Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12021997 - SD2 TO: Y BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE DATE: December 2, 1997 SUBJECT: California Transportation Commission's Draft Guidelines for the Implementation of Senate Bill 45. I. Recommended Action: A. OPPOSE the California Transportation Commission (CTC) staff recommended guidelines on the implementation of Senate Bill 45 regarding the following issues: 1. Set aside for retrofit sound walls 2. Restrictions on the use of Regional Choice funds B. REQUEST that the CTC include the Transportation Enhancement funds (TEA) in the Regional Choice funds. C. AUTHORIZE the Chair to send a letter to the California Transportation Commission to voice the above concerns. Continued on Attachment: X Yes _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE THER SIGNATURE (S): Donna Gerber f/4ala ACTION OF BOARD ON December 2, 1997 APPROVED AS R C M NDED�_OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ---------- ) I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and AYES: NOES: correct copy of an action taken and entered on ABSENT: ABSTAIN: the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. MMS:drg g\admiMbosb45.wpd ATTESTED: December 2. 1997 Orig.Div: Public Works(Administration) Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Contact: Maurice Shiu(313-2251) Supervisors and Cou y Administrator cc: Transportation Authority Senator Rainey Assemblyman Tom Torlakson Assemblywoman Lynne Leach CAO `N V.Alexeeff Dennis Bearry,CDD s ne Wampler, Deput lerk California Transportation Commission's Draft Guidelines for the Implementation of Senate Bill 45. December 2, 1997 Page Two II. Financial Impact: None to general funds. The proposed guidelines, if adopted, may reduce the amount of State transportation,funds available to the County. III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: Senate Bill 45 which was signed into law this year will change the process of how transportation projects will be selected and programmed in the State. Senate Bill 45 combines many Transportation funds into two categories: Regional Choice and Interregional Transportation programs. Seventy-five percent of the funds will go into the regional choice program which is appropriated to each county based on population and centerline mileage of state highways. In our case, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) will be responsible for programing projects for the Regional Choice program. The remaining funds will be programmed by the CTC. In 1989, as part of the Transportation Blueprint legislation, Assembly Bill 471 included in it a list of retrofit sound wall projects that would be funded by the increase in gasoline tax. These sound wall projects were programmed in the last ten years from a special fund. The project costs, however, counted against the counties' minimum allocation and counted as part of the north California and south California split. As of today, about $120 to 200 million of the retrofit sound wall projects are still to be completed. Since these projects were included in Assembly Bill 471, they represent commitments the legislature has made to the people of California. CTC staff has proposed that the funds needed for retrofit sound wall projects be taken off the top before any county share is calculated. This will reduce the amount of funds available to counties that have completed the retrofit sound wall program using their county minimum allocations in the past. Staff recommends the Board oppose this action. The retrofit sound wall projects should be part of each County's share of state transportation funds. One of the objectives of Senate Bill 45 is to allow local governments to decide which are the most important projects in that locality. The County and the MTC have long advocated flexibility and local decision making and has taken the position that projects that would reconstruct or rehabilitate local arterials are eligible projects. The CTC staff is recommending to the CTC that local arterials reconstruction and rehabilitation should not be allowed as eligible projects. Staff recommends the Board to oppose this interpretation on the ground that project eligibility should be a local decision as long as it does not violate the law. In 1990, as part of the Federal transportation Authorization, a new program called Transportation . Enhancement Activities (TEA) was created. This program has been administered by the State Resources Agency in the past. The issue is should the TEA funds be included in the Regional Share calculation? If it is, then each region will have to set aside part of the funds for that program. The other alternative is to take the TEA funds off the top and to continue the current practice of the State Resources Agency administering the program. Staff