HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02251992 - TC.4 T`C.
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
f ` 1 Costa
FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
DATE: February 10, 1992 County
SUBJECT: Contra Costa Transportation Authority Administrative Costs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Board of Supervisors seek concurrence from the Conference of Mayors for the
.following:
1. Support the creation of a separate budget for the Congestion Management
Agency (CMA) function and consolidate both the Measure C Growth Management
Program and the State-mandated congestion management program (CMP)
functions within that budget;
.2. Utilize existing sales tax revenues available to the Authority from the
Regional Planning Program and the Contingency Fund to cover the CMA budget;
3 . Defer any action recommending additional funding sources for CMA and growth
management functions, other than Measure C sales tax funds, until the
Authority provides further details and clarification . on the 20-year
financial plan for its CMA and growth management activities, including
consideration of a reduced work program that might save costs;
4 . Request the Authority to pursue legislation to reduce CMA costs within the
spirit of Proposition 111;
5. Request the CCTA to consider new or uncommitted revenues, such as the new
Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) funds or
Regional Traffic Impact Fees, for funding any CMA expenses that cannot .be -
covered by Measure C funds; and
6. ' Any CMA costs allocated to the cities and the counties should be tied to
the amount of development approved .by each jurisdiction.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE O R
SIGNATURE(S) : Schroder Tom Torlakson
ACTION OF BOARD ON o2s �� -APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT �� TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Orig: Public Works ATTESTED C>-?S'
cc: Conference of Mayors (via PWD) PHIL BATC OR, LERK OF
CCTA (via PWD.) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Community Development AN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
cma.t2 BY , DEPUTY
CCTA Administrative Costs
February 10, 1992
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
During the last several months the Conference of Mayors raised concern over the
ability of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to comply with State law
limiting Authority salaries and benefits to 1 percent of sales tax revenues.
A major cause for exceeding the 1 percent cap involves the Authority's role in
administering the Measure C - 1988 Growth Management Program and the State-
mandated Congestion Management Program (CMP) requirements. The Authority has
circulated proposals to revise their accounting procedures to isolate their
growth management and CMA costs from their transportation project activities,
and generate additional revenue to fund their CMA costs. The Transportation
Committee is concerned about the impact additional funding requests may have on
the County's budget. . This report provides recommendations for the Board's
consideration in deliberations with the Conference of Mayors on the Authority's
administrative costs.
Since the adoption of the ordinance creating the Authority in August 1988, the
charge of the Authority has been substantially changed. Under AB 471, urban
counties are required to designate a CMA and to develop a CMP. At its request,
the Authority was designated as the CMA in Contra Costa County. Since the
Authority - is charged with the growth management program and is responsible for
developing Action Plans for the regional routes, it will be cost effective to
combine the and CMP activities with the growth management efforts.
To accomplish these tasks, the Authority will soon exceed its 1 percent cap on
salaries and benefits. The issues before you are:
1. - Should growth management and CMA responsibilities be separated to avoid
exceeding the 1 percent cap on salaries and benefits?
2. How much will it cost to fund growth management and CMA responsibilities?
3. How will the CMP and the growth management activities be funded?
4. If contributions from local agencies are needed, where should the funds
come from?
5. How will CMP costs be shared between the local agencies?
Should growth management and CMA responsibilities be separated to avoid
,exceeding the 1 percent capon salaries and benefits?
From a legislative viewpoint, the ordinace creating the Authority only specified
that administrative salaries and benefits cannot exceed 1 percent of sales tax
receipts. The ordinance does not have any limit on project salaries and
benefits. The Authority has already set precedence by separating project .
oversight costs from the 1 percent cap. The enabling legislation mandating
these requirements justifies considering growth management and CMA costs as
project-related costs rather than administrative costs. The Authority can
further justify this position by using funds from an established program such
as the Measure C - 1988 regional planning program. Creating a separate budget
would further clarify that these costs should not be considered administrative.
How much will it cost to fund growth management and CMA responsibilities?
At this time, the Authority's proposed work program has several unsettled
variables that make it difficult to determine the likely cost for CMA and growth
management activities. The work program's 20-year financial plan includes $8
million under the category of CMP/Corridor Study updates which is not well
defined. The work program assumes the continued use of growth management
consultants through the year 2009. As the Authority, the cities and the County
gain more experience with the growth management process, it may no longer be
necessary to retain growth management consulting assistance for the CMA
function. Another significant variable is proposed CMP legislation now under
discussion. Possible revisions include moving the CMP's update requirement. from
every year to every two years and exempting the CMP from CEQA compliance, which
CCTA Administrative Costs
February 10, 1992
Page 3
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (cont. )
would presumably reduce the CMA costs. Refinement of the CMA's work program and
resolution of CMA legislative changes needs to occur before CMA costs can be
estimated.
How will CMP and growth management activities be funded? If contributions from
local agencies are needed, where should the funds come from?
The Authority staff has explored two options for funding the CMP costs. They
propose to fund the cost from the regional planning program to the extent that
this program can support the extra activities. The expenditure plan for the
sales tax has a small contingency fund set aside. Part of the contingency fund
is designated for retiring the bond indebtedness. Part of this could be used
to fund the CMP activities. Use of both funds should be allowed.
The second option explored by the Authority is to request each local agency to
contribute to the Authority a portion of their Proposition 111 subventions from
the State: There:are several issues that needs to be addressed with this option..
Many cities in the county are having problems meeting the maintenance of
effort .r.equirements for receiving the Proposition 111 funds. Without this
additional , gas -.tax incentive, these cities may prefer not .to abide by the
CMP requirements. ' Adding the requirement that they have to pay for the CMP
costs -will:.further compound this problem.
The -Proposition 111 funds are allocated to the County and the cities using
totally different formula.. These formulae are linked to the fact that. the
County is a. political subdivision of : the State .and must carry, out many
state mandates.-.-Given-.the demands State mandates put :on the General. .Fund,-
County-.road *,programs are almost funded exclusively with state gas tax .
subventions. In Contra Costa County, the road program is 100% funded with
State::_gas.,tax, Measure : C funds and .development .fees. �Cities .do not .have
to carry out. the same State mandates and. typically have more discretionary
funds available. Because of this, state gas tax subventions are only a part
of the transportation program in most cities.
- Legal counsel for the State Legislative Analyst has provided an opinion
that State gas tax subventions cannot be used to exclusively fund the CMP
requirement under Proposition 111. The basis was that under Article XIX(b)
of the- State-'Constitution, the gas tax is dedicated to streets and roads
and construction of mass transit guideways. The portion of the CMP that
deals with transit and other non-road issues are not eligible uses of gas
tax.
Another source of funding may come from the new Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1992 (ISTEA) . The ISTEA requires County
Transportation Plans as well regional plans and State plans. Planning seems to
be an eligible item of work. Staff recommends that this issue be explored more
fully with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission if additional funds beyond
those available to the Authority are needed.
How will CMP costs be shared ,between local agencies?
The CMP requirement is intended to manage growth in urban areas. Impacts from
future development must be addressed by the CMP. Because of this, it is more
appropriate to assess new development for the cost of preparing the CMP. A
possible avenue is to attach a surcharge on building permits to help fund the
CMP cost::; Each jurisdiction's share of CMA budget cost should be .based on their
pro-rata share of_.growth:
NMS:e6
CMA.t2