element or draft amendment to the department.
line 28 (2) The planning agency staff shall collect and compile the
line 29 public comments regarding the housing element received by the
line 30 city, county, or city and county, and provide these comments to
line 31 each member of the legislative body before it adopts the housing
line 32 element.
line 33 (3) The department shall review the draft and report its written
line 34 findings to the planning agency within 90 days of its receipt of the
line 35 draft in the case of an adoption or within 60 days of its receipt in
line 36 the case of a draft amendment.
line 37 (c) In the preparation of its findings, the department may consult
line 38 with any public agency, group, or person. The department shall
line 39 receive and consider any written comments from any public
98
AB 1568 — 5 —
line 1 agency, group, or person regarding the draft or adopted element
line 2 or amendment under review.
line 3 (d) In its written findings, the department shall determine
line 4 whether the draft element or draft amendment substantially
line 5 complies with this article.
line 6 (e) Prior to the adoption of its draft element or draft amendment,
line 7 the legislative body shall consider the findings made by the
line 8 department. If the department’s findings are not available within
line 9 the time limits set by this section, the legislative body may act
line 10 without them.
line 11 (f) If the department finds that the draft element or draft
line 12 amendment does not substantially comply with this article, the
line 13 legislative body shall take one of the following actions:
line 14 (1) Change the draft element or draft amendment to substantially
line 15 comply with this article.
line 16 (2) Adopt the draft element or draft amendment without changes.
line 17 The legislative body shall include in its resolution of adoption
line 18 written findings which explain the reasons the legislative body
line 19 believes that the draft element or draft amendment substantially
line 20 complies with this article despite the findings of the department.
line 21 (g) Promptly following the adoption of its element or
line 22 amendment, the planning agency shall submit a copy to the
line 23 department.
line 24 (h) The department shall, within 90 days, review adopted
line 25 housing elements or amendments and report its findings to the
line 26 planning agency.
line 27 (i) (1) (A) The department shall review any action or failure
line 28 to act by the city, county, or city and county that it determines is
line 29 inconsistent with an adopted housing element or Section 65583,
line 30 including any failure to implement any program actions included
line 31 in the housing element pursuant to Section 65583. The department
line 32 shall issue written findings to the city, county, or city and county
line 33 as to whether the action or failure to act substantially complies
line 34 with this article, and provide a reasonable time no longer than 30
line 35 days for the city, county, or city and county to respond to the
line 36 findings before taking any other action authorized by this section,
line 37 including the action authorized by subparagraph (B).
line 38 (B) If the department finds that the action or failure to act by
line 39 the city, county, or city and county does not substantially comply
line 40 with this article, and if it has issued findings pursuant to this section
98
— 6 — AB 1568
line 1 that an amendment to the housing element substantially complies
line 2 with this article, the department may revoke its findings until it
line 3 determines that the city, county, or city and county has come into
line 4 compliance with this article.
line 5 (2) The department may consult with any local government,
line 6 public agency, group, or person, and shall receive and consider
line 7 any written comments from any public agency, group, or person,
line 8 regarding the action or failure to act by the city, county, or city
line 9 and county described in paragraph (1), in determining whether the
line 10 housing element substantially complies with this article.
line 11 (j) The department shall notify the city, county, or city and
line 12 county and the Controller and may notify the Office of the
line 13 Attorney General that the city, county, or city and county is in
line 14 violation of state law if the department finds that the housing
line 15 element or an amendment to this element, or any action or failure
line 16 to act described in subdivision (i), does not substantially comply
line 17 with this article or that any local government has taken an action
line 18 in violation of the following:
line 19 (1) Housing Accountability Act (Section 65589.5 of the
line 20 Government Code).
line 21 (2) Section 65863 of the Government Code.
line 22 (3) Chapter 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915) of Division
line 23 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
line 24 (4) Section 65008 of the Government Code.