recommends that the Board express its preference of including the TEA funds in the Regional Share. This will allow the MTC and the County to jointly decide how the TEA funds will be used instead of relying on the Resources Agency. IV. Consequences of Negative Action: There may be less funds available to Contra Costa County and the use of these transportation funds may be restricted. The Board of Supervisors Contra �rk�� County Administration Building Costa County Ad nnisaator 651 Pine Street, Room 106 (510)335-19W Martinez,California 94553-1293 County Jim Ropers,tst District 5E ,G Gayle B.Ullkems,2nd District Donna Gerber,3rd District Mark DeSaulnisr,4th District Joe Canclemille,5th District _ oa sr 'a COUNT December 2, 1997 Edward G. Jordan, Chair California Transportation Commission 1120 N. Street, Room 2221 Sacramento, Ca 95814 Dear Mr. Jordan: I want to express my appreciation for the tremendous task that you, your fellow commissioners and staff have in accomplishing the implementation Senate Bill 45 in such a short time frame. As a local government representative, I am concerned that many of the staff recommendations may not have the full benefit of public input and debates. Specifically, we are concerned about the recommendation regarding retrofit sound wall projects included in Assembly Bill 471 and the determination of eligible projects. Contra Costa County supported Senate Bill 45 on the basis that Senate Bill 45 provides a fair and equitable way of allocating state transportation funds and Senate Bill 45 puts the responsibility of project selection in the hands of local governments who better understand the needs and desires of the communities they serve. The staff recommendations on retrofit sound wall and project eligibility negates these two important aspects of Senate Bill 45. The Transportation Blue Print Legislation in 1989 included a list of retrofit sound wall projects and set aside a portion of the funds for this program. When retrofit projects were programmed, they were part of the north/south split and county minimum calculation. This was a fair and equitable way to program state transportation funds. Since the retrofit sound wall program is now merged into the regional choice program, any unfunded retrofit sound wall projects, therefore, should be counted against the county share and north/south split. To do otherwise, would penalize counties that faithfully followed the Blue Print Legislation and programmed their funds to implement Assembly Bill 471. California Transportation Commission Z-- December 2, 1997 Page Two Your staff has recommended that local arterial reconstruction and rehabilitation projects not be eligible for inclusion in the regional choice program. While Contra Costa County does not contemplate using regional choice funds for this purpose, the Board of Supervisors feels the intent of the Senate Bill 45 is to return the decision making power to local governments. If this is the case, then why artificially restrict the use of the regional choice funds? If CTC starts to place restrictions on the use of funds, then should CTC restrict the use of funds for transit rehabilitation projects, or non commute bicycle and pedestrian facilities? In the true spirit of Senate Bill 45, let us.make that decision. As of today, local governments have received no indication as to how CTC will treat the Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) program. Again, consistent with the intent of Senate Bill 45, TEA funds should be included in the county share calculation with each county deciding how its TEA funds will be spent with CTC deciding how the State's twenty-five percent of the TEA funds will be spent. want to thank you for considering Contra Costa County's concerns. We understand that the CTC will be acting on staff recommendations on December 9. Please consider th.is as part of the public testimony on those issues. Very truly yours, Mark DeSaulnier Chair-Board of Supervisors MD:MMS:drg g:ladmin\shiu\97-11\ctc.wpd cc: Senator Quenton Kopp State Capital Sacramento P.O.Box 94248 Sacramento,CA 94248-0001 Senator Richard Rainey State Capital Sacramento P.O.Box 94248 Sacramento,CA 94248-0001 Assemblyman Tom Torlakson 815 Estudillo St. Martinez,CA 94553 Assemblywoman Lynne Leach 800 South Broadway,Suite 304 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Robert McCleary,Executive Director 1340 Treat Blvd.Suite 150 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Lawrence Dahms,Executive Director Metropolitan Transportation Commission 101 8th Street Oakland,CA 94607-4700 Max Bridges,Director-Public Works San Benito County 3220 Southside Road Hollister,CA 95023 Don LaBelle,Director-Public Works Alameda County 399 Elhmurst St.,Room 111 Hayward,CA 94544 Members-Board of Supervisors P.Batchelor,CAO V.Alexeeff,GMEDA M.Walford,Admin.