Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10181994 - 1.8 (3) 177 through 1.80 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on October 18, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Smith, DeSaulnier, Bishop, Torlakson, and Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: CORRESPONDENCE Item No. 1.77 LETTER dated September 30, 1994, from B. Davis, Executive Director, West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority , transmitting the results of the first meeting of the Contra Costa Countywide Solid Waste Co-ordinating Council. ***ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT 1.78 LETTER dated September 29, 1994, from S. Williamson, 75 Ryegate Place, San Ramon 94583, requesting a reduction of the speed limit on San Ramon Valley Boulevard between Montevideo Drive and Alcosta Boulevard. ***REFERRED TO PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR 1.79 LETTER dated September 23, 1994, from I'. Stewart, Executive Director, Rental Housing Association, 3333 Vincent Road, Pleasant Hill 94523, providing information on the Association's opposition to a rent control ordinance. ***REFERRED TO MOBILE HOME TASK FORCE 1.80 LETTER dated September 21, 1994, from A. Mangels. Communications Director, Californians A`, ainst the $700 Million Tax Increase/No on Proposition 185, 11 Anza Boulevard, Suite 406, Burlingame 94010, urging Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to oppose Proposition 185. ***REFERRED TO TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of SuperViiso�OiD the date shown. �� ATTESTED: 1'k.►a 4 y PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of tt Board of Supervisors and County Administrator cc: Correspondents Transportation Committee By J) Qz - ,Deb Public Works Director Mobile Horne Task Force Community Development Director NO I Sept. 21, 1994 CO^TRA COSTA COUNTY RECEIVED ■ Californians Against SEP ? 81994 Philip Batchelor The $700 Million Board of Supervisors Tax Increase Contra Costa County OFFICE OF 651 Pine St COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Chair Martinez, CA 95443 TheHonorable BillCamp belt PresidentCalifornia Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors: Manufacturers Association Co-chair Re: Proposition 185 — The $700 Million Tax Increase Larry McCarthy,President: California Taxpayers' We strongly urge Association g Y g your county to oppose California Transportation portation Proposition 185, the proposed 4% gasoline sales tax Commission increase. This seriously flawed initiative will have a California Chamber of Commerce severely negative impact on regional governments for California Trans itAssociation years to come. Californians for BetterTranspona- tion Proposition 185 would bypass regional Automobile Club of Southern transportation planners by setting up a three-person California rail committee, appointed by the governor, with California BusioessAllianca unprecedented power to administer billions of dollars Natio nal Tax Limitation Committee outside the existing transportation review and public California Farm Bureau Federation hearings that currently ensure that limited dollars California Stale Council of Laborers are ,spent where they are most needed. California Highway Users Conference California State Association of It's true that Prop. 185 would provide funding for Counties(CSAC) a few pet projects of the initiative's backers, such WestemStates Petroleum as a coastal rail system between Los Angeles and San Association Francisco. But it would not fund the road and street California Business Roundtable maintenance needs of cities, nor help reduce traffic California Business Properties congestion by financing the priority projects Association identified by regional governments. Santa Clara County Manufacturing Group California Service Station and Of the estimated $4 billion Proposition 185 would Automotive Repair Association raise in the first five years alone, only $1.35 CaGfomia-Nevada Conference of billion is earmarked for specific projects, with about Operating Engineers $1 billion of that going to just three special BayAreaCouncil interest ventures. The allocation of the rest of those California Trucldng Association billions would be made with little or no input from Southern California Business regional planners. Association CalfomiaCouncilfor Elected county officials and regional Environmentdand Economic transportation planners, who are best equipped to Balance P P � Associated GeneralContncbrs identify and resolve their own regions' transportation Howard Janis Taxpayers needs, would be virtually excluded from the budgeting Association and planning process! Alliance of California Taxpayers and Involved Voters(ACTIV) (partiallistinp of organizations opposed to Prop.185) Californians Against the$700 Million Tax IncreaseMlo on Proposition 185 111 kea Boulevard,SUte 406-Burlingame,Cardorrtia 94010-(415)340-0470-FAx(415)3758148 Prop. 185 billions would be allocated exclusively by the politically appointed rail committee, with little or no regional input. In fact, the initiative would even prevent regional planners from questioning the transportation priorities set forth in Prop. 185 until the year 2010! That's too long for regional planners to wait to participate in addressing their own unique, evolving needs! The assessment of a permanent, compounding sales tax on gasoline for limited use by a trio of gubernatorial appointees would make it difficult, if not impossible, to go back to the public for the additional taxes or bond financing that will be necessary to fund the broader transportation needs of the diverse regions of our state. We can't afford to cut off future revenue sources in favor of this severely limiting tax increase today. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) has identified a $3 . 3 billion shortfall in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and estimates the State Highway Account will be depleted by the end of 1994. These shortfalls will create significant funding crises for regional transportation needs such as freeway and street repairs and widening. County governments could be forced to either raise taxes or raid other programs, such as police and fire protection, in order to take-up the slack these deficits will create. Finally, Prop. 185 is bankrolled by Southern Pacific Railroad, which has already sunk half a million dollars into the campaign. They stand to make almost a billion dollars -- off the top -- if this initiative passes. They're counting on "hungry" local and regional governments to guarantee their windfall by throwing in some short term benefits for everyone else. This is the most dangerous kind of ballot-box budgeting and planning! Prop. 185 isn't the answer to California's transportation problems; in fact, it would make matters worse. That is why the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) , California Transit Association, California Transportation Commission (CTC) , California Manufacturers Association and California Taxpayers' Association all oppose Prop. 185. Enclosed for your consideration are a local government fact sheet, a list