line 25 (k) (1) A city or county that the department has found to be in
line 26 violation of state law pursuant to subdivision (j) may, in a form
line 27 and manner prescribed by the department, submit evidence that
line 28 the city or county is no longer in violation of state law to the
line 29 department and may request the department to issue a written
line 30 finding that the city or county is no longer in violation of state law.
line 31 (2) If the department finds that the city or county is no longer
line 32 in violation of state law, the department shall notify the city or
line 33 county and the Controller.
line 34 SEC. 2. Section 2034 of the Streets and Highways Code is
line 35 amended to read:
line 36 2034. (a) (1) Before receiving an apportionment of funds
line 37 under the program pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of
line 38 Section 2032 from the Controller in a fiscal year, a city or county
line 39 shall submit to the commission a list of projects proposed to be
line 40 funded with these funds. All projects proposed to receive funding
98
AB 1568 — 7 —
line 1 shall be adopted by resolution by the applicable city council or
line 2 county board of supervisors at a regular public meeting. The list
line 3 of projects proposed to be funded with these funds shall include
line 4 a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed
line 5 schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life
line 6 of the improvement. The project list shall not limit the flexibility
line 7 of a city or county to fund projects in accordance with local needs
line 8 and priorities so long as the projects are consistent with subdivision
line 9 (b) of Section 2030.
line 10 (2) The commission shall submit an initial report to the
line 11 Controller that indicates the cities and counties that have submitted
line 12 a list of projects that meet the requirements of paragraph (1) and
line 13 that are therefore eligible to receive an apportionment of funds
line 14 under the program for the applicable fiscal year pursuant to
line 15 paragraph (3). If the commission receives a list of projects from a
line 16 city or county after it submits its initial report to the Controller,
line 17 the commission shall submit a subsequent report to the Controller
line 18 that indicates the cities and counties that submitted a list of projects
line 19 that meet the requirements of paragraph (1) after the commission
line 20 submitted its initial report.
line 21 (3) The Controller, upon receipt of the initial report, shall
line 22 apportion funds to eligible cities and counties included in the initial
line 23 report.
line 24 (4) (A) For any city or county that is not included in the initial
line 25 report submitted to the Controller pursuant to paragraph (2), the
line 26 Controller shall retain the monthly share of funds that would
line 27 otherwise be apportioned and distributed to the city or county
line 28 pursuant to paragraph (3).
line 29 (B) If the Controller receives a subsequent report from the
line 30 commission within 90 days of receiving the initial report from the
line 31 commission that a city or county has become eligible to receive
line 32 an apportionment, the Controller shall apportion the applicable
line 33 portion of funds retained pursuant to subparagraph (A) to the city
line 34 or county included in the subsequent report.
line 35 (C) The Controller shall reapportion to all eligible cities and
line 36 counties included in the initial report or a subsequent report from
line 37 the commission pursuant to the formula in clauses (i) and (ii) of
line 38 subparagraph (C) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section
line 39 2103 any funds that were retained pursuant to subparagraph (A)
98
— 8 — AB 1568
line 1 but that were not apportioned and distributed pursuant to
line 2 subparagraph (B).
line 3 (b) For each fiscal year, each city or county receiving an
line 4 apportionment of funds shall, upon expending program funds,
line 5 submit documentation to the commission that details the
line 6 expenditures of all funds under the program, including a description
line 7 and location of each completed project, the amount of funds
line 8 expended on the project, the completion date, if applicable, and
line 9 the estimated useful life of the improvement.
line 10 (c) Before receiving an apportionment of funds under the
line 11 program pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section
line 12 2032, an eligible city or county may expend other funds on eligible
line 13 projects and may reimburse the source of those other funds when
line 14 it receives its apportionment from the Controller over one or more
line 15 years.
line 16 SEC. 3. Section 2036.5 is added to the Streets and Highways
line 17 Code, to read:
line 18 2036.5. (a) Commencing with the 2022–23 fiscal year, and
line 19 until the 2051–52 fiscal year, in addition to the requirement
line 20 specified in Section 2036, in order to remain eligible in any fiscal
line 21 year for an apportionment of funds pursuant to paragraph (2) of
line 22 subdivision (h) of Section 2032 a city or county shall, in the prior
line 23 fiscal year, be certified shall not be found by the Department of
line 24 Housing and Community Development to be in violation of state
line 25 law pursuant to Section 65400.5 65585 of the Government Code.
