HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12051989 - TC.1 TC . 1
r y
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: SUPERVISORS TOM TORLAKSON AND ROBERT SCHRODER
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
DATE: November 28, 1989
SUBJECT: APPROVE FUND ESTIMATE FOR CAPITAL, ROAD IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM.
Specific Request (s) or Recommendation(s) & Background &
Justification
I. RECOMMENDATION
APPROVE the Capital Road Improvement Program Fund Estimate with
the following additions:
- Programming of discretionary funds and Measure "C"
funds for use on County roads will be based solely on
need using engineering criteria.
- Revision of the fund estimate may be warranted after
revision of the County-wide General Plan.
The fund estimate may need to be revised if the damage
toll from the October 17 , 1989 earthquake warrants it.
II. FINANCIAL IMPACT
The five-year Capital Improvement Program cannot be prepared
without approval of the fund estimate, which might jeopardize the
County receiving return to source Measure "C" funds.
Continued on attachment: X yes Signature:
Recommendation of County Administrator
X Recommendation of Board Committee
Approve Other:
Signature(s) :
Action of Board on: December 5 , 1989
Approved as Recommended X Other
Vote of Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS
A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
X Unanimous (Absent - ) ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON
Ayes: Noes: THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
Absent: Abstain: SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN.
Attested �. ,S /f;,Q9
Orig. Div. :Trans. Comm. PHIL BATCHELOR,
cc: County Administrator CLERK OF THE BOARD
Public Works Director OF SUPERVISORS AND
Director of Community Development COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
County Counsel
JMW:RMA:sd
B0: 28 . t11
By
- Dt&UTY CLERK
Board of Supervisors
November 28 , 1989
Page 2
III. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND
On May 9, 1989, the Board of Supervisors adopted the County Road
Improvement Policy to guide the development of a five-year County
Road Improvement Program (GRIP) . The Policy and the CRIP was
developed in response to the successful passage of Measure "C" in
November 1988 which mandates local agencies to include growth
management elements in their general plans. In addition, AB 1600
(Cortese) , suggests that developer fees should be tied to a
five-year Transportation Improvement Program.
The Capital Road Improvement Policy establishes Board approval
of a CRIP fund estimate as the first step in preparing the formal
CRIP report at the end of the year. The fund estimate shows the
level of funding that the. Public Works Department and the
Community Development Department estimate to be available for
capital road improvements over the next five years. Included in
the estimate is the projection of development expected in the
County over the same five year period.
The Public Works Department and Community Development Department
estimate that there will be $30, 130, 000 available for programming
in the next five years between Fiscal Year 1990-91 and Fiscal
Year 1994-95. Of this amount, $21, 000, 000 are Area of Benefit
funds, the use of which is restricted to specific areas and to
specific projects.
IV. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION
The five-year Capital Improvement Program cannot be prepared
without approval of the fund estimate, which might jeopardize the
County receiving return to source Measure "C" funds.
i
M
O O O O
O O O O O
Ln O O O O O
11 P CD
O O O O
1 Ln In O O O
P O M O v
N _
Ln
W
7
N
C
v S
O O O O O L
a O O (3 O O W
N \ O O O O u •2
L M In In O O O �0
m P In M O •O •O 4-
W • N . • L
to N 7 d
Y w w .! w w m N EO
O O 2 U
> u W
++ v U W
X
W O O O O O W N /0
ce Z M Cl O O O O C 41 L
a
L \ C7 O O O 41 O O
yJ O N In M O O O c v L
N M O W% W �' O1 d
W O W Ln Y , N •E N ++
e c w w w w v W L. v
W W L m E
N 7
ix m
U O P c0
y� O O O O C V L) — \ C
'O O O O O O W C m O to
WN O O O O O L M U P S
OS "" a• P O W N
O u \ O O O O
y. U W S M O O P W +• C V- LL +/
p. M O v P L O :3 ++ C O
O N
r 7 L } In L u C N L
F c a LL w w It a w 4- C o +L+
OAC GC
6 TJ 0 Y M > N
s c 0 0 0 o v o ++ •v +�+
r x O O O Cl O L O •L u c
y W W O O OO O U 1 C 3 L 70
u
LU O It In O 1n If •C ^ 13 W U .