of organizations and individuals opposed to Prop. 185; a San Diego Tribune editorial; a copy of CTC's analysis; and letters from Senate and Assembly- Transportation Committee Chairs Quentin Kopp and Richard Katz, and Alameda Corridor Select Committee Chair Martha Escutia, all of whom oppose the initiative. We hope that your county will join the diverse coalition opposing this multi-billion dollar special interest welfare bill. You can do so by signing and returning the enclosed opposition form at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions or would like to receive additional information, please feel free to contact me at (415) 340-0470. We would also be happy to 'send a speaker to address your organization on this important issue. Thank you for your consideration. Sincer y, A M. Mangels Communications Director ' NO 18561 FIVE REASONS WHY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS SHOULD OPPOSE Californians Against PROPOSITION 185 The $700 Million Tax Increase Chair SHIFTS TRANSPORTATION DECISIONS FROM LOCAL The HonorableBlllCampbell, GOVERNMENTS TO SACRAMENTO. President,California Manufacturers Association • Proposition 1851 would establish a three-person rail committee, Co-Chair Larry McCarthy,Presidentappointed by the governor, with unprecedented power to administer CaltiomlaTaxpayers' billions of dollars outside the existing local transportation review and Association public hearing process that currently ensures that limited dollars are CaCoffvvnls on Transportation spent where they are most needed. Californians for Better Transportation • Prop. 185 billions would be allocated by the politically appointed rail Automobile Club of Southern committee, with little or no local input. In fact, the initiative would Calffomla California Business Alllance even prevent local planners from questioning the transportation NationalTaxUmltation priorities set forrh in Prop. 185 until the year 2010! That's too long Committee for local governments to wait to participate in addressing their own California state council of unique, evolving needs! Laborers Los Angeles County Hotel/Motel Group CREATES AN IRRESPONSIBLE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING Callfomia Highway Users SYSTEM Conference California State Association of • It's true that Prop. 185 would provide funding for a few pet projects Counties(CSAC) Western states Petroleum of the initiative's backers, such as a coastal rail system between Los _ Association Angeles and San Francisco. But our state as a whole woulda�y too California Business Roundtable high a price for these high Rrofile projects. California Business Properties Association • Of the estimated $4 billion Prop. 185 would raise in the first five Santa Clara County Manufacturing Group years alone, only$1.35 billion is earmarked for specific projects, with California service Station and $1 billion of that going to pet projects financially benefitting the Automotive Repair Ass oclation initiative's backers. The allocation of the rest of those billions would Callfomla-Nevada conference of be made with little or no input from local planners. Operating Engineers P Bay Area Council California Trucking Association • Elected county and local officials, who are best equipped to identify Southern California Business and resolve their own regions' transportation needs, would be Association virtually excluded from the budgeting and planning process! California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance Associated General Contractors Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Alllanceof California Taxpayers and Involved Voters(ACTIV) Califomians Against the$700 Million Tax IncreaselNo on Proposition 185 (partial ating) 111 Area Boulevard,Suite 406-Burlingame,California 94010-(415)340-0470-FAX(415)375-8148 ENRICHES SPECIAL INTERESTS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST. • In recent years, the same promoters who wrote Prop. 185 introduced four other ballot measures. In each case, they accepted campaign contributions from special interests in exchange for including those special interests' pet projects in the initiative. • The Prop. 185 campaign is financed by Southern Pacific Railroad, which stands to make huge profits if it passes. • Southern Pacific Railroad would get nearly a billion taxpayer dollars from Prop. 185, That's not right! Southern Pacific shouldn't be allowed to fund their own projects with the taxpayers' money. • During the 19th .century, the federal government gave many rail rights-of-way to Southern Pacific -- for free! Now, Prop. 185 would have us give them another billion dollars! • Prop. 185 would exclude state-of-the-art high speed magnetic-levitation rail because one of the initiative's other major contributors doesn't make that type of equipment, • A recent state law prohibits including specific projects in initiatives in exchange for campaign contributions from those who stand to benefit financially from taxpayer funding of their project. Even though Prop. 185's promoters state that they have complied with this law, they nevertheless included a provision in Prop. 185 to ►r I themselves from it! IGNORES STIP SHORTFALL AND JEOPARDIZES A COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION. • The California Transportation Commission (CTC) has identified a $3.3 billion shortfall in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)and estimates the State Highway Account will be depleted by the end of 1994. • These shortfalls will create significant funding crises for local transportation needs such as freeway and street repairs and widening. Prop. 185 would change existing law to take away millions of dollars currently used for street and mad repairs all over California! • i oal governments would be forced to either raise taxes or raid other prro_grams such as police and fire protection, in order to take up the slack these deficits will create That just wouldn't work. INEFFICIENT USE OF SCARCE REVENUES. • The assessment of a permanent, compounding sales tax for limited use by a trio of gubernatorial appointees will make it difficult, if not impossible, to go back to the public for the additional taxes or bond financing that will be necessary to fund the broader transportation needs of the diverse regions of our state. We can't afford to cut off future revenue sources in favor of this severely limiting tax increase today. rev. 9/1/94 ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS OPPOSED TO PROPOSITION 185 9/23/94 California Taxpayers' Association Alliance of California Taxpayers and Involved Voters (ACTIN) Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association National Tax Limitation Committee Contra Costa Taxpayers Association Sonoma County Taxpayers Association Sacramento County Taxpayers League Taxpayers Association of Santa Barbara County Transportation Senator Quentin Kopp, Chair, Senate Transportation Committee Assemblyman'Richard Katz, Chair, Assembly Transportation Committee California Transit Association California Transportation Commission Californians For Better Transportation Automobile Club of Southern California California