line 26 Code during the prior fiscal year.
line 27 (b) For each city or county that is not in compliance with found
line 28 by the Department of Housing and Community Development to be
line 29 in violation of state law as described in subdivision (a), the
line 30 Controller shall withhold the apportionment of funds that would
line 31 otherwise be apportioned and distributed to that city or county for
line 32 the fiscal year and shall deposit those funds in a separate escrow
line 33 account for each city or county that is not in compliance with found
line 34 by the Department of Housing and Community Development to be
line 35 in violation of state law as described in subdivision (a).
line 36 (c) The Controller shall distribute the funds held in an escrow
line 37 account created pursuant to subdivision (b) to the applicable city
line 38 or county after both of the following occur:
line 39 (1) The city or county is certified found by the Department of
line 40 Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400.5
98
AB 1568 — 9 —
line 1 of the Government Code in the prior fiscal year. to no longer be
line 2 in violation of state law as described in subdivision (k) of Section
line 3 65585 of the Government Code.
line 4 (2) The city or county submits a list of projects proposed to be
line 5 funded with the funds in the escrow account that meet the
line 6 requirements of subdivision (a) of Section 2034 to the commission
line 7 and the commission submits a report to the Controller indicating
line 8 that the list of projects meets those requirements.
line 9 (d) If a city or county whose funds have been withheld complies
line 10 with paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) but does not comply with
line 11 paragraph (2) of subdivision (c), the Controller shall reapportion
line 12 the funds that have been withheld to eligible cities and counties
line 13 pursuant to the formula in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (C)
line 14 of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 2103.
line 15 (e) A city or county that receives an apportionment of funds
line 16 pursuant to this section shall comply with subdivision (b) of Section
line 17 2034 with respect to the expenditure of those funds.
O
98
— 10 — AB 1568
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 20, 2019
california legislature—2019–20 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 970
Introduced by Assembly Member Salas
February 21, 2019
An act to add Chapter 8.5 (commencing with Section 9580) to
Division 8.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to aging.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 970, as amended, Salas. California Department of Aging: grants:
transportation.
Existing law, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,
designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency charged
with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse
gases. The act authorizes the state board to include the use of
market-based compliance mechanisms. Existing law requires all moneys,
except for fines and penalties, collected by the state board as part of a
market-based compliance mechanism to be deposited in the Greenhouse
Gas Reduction Fund and to be available for appropriation.
Existing law establishes the Air Quality Improvement Program, which
is administered by the state board for the purpose of funding projects
related to, among other things, the reduction of criteria air pollutants
and improvement of air quality. Existing law requires that moneys in
the Air Quality Improvement Fund, upon appropriation by the
Legislature, be expended by the state board in accordance with the
program.
Existing law requires the California Department of Aging to designate
various private nonprofit or public agencies as area agencies on aging
to work for the interests of older Californians within a planning and
98
service area and provide a broad array of social and nutritional services.
Existing law states that the mission of the department is to provide
leadership to the area agencies on aging in developing systems of home-
and community-based services that maintain individuals in their own
homes or the least restrictive homelike environments. Existing law
establishes certain wellness, injury prevention, and other programs
within the department to serve both older individuals and persons with
a disability, as defined.
This bill would require the department to administer a grant program
to receive applications from area agencies on aging to fund
transportation to and from nonemergency medical services for older
individuals with disabilities and persons with a disability who reside
in rural, desert, or mountain areas within a planning and service area,
for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The bill would
require that transportation be made available using the purchase, lease,
or maintenance of zero-emission or near-zero-emission vehicles with
a capacity for 7, 12, or 15 passengers.