�y O P M M O t M _ W D W
N N N ►� •D P L O ++
y w w .t M w al \ 01 ++
.S.• C 00 � P CD O C C
C " co O Y N O L
N pO L LL W L W
C Q L N ++
p� U W O O O O Y W m W N
Y O O O O O LL M C +• W •�
O O O OO C L C
.r.. w P co Ln O LnV O L C � V? OO M M N
t0N 7 C
Lr W r r 7 L
U LL w w v N w Y C W C vO••
+� L-
0
O C7 U N
10 O N ++
W W N
O O O ON V V W O
w O O O O •C W m /0 L u
< PO O N O W ++ �+ E 7
N CO Ln M to �t •u ++ 10 W S •,•
N . . W N L U
1 w w a0 w L L. W -0 • C P .-
7 c u w P N
N s N w L W ++ � c
++ i > O C Y 7
v c ae W ). W O w LL w
c t0 M L L W
C7 a+ W C d
C
Y�0 O • +u O V+
In
L L +• W d• M +•• C O #- YW
:3 to W c - u W 3 n. 0 7 L
O C ++ W U C 07 L M•• N 7
h O \ m - W N W W W W of
O Y W W Y •• L •� L L L L W \
C � � O 7 0 J N r c r a+ < ►- S E eo
u W W N w < W
10 C H ++ < L
O W L W O O — — — — — — S x
LL O LL < S v F- Z N M It In •O O.• W
.s
EXHIBIT z
Eric Parfrey Projected Housing and
9/7/89 Commercial Growth
Contra Costa County
Capital Improvement Program
(1990-1995)
Projected Growth (1990-1995) a
Unincorp. Area Housing Units b Commercial/Industrial
-------------- ------------- ---------------------
Kensington 0 units 0 sq. ft. commercial
E1 Sobrante 250 80,000 sq. ft. commercial
North Rich.-E. Rich. Hts 50 50,000 sq. ft. light industry
Montarabay 50 10,000 sq. ft. commercial
Rodeo-Crockett 50 50,000 sq. ft. --commercial _
Vine Hill-Mt. View 100 10,000 sq. ft. commercial
Pacheco 150 10,000 sq. ft. commercial
Pleasant Hill BART 1,200 1,300,000 sq. ft. office/
small amount retail
Saranap/So. W.C. 100 10,000 sq. ft. commercial
North Concord 25 50,000 sq. ft. light industry
Alamo-Diablo 400 0 sq. ft. commercial
Blackhawk 700 10,000 sq. ft. commercial
Canyon Lakes (all in city)
Crow Canyon Rd. Ext. 800 0 sq. ft. commercial
(Shadow Crk./Somerset/Mrack)
West Pittsburg 400 15,000 sq. ft. commercial
Oakley 2,000 150,000 sq. ft. commercial
50,000 sq. ft. light industry
Bethel Island 600 10,000 sq. ft. commercial
Discovery Bay 1000 50,000 sq. ft. commercial
Byron, other rural 100 0 sq. ft. commercial
TOTAL Uninc. County 7,975 units 1,705,000 sq. ft. commercial
150,000 sq. ft. light industry
,Source: Contra Costa County Community
Development Dept. General
Plan Review program
Note: a) Assumes partial buildout of existing
County General Plan, except in Oakley,
where the draft 1989 plan is assumed.
b) Units refers to the number of dwelling
units completed, not the number of
building permits issued, which may be higher.
APPENDIX
The following will explain in more detail the assumptions and reasoning that
was used in estimating our potential revenue over the next five years. The
assumptions and explanations are listed in the same order as the revenue
sources shown on exhibit 1.
Discretionary Fund:
Discretionary Funds come from several sous. The Discretionary Fund
figures shown in Exhibit 1 reflect the actual amount that can be programmed
for capital improvements. These figures are derived by compiling the total
monies available for the year from the several discretionary sources, and
then subtracting out the road administration costs and the road maintenance
costs. The sources for the Discretionary Fund include the Highway Users Tax
(gas tax) , investment earnings, fines and forfeitures, and rental income.
These components of the Discretionary Fund are described in more detail
below.
Highway User Tax: Commonly called the gas tax, this revenue source is
apportioned by the State to all the cities and counties based upon two
sections of the Streets and Highways Code; Section 2104 and Section 2106.
Section 2104 funds are apportioned by the State to counties based on the
number of registered vehicles and the number of maintained road miles. The
future Section 2104 funds are estimated by extrapolating its fairly constant
growing trend over the last two years. This part of the gas tax increased
1.026% in the last fiscal year and 1.024% in the fiscal year before that.
Section 2106 funds are apportioned to cities and counties based on the
number of registered vehicles and the relative assessed valuation of the
cities and counties. These funds have fluctuated up and down over the last
two years because of changes in the County's assessed valuation through
incorporation of land into the cities. As a result, these funds are
estimated at a constant amount throughout the next five years.
Investment Earnings: This revenue is the interest earned by investing the
funds we have on hand throughout the year. This has fluctuated up and down
over the years depending on how much money we have on hand to generate
interest, and also on the varying rate of interest. As a result this is
estimated at a constant amount over the next five years.
Fines and Forfeitures: These monies are derived from traffic violations on
County roads. Income from this source has been fairly constant over the
last five years and is not expected to change. This assumes that the .level
of traffic enforcement does not change either.