Highway Users Conference Arroyo Verdugo Transportation Coalition Ventura County Transportation Commission California Trucldng Association Statewide Organizations California State Association of Counties California Council For Environmental & Economic Balance California State Council of Laborers California-Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers California Teachers Association M ""Dtinuedseek ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS OPPOSED TO PROPOSITION 185 9/23/94 (Continued) lII California Manufacturers Association ,, California Business Roundtable California Chamber of Commerce California Building Industry Association Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce California Bu �siness Properties ion Santa Clara County Manufacturing Group Fresno Cham 'bier of Commerce California Business Alliance Associated General Contractors Western States Petroleum Association California Service Station and Automotive Repair ,Association Southern California Business Association La Puente Chamber of Commerce Los Angeles County Hotel/Motel Group Varian Associates Bay Area Council San Mateo County Economic Development Association Anaheim Chamber of Commerce Sunday,July 311. 1994 The 2111 'Dircto IhAnM1 k �. s � A Copley 11'ewspaper Ff rx_ W.JEFF GATF.WOOD � HELEN K.COPLEY Founder,Oct. 10, 1595 Chairman and Publisher JOHN D.SPRECKELS GERALD L.WARREN Publisher,1590-1926 Editor COL.IRA C.COPLEY KARIN E.WINNER Publisher,1925-1947 Executive Editor JAMES S.COPLEY ROBERT A.KITTLE Publisher, 1047-197., Editor of the Editorial Page The Ring ofTnrth Anothergas tax? Prop. 185 would undermine state's recovery 0 n every gallon of gasoline, California a total of about 18 cents in state levies,depending motorists already pay approximately on the county sales tax rate.(San Diego County's 40 cents in taxes. But if voters are en- sales tax already includes a one-half cent add-on ticed into approving Proposition 185 for local transportation projects.) on the November ballot, the tax will The sales tax on gasoline actually amounts to jump by another 5 cents immediately and con- double taxation—a tax on a tax—because it is tinue to rise with future increases in pump applied to the price after federal and state per- prices. gallon fees are added. The very last thing California needs as it strug- Proposition 185 would compound the double gles to recover from a protracted recession is an- taxation by piling on a new sales levy. With gas other broad-based tax hike. Apart from under- prices at$1.25 a gallon,the additional tax would mining the fragile recovery in the short term, be a nickel,or an extra$1 to fill a 20-gallon tank. higher gasoline prices would further compromise What's more, as a sales tax the Proposition California's competitive position in the future as 185 levy would rise automatically as pump prices it tries to attract business investment and jobs. rise.According to the nonpartisan Legislative An- California's fuel tax, which has more than alyst, the measure would start off as a tax in- doubled since 1981,already is the highest of six crease of$700 million to$725 million in the first Western states. Raising the levy even higher year and then increase annually. would give many businesses one more reason to Under the initiative,proceeds from the new move their operations elsewhere. tax would be doled out for programs to encour- On top of the existing federal and state taxes, age bicycle commuting and other low-polluting Proposition 185 would impose an additional 4 modes of transportation, including electrified percent sales tax on gas to pay for a panoply of bus systems and intercity light rail projects. "alternative"transportation programs.The com- Funds also would be dedicated to purchase plicated, 78-page ballot initiative was drafted by cleaner public buses and low-polluting govern- the Planning and Conservation League,an envi- .ment auto fleets,and to encourage seniors and ronmental lobbying group based in Sacramento. disabled persons to ride mass transit. If you don't think you're paying enough in fuel Proposition 185 is a classic study in ballot- taxes,consider this:Combined federal and state "box budgeting.Every penny raised would be ear- levies account for about one-third of the retail marked permanently for specified projects or price of gas in California. programs,leaving the Legislature absolutely no That includes a recent 4.3-cent-a-gallon boost discretion over a huge—and growing—source of in the federal excise tax enacted as part of Presi- transportation revenues. dent Clinton's deficit-reduction plan,for a total of California's slowly recovering economy can- 22.3 cents in federal levies. On top of a separate not afford another big hit in the pocketbooks of per-gallon tax imposed by the state, California businesses and consumers alike—and especially drivers pay regular retail'sales tax on gasoline,for one as poorly conceived as Proposition 185. CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION INITIATIVE MEASURE ANALYSIS PROPOSITION NUMBER: Unknown SPONSOR: Planning &Conservation League (PCL) STAFF- RECOMMENDED POSITION: OPPOSE SUBJECT: Public Transportation Funding Ballot Initiative Measure(Proposed) STATUS: Draft Ballot Initiative Measure(for November 1994 General Election) filed with Attorney General for title and summary preparation 11/1/93 INITIATIVE MEASURE SUMM"Y If it qualifies for the November 1994 General Election ballot, and is approved by voters, the proposed Public Transportation Funding initiative measure, sponsored by the Planning & Conservation League,would levy an additional 4-percent sales tax on motor vehicle fuel sales to fund a variety of public transportation-related programs, including capital projects, operations and services. PCL estimates the proposed sales tax increase would produce $600 million the first year(1995), and$700 million the second year(1996) in new revenues. It would permit issuance of revenue bon ds for capital projects funded by these new revenues. The draft initiative establishes a complex framework of priorities(for State, regional, local projects, programs) outside STIP process;the new tax proceeds are distributed through the Retail Sales Tax Fund to the Transportation Planning &Development (TP&D) account. Initially, 27% "off the top" would fund several programs: • 15%, seismic safety retrofit state, local bridges, including toll bridges, public rail bridges(to 2000); 2%, bicycle and pedestrian facilities); • 2%, electric, clean fuel vehicle purchases, research and development (to 2010); • 2%, traffic signal synchronization and signal preemption for public transit; • 2%, environmental enhancement and mitigation of transportation projects; • 2%'(plus added S 15 million/year from State Highway Account (SHA), for railroad-highway grade crossing separations projects (mainline routes, smaller counties, 4 passenger trains/day traveling max. 70 mph; • 1%, fog-related traffic safety measures; • 1%, carpool information systems, transit planning and development. Subject to modifications in 2000 and 2010, the remaining 73% of new revenues flows to a new TP&.D subaccount, called the "Clean Air, Jobs, and Transportation Efficiency Act Subaccount:" • 47.5% for capital projects; • 25.5% for public transit operations These revenues would be subject to distribution formulas and controls on expenditures(e.g., no more than 20% for administration), management and operations specified in the initiative. Additionally, the initiative would _ permit use of these revenues to "backfill" the 1992 STIP, replacing$1 billion in funds lost by the rejection of Proposition 156, the 1992 Rail.Bond measure-- if the 1994 Rail Bond measure is removed from the ballot. That STIP "backfill" would reduce all other allocations prescribed by the initiative by 20% for 5 years. -2- These funds would be continuously appropriated to the Commission or other agencies, outside the legislative appropriation/budget process. A statutory, gubematorially-appointed 3-member Rail Committee would be created within the California Transportation Commission. For five years, that Committee would have plenary authority to program and allocate both state and federal funds for all rail-related projects--not only those funds generated by the new sales tax, but also funds from previous voter-approved rail bonds(e.g., Propositions 108, 116, Transit Capital Improvement(TCI)program and SHA funds for rail or public mass transit projects). The initiative also refines the "trust fund" concept applied to the SHA and TP&D accounts by prohibiting legislative fund transfers from those and other similar accounts for non-transportation purposes;if unauthorized transfers occur, the State Controller must replace those SHA and TP&D account funds, dollar for dollar, from the General Fund. Also, the proposed initiative requires 4/5ths vote in each house of Legislature to amend most provisions of the measure(so long as amendments are consistent with measure's original purpose/'mtent);like Prop. 116, legislative changes in fund distribution/allocation provisions would be prohibited Capita projects funded from TP&D Subaccount revenues are subject to these policies: funds may be used for rolling stock, but no funds may be used for right-of-way acquisition after 2000; electrification of existing publicly-owned urban rail transit and bus system limes may not be considered precedent for electrifying other rail lines, including freight rail lines, by any regulatory agency. Specified statewide projects would have first priority: (1) $500K, Yosemite Park rail service feasibility study(Route 140 corridor). (2) $350M, Alameda Corridor Transportation Project (Ports of L.A., Long Beach). (3) $500M, S.F.-L.A. Rail Corridor Joint Powers Agency(JPA)for"fast train" (110 mph) intercity, tourist, commuter and urban rail along Coast Route by 1999;not more than: $200M(up to $200K for appraisal) for right-of-way acquisition, $300M for track, other capital improvements; $100M for rolling stock. (4) Subject to RTPA or county transportation commission approval, five competitively awarded grants up to $500K each to transit operators to determine feasibility of establishing light rail service in urbanized areas over 100K population not„presently served. (5) $1M, MTC, to study feasibility of restoring rail service to the S.F.-Oakland Bay Bridge, without reducing bridge's auto traffic carrying capacity. (6) $200M, Peninsula Commute Service JPB,for Caltrain service extension to downtown S.F., 30 minute headways between commute periods;downtown terminal must facilitate high-speed rail service. (7) 5% of funds to Caltrans for capital projects to improve conventional intercity rail passenger service. (8) $140M, to Caltrans, local agencies for right-of-way acquisition, trackage rights important for future rail passenger service. (9) $60M, to Caltrans, to improve LOSSAN rail corridor. (10) $70M, to Riverside and San Bernardino County Transportation Commissions, allocated by population, to improve intercity, commuter rail serve serving these counties. (11) $5M, to Caltrans for restoration of rail service between San Diego and Imperial Counties. (12) $500K to Caltrans, for Sacramento Valley intercity rail service expansion feasibility study; after study, remain funds, if any, may be used to implement expanded service. — (13) $500K, to Caltrans, for L.A.-Calexico (via Coachella Valley, Riverside) intercity rail service expansion feasibility study. (14) $20M, Port of Oakland, construction of Joint Intermodal Terminal, facilitating loading, rail shipment of containerized goods. Remaining capital funds are to be allocated for local/regional projects, subject to these priorities: • 1st, electrification projects, urban rail transit, commuter and intercity rail capital outlay projects; • 2nd, clean fuel buses, rail rolling stock, electric buses, urban rail transit vehicles; 3rd, projects similar to fog-related traffic safety, bicycle/pedestrian safety facilities, traffic signal synchronization, carpool systems, environmental mitigation and enhancement, highway-railroad grade crossing separation projects. The overall capital funding objective is to "providing a fully integrated bus, rail, air, and waterborne transit system which increases passenger convenience and complements the State's substantial existing transportation investments." (1) SANDAG: "equal high priority" for(a)tunnel, other projects to increase commuter rail service speed in San Diego County; (b) light rail service expansion. (2) Imperial County Board of Supervisors: no priority project(s) specified. (3) OCTA: "first priority" for design, engineering, construction of initial segment of Orange County urban rail transit system. (4) Riverside County Transportation Commission: "same highest priority" for capital improvements, rolling stock on rail passenger lines between Riverside/San Jacinto, Irvine, Fullerton, Los Angeles (via Ontario). (5) San Bernardino County Transportation Commission: no priority project(s) specified. (6) LACMTA: No more than 10% of annual allocation for Red Line extension; (a) "highest priority" to Blue Line light rail from L.A. to East Pasadena in San Gabriel Valley; (b) "second priority": to construction, extension of urban rail transit lines, construction, acquisition of rolling stock, equipment for electric trolley bus lines, including.urban rail transit extension between LOSSAN line/Norwalk and.Green Line terminus; San Fernando Valley East-West rail line extension of Red Line; Exposition light rail corridor right-of-way, downtown L.A.