The bill would authorize the allocation of moneys from the
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and the Air Quality Improvement
Fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to fund the grant program.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Chapter 8.5 (commencing with Section 9580) is
line 2 added to Division 8.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read:
line 3
line 4 Chapter 8.5. Transportation for Medical Services
line 5
line 6 9580. (a) The department shall administer a grant program to
line 7 fund transportation to and from nonemergency medical services
line 8 for older individuals with disabilities individuals, as defined in
line 9 Section 9018, and persons with a disability, as defined in Section
line 10 9653, pursuant to this section for the purpose of reducing
line 11 greenhouse gas emissions.
line 12 (b) Area agencies on aging may apply for grants from the
line 13 department pursuant to this section. An area agency on aging that
line 14 has been awarded a grant shall use the funds to provide
line 15 transportation as described in subdivision (c).
98
— 2 — AB 970
line 1 (c) (1) Eligible transportation includes transportation to and
line 2 from nonemergency medical services for older individuals with
line 3 disabilities and persons with a disability, as described in
line 4 subdivision (a), who reside in rural, desert, or mountain areas
line 5 within a planning and service area.
line 6 (2) Eligible transportation shall be made available using the
line 7 purchase, lease, or maintenance of zero-emission or
line 8 near-zero-emission vehicles with a capacity for 7, 12, or 15
line 9 passengers.
line 10 (d) (1) The department may use moneys allocated to the grant
line 11 program pursuant to Section 9581 to cover reasonable
line 12 administrative costs incurred by the department under this section.
line 13 (2) An area agency on aging that has been awarded a grant may
line 14 use grant moneys to cover reasonable administrative costs incurred
line 15 by the area agency on aging under this section.
line 16 9581. Moneys from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund,
line 17 created pursuant to Section 16428.8 of the Government Code, and
line 18 the Air Quality Improvement Fund, created pursuant to Section
line 19 44274.5 of the Health and Safety Code, may be allocated, upon
line 20 appropriation by the Legislature, to fund the grant program
line 21 described in Section 9580.
O
98
AB 970 — 3 —
SENATE BILL No. 228
Introduced by Senator Jackson
February 7, 2019
An act to add Chapter 13 (commencing with Section 9800) to
Division 8.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to aging.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 228, as introduced, Jackson. Master Plan on Aging.
Existing law requests the University of California to compile specified
information, including a survey of existing resources throughout
California’s governmental and administrative structure that are available
to address the needs of an aging society. Existing law requires the
Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency, based
upon the information compiled by the University of California and with
the consultation or advice of specified entities, to develop a statewide
strategic plan on aging for long-term planning purposes and submit the
plan to the Legislature.
This bill would require the Governor to appoint an Aging Czar and
a 15-member Aging Task Force to work with representatives from
impacted state departments and with stakeholders to identify the policies
and priorities that need to be implemented in California to prepare for
the aging of its population and to develop a master plan for aging. The
bill would require the master plan to address how the state should
accomplish specified goals, including expanding access to coordinated,
integrated systems of care. The bill would also require the Aging Task
Force to solicit input from stakeholders and gather information on the
impact of California’s aging population.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
99
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the
line 2 following:
line 3 (1) The Public Policy Institute of California estimates that
line 4 California’s older population will nearly double by 2030, bringing
line 5 an increase of 4 million people over the age of 65.
line 6 (2) The implications of the population aging impact not only
line 7 older adults and people with disabilities, but also their families,
line 8 local communities, and the state.
line 9 (3) Twenty percent of California’s older adults live in poverty,
line 10 and this number is expected to increase with the rose of aging
line 11 adults in the state.
line 12 (4) Ninety percent of older adults would like to age in their
line 13 homes, but often lack access to the necessary services and supports
line 14 to do so.
line 15 (5) The cost of long-term services and supports (LTSS) is
line 16 unaffordable for most Californians:
line 17 (A) The annual cost of 30 hours per week of home care is almost
line 18 $36,000, three-quarters of the state’s median household income.