1
Rental Income: We receive rental income from renting out road related
property we own. 'This income has been steadily increasing over the last few
years and is expected to continue increasing. We also receive rental income
from the State of California for renting space in our right of way to place
or maintain their signs. This rental income has also been steadily
increasing over the last few years and is expected to continue increasing.
It should be noted that the revenue projection for the Discretionary Fund
decreases in time and after FY 92/93 becomes a deficit. The cause of this is
the different escalation rates used in projecting the revenues and the
administrative and maintenance expenditures. We anticipate that the
Discretionary Fund will increase a little over 1% per year over the next five
years. The administrative and maintenance expenditures, however, are
estimated to increase by about 4% per year. Since the projected expenditures
are increasing faster than the projected revenues, the Discretionary Fund
becomes a deficit in time.
Federal/State Grants -:
Prior to June 1989, the Federal Aid Secondary (FAS) program provided a
constant source of funding for capital road improvements. Each year we
received a constant sum into our FAS account. These funds had to be used on
FAS designated roads. Monies that were not used one year would remain in our
account and not be rolled back into a general pot and redistributed. Since
we are now subject to a Federal Combined Road Plan, however, we will not be
guaranteed the constant source of funding we enjoyed in the past. We will
now have to compete with the cities for these funds. Even so, we have
estimated these federal funds at a constant amount over the next five years.
This may vary drastically depending on how successful we are in competing
with the cities.
The legislative authority for the federal funds is from the "Surface
Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987." This Act
provides for funding through FY 90/91 only. It is uncertain what will
happen after FY 90/91, but we have assumed that Congress will enact another
surface transportation act which will continue the funding at its current
level even though this approach could be conservative.
Area of Benefit
The area of benefit funds are derived solely from developer fees. Each new
home built must pay a per unit development fee. Each cwm mial office or
industrial development must pay a fee based on the square footage of the
building. The county has formed 10 areas of Benefit. The largest one, the
County-wide Area of Benefit is broken down into fifteen subareas. Tb
estimate the revenue anticipated over the next five years from development
fees, the Community Development Department looked at growth trends in each
area of benefit. Growth trends include both increased growth and decreased
2
�C
growth. For example, a new road into an area may provide access to land
that did not previously have easy access. We would then anticipate that
land to be developed. on the other hand, an area that has traditionally
shown strong growth patterns may begin to experience a decline in growth as
it approaches build out. The Co mnznity Development Department analyzed each
area of benefit area for potential residential, office, canwroial and
industrial development over the next five years to arrive at the projected
revenue shown.
The projected revenue for the area of benefits for each of the next five
years is less than that received last year in FY 88/89. Last year was a
banner year in the County for construction and collection of area of benefit
fees. In Oakley alone $2,040,000 in fees were collected. That is quite a
bit higher than the $970,000 we anticipate will be collected this fiscal
year. Intensive construction activity in the large construction projects,
such as the Vintage project, and construction of two large commercial
centers, probably accounts for the large amount of fees collected last year.
We also had-an-abnormal amount of construction.activity in the Tassajara area
last year where we took in $1,460,000 in fees. We only anticipate collecting
$500,000 in fees from this area this year.
It should be noted that Measure "C" requires the Board of Supervisors to
adopt a Growth Management element. At this point it is uncertain how this
ordinance will affect the projected growth in the County. We have assumed
that growth management will not adversely affect the projected growth of the
County-
Measure "C"
In November of 1988 the voters approved an initiative on the ballot entitled
"Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Programs.
This measure provides for an additional 1/2 cent sales tax to be collected
and spent on transportation related projects. The monies collected will be
apportioned to each city and county by the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority based on certain formulas. The revenue shown is what we effect to
receive over the next five years. Although the sales tax is currently in
place, we feel it will be some time before the Authority is settled in and
has the mechanism in place to distribute the monies. As a result, we may
receive little or no revenue in fiscal year 89/90 and receive two years
revenue in fiscal year 90/91. Exhibit 1 reflects this assumption of
receiving little revenue in FY 89/90 and receiving the bulk of revenue in FY
90/91. It should be noted that receiving any Measure "C" revenue is
predicated on the County successfully implementing a growth management
program. We will not receive these funds if a growth management program is
not in place and functioning properly. The costs for administering the
growth management program have not been determined at this time and will need
to be deducted from this fund estimate once the CCM adopts guidelines for
meeting the growth management requirements for Measure C-
3
General Assumtions
In addition to assuming the growth management program will not adversely
affect the County's growth, we also assumed there would be no major economic
dawn-turn in the next five years. The consumption of gasoline, frcan which
we derive our gas tax revenue, is assumed to increase along with the
County's growth. The patterns of gasoline consumption is also assumed not
to change aver the next five years. Any legislative changes in the
apportionment of federal funds or the gas tax could radically change our
pr l ected revenue amounts to fund the CRIP. The revenues shown. in this
report are based on the apportiorment of funding not changing over the next
five years.
RMA:md,/sd
fund.a.
(9/89) _
4