-Santa Monica; Green Line extensions: El Segundo-Torrance, Multi-Modal Transportation Center-Westchester; San Gabriel Valley light rail line, Route 10-60 corridor; San Gabriel Valley light rail line, E. Pasadena-Irwindale; Crenshaw-Prairie Corridor light rail lime. (7) Ventura County Transportation Comm'n: "first priority" for commuter rail service extension to Ventura. (8) Santa Barbara County Association of Governments: no priority project(s) specified. (9) San Luis Obispo County Council of Governments: no priority project(s) specified. (10) Santa Cruz, San Benito, Monterey Counties RTPAs joint or separate application(s): no priority project(s) specified. (11) Kern, Tulare, Kings, Fresno, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus, San Joaquin Counties RTPAs joint application. with "highest priority" for improving intercity rail transportation in Bakersfield-Stockton corridor; also, funds shall be awarded foi study of intercity rail service between Exeter and Huron, including Visalia, Hanford, and award grants for service implementation if service financially, engineeringly feasible. (12) Tuloumne, Amador, Calaveras, Mariposa, Inyo, Mono, Alpine Counties RTPAs joint applications: no priority project(s) specified. (13) Sacramento County/SACOG: "highest priority" for Sacramento RTD for light rail service extension south including Sacramento City College; "second priority," "equally" for light rail service extension to Antelope Road, Folsom, Sacramento Metro Airport; "third priority," "equally" for light rail service extension Antelope Road-Roseville, passenger rail service extension: Sacramento-Colfax, Davis, Truckee, Woodland, Marysville-Yuba City, rail right-of-way acquisition, Folsom-Placerville. -4- (14) El Dorado, Yolo, Placer, Nevada, Sutter, Yuba Counties RTPAs joint application: "highest priority," "equally" to Antelope Road-Roseville light rail extension;passenger rail service extension: Sacramento- Colfax, Davis, Truckee, Woodland, Marysville-Yuba City; rail right-of-way extension, Folsom- Placerville. (15) Colusa, Glenn., Tehama, Butte, Shasta, Trinity, Lake, Siskiyou Counties RTPAs joint application: no priority project(s) specified. (16) Sierra, Plumas, Modoc, Lassen Counties RTPAs joint application: no priority project(s) specified. (17) Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino Counties RTPAs joint application: "first priority" for NCRRA rail lines rehabilitation. (18) MTC: $2M of first funds received annually, to improve public transit efficiency, but may not be used to promote public transit system privatization;then, "equal highest priority" for: passenger rail corridor construction, improvement connecting Santa Clara County light rail and BART/Fremont lime; S.F. Muni high priority light rail line;A-C Transit high priority light rail line;rehabilitation of BART rolling stock; "Metro East" light rail maintenance/storage facility, San Francisco; Santa Clara County high priority light rail line. High-Speed Rail.--The Rail Committee may allocate up to 10% of capital funds available from TP&D Subaccount for construction of new, high-speed intercity rail passenger service connecting L.A., Bakersfield, Fresno, San Jose, with connections to S.F. (via Caltrain corridor), Oakland, and Stockton-Sacramento, so that service would.be available by 2010. Also, $20M maybe allocated annually for 30 years from the TCI program for this purpose Urban Rail Projects.--State-funded share of these capital projects: 100% first$15M/mile new construction; over $15M/mile, 50% match from non-State sources. Intercity and commuter rail projects require no match. Public Transit Operations.--Transit operators with unmet needs may receive TP&D Subaccount funding, but are subject to prescribed policies, unless waived following a hearing: adopt/implement anti-graffiti policy; free transfers (90 minute duration), daily, monthly, annual pass availability(except BART); California Pass acceptance; free transfers to transit customers connecting to urban rail transit or commuter rail line to local bus system serving rail station, operators entitled to reimbursement;free college/university student usage paid for by lump sum contract between operator and institution covering operator costs; 50% discounted fares for seniors, disabled persons for off-peak travel; and, implementation of highway-railroad grade crossing safety program including use of automated enforcement grade crossing technology at crossings with 5K or more daily vehicle crossings. Priorities are to be given to needs of disabled persons under ADA, preventing crime, gang activity, graffiti; increasing transit system operation efficiency/cost effectiveness. At least 80% of the funds received must be for direct transit service. Statewide priorities to be funded: (1) Up to $4M/year to operate Yosemite Valley public transportation system in the Park, connecting Merced with the Park, if private vehicle entry to Park is restricted; (2) Up to $1M/year to Lake Tahoe unified transit system serving California portion of Lake Tahoe/Truckee basin if that system is activated. Remaining funds available for transit operations are to be allocated under existing State Transit Assistance (STA) formulas: 1/3 based on population, 1/3 based on revenue_ ratios, 1/3 based on STA population formula with new priority to encourage increased service frequency. -5- POSITION SUMMARY;R.ECONMENDATION Staff recommends: ,p 0 -a bill moving through the Le�6slature, is not subject to pose. An initiative, unlike amendment or revision. It is "take it or leave.it" While revenue that would be generated.under this measure clearly is desirable, as are MM of theVe I cified projects and programs other provisions in the proposed initiative are viewed as questionable or undesirable. The proposed initiative measure: (1) Bypass existing, statutory transportation planning, programming and fund allocating processes under the State Transportation 1�n , provernent Program(STIP) and other related programs, modifying the finding priorities and access to fimdin-for other long-standing projects; (2) Absent knowing the basis for the new revenue projections, raises uestions about their accuracy that could create funding problems for projects and services mandated by the initiative. Unlike Prop, 116, the proposed initiative lacks tlie certainty that before a project can be funded, its sponsors must adopt and submit a viable, fully-fimded capital and operating plan; (3) Micromanagges the transportation policy development, planning, programming, fund allocating process at State, regional and local government levels; Creates a 3-member"sub-commission," not merely a "committee," with plenary(exclusive, sole) authority separate from the California Transportation Commission, thereby granting a mere 2-member majority of that Committee full responsibility for literally billions of dollars in transportation funding. In effect, it establishes 5-year dual, "two track" authori to program and allocate all state, federal funding for rail, public transit-related projects outside STIP process, without providing, any fiinding for the administration of an entirely new program; and, (5) Preempts examination of planning, financing, route options for proposed High-Speed Rail services by - High-Speed Rail Commission established under SCR 6 (Kopp, 19933)by mandating both a Coast "fast train" fine and a Central Valley "high-speed" rail service without scrutinizing the impact of one route on the viability of the other an analytical fimction the High-Speed Rail Commission will likely perform. ANALYSIS Prop 116-Proposed Initiative Compared, Contrasted.