line 19 (B) The median annual cost of nursing home care is $112,055,
line 20 more than twice the state’s median household income.
line 21 (C) Only 5 percent of Californians aged 40 and older have
line 22 purchased private long-term care insurance.
line 23 (6) Across the state, older adults, people with disabilities, and
line 24 families rely on services provided through multiple state entities,
line 25 including, but not limited to, the State Department of Health Care
line 26 Services, the State Department of Social Services, the California
line 27 Department of Aging, the Department of Rehabilitation, the
line 28 Department of Transportation, the Department of Housing and
line 29 Community Development, the Department of Insurance, the
line 30 Department of Veterans Affairs, and the State Department of
line 31 Education.
line 32 (7) Despite the programs and services administered by a range
line 33 of state departments, families struggle to weave together services
line 34 and finance care in the hopes of helping loved ones remain at
line 35 home. Individuals and their families do not know where to turn
line 36 for help or how to pay for services. When help is finally found,
line 37 many people are bounced between programs with little assurance
line 38 that their needs will be met.
99
— 2 — SB 228
line 1 (8) California is woefully unprepared to care for this growing
line 2 and increasingly diverse demographic. California cannot meet the
line 3 workforce needs of older adults and people with disabilities, with
line 4 a growing shortage of paraprofessionals and professionals needed
line 5 to provide culturally competent care to an increasingly diverse
line 6 population.
line 7 (9) The AARP Public Policy Institute reports that in 2015,
line 8 California’s 4.5 million unpaid family caregivers provided
line 9 approximately $57 billion worth of unpaid care, yet often without
line 10 the necessary training and support.
line 11 (10) As the population ages, the demand for healthcare,
line 12 long-term services and supports, affordable housing, accessible
line 13 transportation, oral healthcare, mental healthcare, and other services
line 14 will continue to outpace supply unless there is intentional
line 15 leadership and action.
line 16 (11) Recent polling data shows that more than two-thirds of
line 17 likely voters feel the state is not prepared to address the healthcare
line 18 and social support needs of its fast-growing older adult population.
line 19 Nearly 9 out of 10 voters say it is important for the state to have
line 20 a master plan to invest in services that allow older adults to age in
line 21 the place that they prefer.
line 22 (12) Numerous entities have issued reports calling for system
line 23 change, including the Little Hoover Commission in both 1996 and
line 24 2011, the Strategic Planning Framework for an Aging Population,
line 25 a report prepared in response to Chapter 948 of the Statutes of
line 26 1999, the Assembly Committee on Aging and Long-Term Care in
line 27 2006, and the Senate Select Committee on Aging and Long-Term
line 28 Care in 2015. Despite hopeful intentions, none of these efforts led
line 29 to meaningful change.
line 30 (13) The 2015 report by the Senate Select Committee on Aging
line 31 and Long-Term Care, “A Shattered System: Reforming Long-Term
line 32 Care in California” identified a number of system challenges
line 33 including system fragmentation, lack of access to services,
line 34 workforce challenges and cultural competency, and a crumbling
line 35 infrastructure.
line 36 (14) According to the 2017 Long-Term Services & Supports
line 37 State Scorecard, the highest-performing states all have one thing
line 38 in common: a commitment to a clear and strategic plan that guides
line 39 thoughtful investments as part of an integrated and responsive
line 40 approach to serving older adults and people with disabilities. As
99
SB 228 — 3 —
line 1 examples, Connecticut, Washington, and Minnesota have outlined
line 2 clear strategies with a broad framework for systems improvement.
line 3 Policymakers and elected officials in these states have collaborated
line 4 in developing a vision with specific benchmarks and goals that
line 5 serve as the foundation for achieving broad transformation.
line 6 (b) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act that a
line 7 Master Plan for an Aging California is developed that empowers
line 8 all Californians to age with dignity, choice, and independence.
line 9 SEC. 2. Chapter 13 (commencing with Section 9800) is added
line 10 to Division 8.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read:
line 11
line 12 Chapter 13. Master Plan for Aging in California
line 13
line 14 9800. The Governor shall appoint both of the following:
line 15 (a) An Aging Czar to lead the master planning process.