--The PCL, sponsor of the S 1.9 billion Proposition 116 (Clean Air & Transportation Improvement Act of 1990),now proposes an even more far-reaching public transportation funding measure for the 1994 General Election Ballot. Instead of relying on general obligation bonds to fund transportation gVi Ltal projects, the proposed initiative would levy a 4 percent increase in the sales, tax on motor vehicle fuels for both ca ital projects and for rail and public transit operations. Within each of these two categories the proposed initiative establishes transportation policies, goals, objectives, prescribes priorities, percentages and funding for specified projects, programs and services and formulas for distribution of revenues. All of these priorities and distribution formulas are established either outside the deliberative State legislative process or the existing STIP process. In the initiative's own words, certain rail capital projects "shall be funded regardless of whether they have been included in the STIP or a Regional Transportation Improvement program" Proposed Sec. 99390(c)(1). In short,the proposed initiative relies on a "grab bag" of policies, projects, programs and services, none of which have been subject to local, regional or State competitive prioritizing contemplated by the STIP or scrutiny by the Legislature. -6- Not all of the elements of the proposed initiative are new; several have their genesis in similar legislation: e.g., ACA 55/AB 3800 (Bates, 1992)would have doubled the existing sales tax on motor vehicle fuels and established formulas for distributing those revenues for transportation-related projectstprograms; it was not considered by the Legislature. ACR 107 (Lee, 1992), sent to legislative interim study, and ACR 31 (Lee, 1993), still under consideration by the Legislature, would authorize an MTC study of restoring rail service on the S.F.-Oakland Bay Bridge; that study is funded($I million) by this initiative. The first draft of the proposed initiative would have included rail miles with road miles in computing county minimums formula; omitted in subsequent drafts, that provision was identical to AB 271 (Speier, 199 1)which passed by the Legislature, but was vetoed by the Governor(opposed by the Commission). Statutory Rail Committee.--The proposed initiative would substitute a statutory, gubernatorially-appointed 3- member Rail Committee within the CTC for the existing Rail Committee appointed by the Commission chair. The membership of existing statutorily-prescribed Commission committees is appointed by the Commission or its chair, not by the Governor. Arming this Rail Committee with exclusive, plenary authority to program and allocate funds to all rail-related projects, including Proposition 108/116, TCI Program, actions that are not subject to fiill Commission approval, coupled with gubematorially-designated membership makes this new Rail Committee a defacto "Subcommission" that could ignore or repudiate Commission policies and objectives; and, in effect granting its 2-member majority wide authority. Despite the proposed initiative's language declaring that the purpose of this new Committee is to "streamline and expedite the early allocation and distribution of funds provided for rail and public transit programs, and to efficiently expend" initiative-authorized rail/public transit funding, the initiative would create dual, "two track"transportation policy developing, programming, fund allocating authority that could frustrate development of an multimodal, intermodal transportation system for the State. Unlike Proposition 116, the proposed initiative provides no funding for administering the new program HiSpeed Rail Commission v. Coastal JPA.--In 1993, the Legislature adopted a resolution (SCR 6, Kopp) establishing a 9-member High-Speed Rail Commission to develop a plan for deployment of intercity high-speed rail services between California's major urban centers, beginning first with the Los Angeles-S.F. Bay Area corridor. As adopted by the Legislature, SCR 6 makes clear that while the L.A.-S.F. corridor was to be first high-speed rail service developed, that designation was route neutral: there was no stated legislative preference as to route, Coastal or Central Valley; each was to be given equal consideration. The proposed initiative, however, appears to prejudge, if not preempt, that selection by prescribing that the Coast Route between San Jose and Los Angeles is be developed for what the initiative terms"fast train" service (up to 110 mph), establishing a coastal counties Joint Powers Authority(JPA)to develop and administer that service, and allocating up to $500 million for that development. Under SCR 6, that route choice is committed to the High- Speed Rail Commission. Under the initiative, Caltrans may apply to the Rail Committee for funds equal to 10% of capital funds available annually for Intercity"high-speed" rail service between Los Angeles and the S.F. Bay area, serving Central Valley urban centers, with connections to San Diego and Inland Empire communities;under SCR 6, the High-Speed Rail Commission is to examine, analyze financing options, including maximizing private investment opportunities. Presumably, the High-Speed Rail Commission would examine the viability of a Coast Route and a Central Valley Route on one another;under the proposed initiative, no such examination would occur; rather, funding for right-of-way acquisition and development is mandated. "Trust Fund" Revision.--The initiative attempts to "refine" the undefined designation of the TP&D Account as a "trust fund" by Proposition 116. Transfers of revenues from that account, the State Highway Account, and existing transportation fund sources, to the General Fund for non-transportation purposes would be prohibited; and, by requiring that if such transfers are made, the State Controller must replace unauthorized fund transfers by transferring equivalent dollars from the General Fund back to those accounts. "Loans" made from the SHA and -7- TP&D or State Highway Accounts to the General Fund would have to be repaid in two years, with interest at the State's Pooled Money Investment Account rate; loans made from these accounts'to the General Fund in previous fiscal years must be repaid in fiscal years 1997 and 1993. However laudable tightening, if not strengthening, the Prop. 116 "trust fund" provision, that objective is overshadowed by an initiative measure that, taken as a whole, as the Chair of the Senate Transportation Committee observes, would substitute a project-segregated solution for "a well-designed system of local, regional and statewide planning and programming processes to deal with transportation requirements in a coordinated, multimodal fashion" -- a system, he notes, that the proposed initiative's sponsor had urged be established in the first place. Sales Tax Revenue Projections.--Without knowing the basis for PCL's revenue projections ($600 million in 1995, $700 million in 1996), these could prove optimistic thus undermining the mandated projects, programs and services, and raising questions as to how these specifics are to be funded and completed were a revenue shortfall to develop. The measure concedes the project/program mandates are not necessarily fully funded by the initiative. As such, it could leverage finding away from other long-standing program commitments to help full- fund projects specified in the initiative. Moreover, the proposed initiative would tend to preempt, if not undermine the Commission-endorsed effort by the regional transportation planning agencies (RTPAs) and Californians for Better Transportation(CBT)to assess transportation needs, develop funding options and to make recommendations to the Commission, ultimately to the Legislature and Administration in 1994. Gift of Public Funds.