line 16 (b) A 15-member Aging Task Force that includes consumers,
line 17 healthcare providers, long-term services and supports providers,
line 18 labor providers, transportation providers, housing providers, local
line 19 government, and marginalized communities.
line 20 9805. (a) The Aging Czar shall, with the assistance of the
line 21 Aging Task Force, work with representatives from impacted state
line 22 departments and with stakeholders, as described in Section 9810,
line 23 to identify the policies and priorities that need to be implemented
line 24 in California to prepare for the aging of its population and to
line 25 develop a master plan for aging.
line 26 (b) The master plan shall propose how, at a minimum, the state
line 27 should accomplish all of the following:
line 28 (1) Expand access to coordinated, integrated systems of care.
line 29 (2) Strengthen access to long-term services and supports (LTSS).
line 30 (3) Prepare families to plan and pay for LTSS.
line 31 (4) Support California’s family caregivers.
line 32 (5) Increase access to oral healthcare.
line 33 (6) Develop affordable housing options.
line 34 (7) Enhance access to transportation.
line 35 (8) Develop a culturally competent paraprofessional and
line 36 professional workforce.
line 37 (9) Prevent exploitation and abuse, including financial abuse
line 38 and physical abuse, of older adults.
line 39 (10) Streamline state administrative structures to improve service
line 40 delivery.
99
— 4 — SB 228
line 1 9810. Under the leadership of the Aging Czar, the Task Force
line 2 shall develop and implement a process to solicit input from a wide
line 3 variety of stakeholders, and shall convene community-specific
line 4 public forums to gather information on the impact on the
line 5 community of California’s aging population.
O
99
SB 228 — 5 —
4/1/2019 Tracking: Bills
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTrackingList.xhtml 1/2
NOTE: All subscriptions will be deleted at the end of their respective two-year session.
Keyword TrackingADD A NEW BILL TO TRACK: AB 1568 Measure Number Regular Session Type Submit
BILLS TRACKED:14 + Expand All
Delete
Select
All
Bill Subject Status Delete
+AB-311 Regional
centers: billing:
daily rates.
Assembly-In Committee Process-Appropriations delete
+AB-641 Developmental
services:
integrated
competitive
employment.
Assembly-In Committee Process-Human Services delete
+AB-812 Developmental
services:
Inspector
General.
Assembly-In Committee Process-Human Services delete
+AB-823 Developmental
services.
Assembly-In Committee Process-Human Services delete
+AB-970 California
Department of
Aging: grants:
transportation.
Assembly-In Committee Process-Aging and Long Term Care delete
+AB-1025 Transportation:
California
Transportation
Commission:
San Ramon
Branch Corridor:
reimbursement.
Assembly-In Committee Process-Transportation delete
+AB-1475 Construction
Manager/General
Contractor
method: local
transportation
authorities:
bridge over
Bollinger
Canyon.
Assembly-In Committee Process-Transportation delete
+AB-1568 General plans:
housing
element:
production
report:
withholding of
transportation
funds.
Assembly-In Committee Process-Housing and Community Development delete
+SB-50 Planning and
zoning: housing
development:
incentives.
Senate-In Committee Process-Housing delete
+SB-127 Transportation
funding: active
transportation:
Senate-In Committee Process-Transportation delete
Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites
4/1/2019 Tracking: Bills
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTrackingList.xhtml 2/2
Select
All
Bill Subject Status Deletecomplete
streets.
+SB-137 Federal
transportation
funds: state
exchange
programs.
Senate-In Committee Process-Appropriations delete
+SB-228 Master Plan on
Aging.
Senate-In Committee Process-Human Services delete
+SB-235 Planning and
zoning: housing
production
report: regional
housing need
allocation.
Senate-In Committee Process-Housing delete
+SB-330 Housing Crisis
Act of 2019.
Senate-In Committee Process-Governance and Finance delete