--Given the priority and funding assigned certain projects, e.g., the $500 million development of the Coast Route as "fast train" intercity service between San Francisco and Los Angeles, including $200 million for right-of-way acquisition, and, another$350 million for improvements to the Alameda Corridor Transportation Project (whether or not its purchase proceeds), the Assembly Transportation Committee chair questions whether funding these priorities constitutes a constitutionally prohibited gift of public funds (Art. XVI, Sec. 6) to the private entity currently owning the respective rights-of-way-- in both instances, the Southern Pacific Transportation Company. (Note: In attempting to understand the proposed initiative, Commission staff came across provisions described in the PCL summary of the measure that are not contained in the final draft, and vice versa.) CALTRANS OFFICIAL POSITION: None, at this time. SUPPORT: Planning & Conservation League OPPOSITION: Hon. Richard Katz, Chair, Assembly Transportation Committee Hon. Quentin L. Kopp, Chair, Senate Transportation Committee Union Pacific Railroad Company Board of Supervisors, Fresno County 4vrV93 R RT I. N, Executive Director S T C. HALL, Depu ector Legislative Affairs PCLR.ArL Lsh:F9 7wCwwN�NTO wDDwcss O COMMITTEES STATE CAPITOL T1�T 1T C ♦ (� TwANSPORT ATION C•+•IP.++ . 9514 ( ttltf�rrtittyµj� „�L� #L wG w.CVftTHAAAwAT[w Isla AAE 0903 VVVV__ /� wEf0vwCE3 V SUOGET AND FISCAL P[VIS EDVCATIQN DISTRICT OO LOCAL GOVEON-41ENT '� NEVENVE AND TAlAT10N 36 3 EL CAMI CAMINO REAL.92043 SO SAN FRANCISCO CA 94COp ; SELECT COMMITTEES +A�SI932.5066 r i' f�a, DEFENSE VASEC605VMCI MARITIME INDUS TRT PLANNING FOR CAUFOIT NI 5 OAOFTw STATE PROCUREMENT AN; EAPENOiTURE PRACTICE STATE SENATOR VOTING PRACTICES ANO QUENTIN L. KOPP PROCEDURES EICiMTM SENATORIAL DISTRICT SUBCOMMITTEES oUOGET AND FISCAL RE V1 REPRESENTING SAN FRANCISCO AND SAN MATED COwNTIEt 1US000.."EE NO A 0- 6EGIS6.ATIVE ERECVTIV: EIVSINE55 TRANSPORT, MOUSING ANL`GENERAL GOvEw.+►.ENT November 3 , 1993 JOINT COMIAITTEE9 JOINT COM-ITTCC ON wVl Mr. James Knox Planning and Conservation League 926 J Street, Suite 612 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Jim: I appreciate your efforts on behalf of public transportation and particularly passenger rail service. In advocating more emphasis and funding for such services, our objectives are the same. Unfortunately, we have some serious disagreements on the approach to achieve those objectives. I have reviewed your proposed initiative and wholeheartedly support Assemblyman Katz ' observations and comments, contained in his letter to you dated October 8, 1953 . In addition to Mr. Katz ' comments about the details of your initiative, I would like to offer the following comments on the general approach and potential effect on transportation finance. As you are well aware, there is a serious shortage of revenue needed to provide California residents with adequate transportation infrastructure and service. The funding shortage applies to all modes and all regions. Your proposal deals only with one element of that need and, as important as funding for rail and transit is, we must resist the temptation to solve those problems one item at a time. I believe that the Legislature and the Governor must, and will, consider the whole issue of transportation funding in 1995 , which is the time that needs become critical and urgent. As in 1989 , we will seek comprehensive funding . Your proposed initiative will' be highly detrimental to those efforts. If your initiative is successful (which I doubt) the revenue will be segregated for .specific projects and not available for inclusion in a comprehensive solution. In all likelihood, the initiative will fail and that failure will be misinterpreted as public opposition to increasing the fuel tax. Voters will reject your proposal because, as Mr. Katz points out, it is flawed. That rejection will thereafter be construed as opposition to any fuel tax increase --; a long-lasting and regrettable event. The state, with the urging of organizations like yours , has established a well-designed system of local, regional and statewide planning and programming processes to deal with transportation requirements in a coordinated, multimodal fashion. Now that the system is functioning well, you will destroy it with a funding $$package,, promulgated in a vacuum, without the benefit of' any planning process , without any oubl c hearing and based 'solaly on which company or organization is willing to finance your campaign and decided on their level of contribution. That . is unconscionable. It proves that every organization and principle is for sale to the highest bidder. I strongly urge your supporters and you not to proceed with this ill-prepared and poorly timed initiative and instead join us for a comprehensive solution in 1995, 1 also want you to know that if you proceed with the initiative, I will actively oppose it and do whatever I can to defeat it. Sine IyLyours,ursP , .ENTIN QLK/mjm cc: Members of the Legislature California Transportation Commission Common Cause Californians for Better Transportation Sierra Club Hon. Thomas Sales James vain Loben Sels John Foran, Ed Gerber Robert Welk Dave Ackernan Larry Dahms Franklin White Bob Starzell Joseph Houghteling Dwight Steele Mehdi Morshed CONSVLTAWS 1��$t)�)��itl MEUSERS jwr A WAN EYJW Yte CN ''d%c" ttli carnia ip,�f l�tturiQ °0'C'm L Err 6a ge Or:r�e f�• Ka" 11S R-wCR ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON is.Ga ww COw.'*►EE SEGNE'�AAr ,q��rwRn `"Ea'°" TRANSPORTATION WIN".' ,, ,., .M Ern CAM0. RICHARD KATZ s.h K.wnr 6rrrrnrno CA9W14 W+�..wKnpni 19'E,A5.7278 Chairman e1eia LK A.&M"MCOW4 t 6,&a NUOIAA�c Tom U-ftt'9 Too W*W,A-e October Q, 1993 James Knox Planning and Conservation League 926 J Street, Ste. 612 Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Jim: I recently received a copy of PCL's proposed initiative and would offer the following comments. . . 1. Once again the auction of taxpayer dollars is underway to the highest special interest bidderl The initiative has been cleverly written to provide hundreds of millions of dollars to the Southern Pacific Railroad. the Morrison Knudsen Corporation, and the electric utilitiesthroughout the state disguised as a pro-environment, pro-transit funding propasal. I vont list all the gifts of taxpayers dollars here. I need only cite the priority and funding given to the acquisition of Southern Pacific's Coast Line foi $200 million in public funds as an example. Or the commitment of $98 million to •exercise remaining options' in Morrison Knudsen's 'contract to produce California rail care. . .a contract so flawed and troubled that it' s to be investigated by the State Auditor. This kind of 'fire sale* where taxes are. by lav, required to be spent to buy things from private companies in return for campaign contributions is immoral, and ultimately .ill be illegal. The end. Jim. doesn't justify the means. 2. Because of the 'sale' of project-by-project funding and the arbitrary priorities set by the initiative for local expenditures such as the allocation of $200 million for rail development on the 8xposition Line in Loc Angeles, the process of local decision-making for transportation investments is trashed. Local land-use decisions will be driven by the 'give away' approach you're proposing. I hope you've considered this fact carefully rather than how much the project benefactor can pay. , 3. The concept of using public funds to electrify and otherwise improve rail lines which are ovned by the private railroads astonishes me, and constitutes a gross violation of the constitutional provisions which prohibit the gift of public funds. Pnmrd OM P*Cyeod Paps• Jim Knox October 8, 1999 Page 2 4. The voters approved a 100Z fuel tax rate for both gasoline and diesel fuel in 1990. And they authorized nearly 63 billion in general obligation bonds for passenger rail including your own Proposition 116. Since then, the federal government has increased fuel taxes another $.043 per gallon. And compliance with both state and federal clean fuel standards has added to fuel costs. Four years after Prop. ill, 108 and 116, and these subsequent fuel tax and fees increases you propose to seek another $600 million a year in new taxes? I'm sorry, Jim, I view this action as irresponsible at best. You'll obviously jeopardize the potential success of the rail passenger bond already scheduled for the 1994 ballot which you've historically supported and upon which commitments have been made in the state transportation improvement program. 5. ithile I agree that some additional level of funding may be needed in future for public transportation operations, your initiative sets efficiency and cost effectiveness as the third priority for the new revenues. But, not one of your eligibility criteria requires any reduction or limit on the cost of providing transit service. Neither are the equity issues of the cost of providing bus-, service yt rail service dealt with. In short, there' nothing to ensure the taxpayers that they'll get•a more cost effective system. Your cover letter seems to suggest that since the Legislature didn't support your AS 3600 in 1992, an initiative is justified. That just doesn't wash3 The Legislature didn't approve AB 3600 because fuel taxes have been increased 1501 in the last four years! And by the way, AB 9800 relied upon the. existing state budget process .for the allocation of resources, and did NOT include special interest projects. I hope you won't damage the chances of the passage of the rail passenger bond you previously supported by pursuing this ill-timed. special interest crafted give-away. iny, RD TZ. Chairman Assembly Transportation Committee RR:jsa cc: Members of the Legislature California Transportation Commission Common Cause Citizens for Bttter Transportation SAC 54AMENTO ADDRESS STATE CAPITOL COMsA+TtEES P O 80x W649 S S P rit � VICE CHAIR cACAAMENY0 CA 9+249-OCOI �J TAA%SPDRTAyloN EMBER DISTRICT00FICE California '7"%r 1 MMEALIM 3!12 EAST CLOAENCE AVENUE LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SUITE 20+ PU8LjC EMPLOYEES. DOUN7I14STONPARK CA 9025S MARTHA M. ESCUTIA AETIREMENTAND 17i 3:582.7774 SOCIAL SECURITY ntStMs►w+csM•a•rrTlnw dstnh-t bELECT COI.+W7 rCE GMAIR ALAMEDA CDARIOOR E'AO,aECt November 10, 1993 Gerald Merril o ; ' Executive Director Planning and Conservation League 926 J Street, Suite 612 Sacramento, CA 95614 ' Dear Mr. Meral , After closely reviewing your recently unveiled statewide ballot initiative that raises funds for rail and other transportation projects , I must strongly oppose your efforts. I sympathize with your desire to generate much needed transportation funds, but your proposal is severely flawed and counter to the public good. California continues to face demanding economic conditions, Which means the State and other concerned parties must be frugal and forthright when requesting tax dollars from the public. The ' Planning and Conservation League's (PCL) proposed rail bond initiative is ill .:conceived and provides money for special interest not the public interest. The 1989 Transportation Blueprint legislation outlined California's long term transportation funding plan, which hinges on voter approval of three separate bond measures. The third S1 billion bond measure will go before the voters in 1994 . It is unconscionable to put forth a second transportation bond measure which confuses the voters and subordinates the local decision making process. California's transportation decision making process centers on local prioritization of projects. These local and regional transportation authorities hold public hearings, analyze information and debate their - local transportation funding plans. This may not always be expedient nor will every desired project be approved but it is the synthesis of public input for public benefit. The PCL sponsored transportation bond usurps the local decision making process :by establishing a funding source for special , interest, special benefit projects. This inevitably will force local transportation authorities to supplant established project priorities for PCL funded transportation projects. Itertrwnirng tA•meas and communion of NE.bail C+Yefnr,Cetrn.e�c� Cud%%) E&%,, fiorsnte.Granam MuntrnjlaM tart MrT�ecedM110 'O"ntt S*Wth 0440.Ytrnon,end%%,I,,,Paea E - Pnnted on AKycov Pape, .l Gerald Meral November 10, 1993 Page 2 Important decisions such as land-use, bus vs . rail and electrification need to be debated on a case by case basis, not driven by PCL and other private interest. Also, it is both unreasonable and unfair to have the votes in San Francisco setting the transportation priorities of Los Angeles and visa versa . In the name of good public policy and the need to support local : decision making authority; I ask you to rethink continued promotion of the PGL proposed transportation bond. Let us join efforts to garner support for the already eligible transportation bond scheduled for the 1994 ballot. The legislature will also be reviewing the revenue expenditures of the qualified bond measure to assure a clear reflection of public interest not private profiteering . Sincerely, Martha Escutia Assemblywoman, 50th District ME:smw cc: Members of the Legislature California Transportation Commission Common Cause': Citizens forl; Better Transportation Southern Pacific Transportation Co. Los Angeles ;Metropolitan Transportation Authority OPPOSITION FORM I/We oppose Proposition 185. You may add our name to your endorsement list. (Please print) Organization/Individual Name Authorized Signature Printed Name Title Mailing Address Phone FAX Please complete this form and fax to: No on Proposition 185 (415) 375-8148 Or mail to: No on Proposition 185 111 Anza Boulevard, Suite 406 Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (415) 340-0470