HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02192003 - CCTA SPECIAL MEETING FOR THE CONTRA
STA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CCT SUPERVISORS
WORKSHOP
ON RENEWAL OF MEASURE
February 19, 2003 .00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Please see Agenda and Power Point Presentation attacked.
SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA
FORTHE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CCTA/Board of Supervisors Workshop on
Renewal of Measure C
February 19, 2003 at 6:00 pm. to 7:30 p.m.
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Offices
3478 Buskirk Avenue, #100
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
AGENDA
Call to Order/Introductions (Chairs Donald P. Fre-itas and Mark DV-Saulnier)
a1. History of the Process Leading to Passage of Contra Costa's local transportation
sales tax program®Measure C (Bill Gray&Eric Zell)
Current Status of Measure C Program (Bob McCleary)
17V. Relationship to "Shaping our Future" (Don Blubaugh)
V. Overview and Discussion of the anticipated Public Participation Process
a. Public Meetings (Bill G.-ay, David Early)
b. Expenditure Plan Advisory Co=- .ittee (EPAQ) (David Early)
c. Focus Groups(Alex Evans)
d. Public Opinion Polling (Alex Evans)
e. Commm-ani"cations Plan
V1. Discussion of mutual goals and objectives for renewal of Measure C (facilitated
Discussion led by Bill Gray&David Early)
VII. Public Comment
V111. Adjournment(by approximately 7:30 p.m, ,'; Reffresl=ents following
G:\—ra-,is-,o-tatio3l\Steve\CCTA-BOS Agenda doe
CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
COMMISSIONERS:S: Donald P.Freitas, Chair Julie Pierce, `Dice Chair J anet Abelsrsn Charlie Abrams Maria Aleb ria
Kris Valstad Jahn Gioia Federal Glover Brad Nix Nancy Tararka Amy Worth
AGENDA
DATE. Wednesdav,February 199 2003
TME. 6M p.m. SPECIAL.JOINT I ET G ar to Agenda.)y1th
Centra Costa CounjE2oard.0f SRRffviM
TIME. 8.00 p.m. REGULAR CCTA BOARD MEETING
LOCATION: Contra Costa Transportation Authority
oo store Square,3478 Buskirk Ave,, 100,Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
A. CONVENE
MEETING-
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANM
Ce PUBLIC COMMENT.
Members o=the public are invited to addrdss the Authority regarding any itemn that is not Listed on
the agenda, 'lease complete 0116 of the sP eoker opals in a&areae cf the ineeting and hand it to a
men7ber of the staff.
D3 ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR. 17he Authority will elect a Chair and Vice Chair
to Serve for the next 12 months, (Action)
E. COMMENDATION TO RETIRING CHAIR.
AN DONALD P. ���TA�.
COQ STT E A SSIG MENTS.
Traditionaliv,the Chairperson considers requ seed changes to cornu.ttee ass.gnmerts based on tl'e
interes s o4`Commissioners. Desired reassignments should be commnrlunicapted to Anita by Febmary
2n (JnfOrr,Gti> 7 )
APPROVAL OF MEIMTES. Authority Minutes of January 15, 21003. (attachment-Action'
Si3:JTTI E SERVICEM, A County Carnecftn Link shuttle will be available at the Pleasant I-1iii BART station for the,Adrnitustration&PF ''ors,Manning and F0,
Au horny meetings. Pickupsidropoffs are sc eduled one-half hour prior to each+�edns and approximately two to two aid one-hal;hours later{based on estimated time
of adjo snment}.Una County Connection Link Shuttle e.stara despo'nible en to estacion tie Pleasant frill BART para lax a.samblecas horaria(una bora de la en-notal
antes y urea tnirad h.ora de areas adelante).
TRANSLATION SERVICES, if you require a translator to facilitate testimory to the Authority,please contact A:ata at 256-4722-to later than 48;hours in advanca of
the scheduled mec+.irg. Si usted re�taiere a u;.traductor para facflatur ae.stitncnio u la Authorit},Por j'avor P?ame Anita al(925)Z56-4721:48 bora,;anus le la
asamblea.
ADA COMPLIANCE: This Agenda shall he made available upon request in alternative formats to persons with a disability,as required by:he Annericaas with
Disabilities Act of'990(42 U.S.C.Sec.12132)and the Ralph M.Brown Act(Cal.C•ovt.Code Sec.54954.2). Persons requesting a disabi':ity-related„codification oc
accomraodatio s auld contact Anita fitz¢ibt o zs a 925-255-4722 dnrir.<rem dor bUs 1-ss hours et leas 24 hours p 3or to ire t me ai tha mcear.¢. __
Robert K.McCleary,Executive Director 3478 auskb*Ave.,Suite IOD Pleasant H ill, CA 9452.3
Phone:925-407-0121 Flax,925-407-0128 Website:y wwx ccta.n-et
AUTHORITY AGENDA.
February 19,20€3
Page 2
2< C A Consent Iters recommended by tare following committees:
1A A Wfifit tt, dfi.-&,Pr����
2.AJ Monthly Project Status Report. (No Attachrrr.ent-Information. in APC packet)
2,A.2 Warrants Issued for Month of Decembers (No Attachnsent-Infor-rnation in APC packet)
2.A.3 Modifications to Existing Resolutions. Consistent with Authority Policy, approp.zation
resolutions may be modified to extend their expiration date, or reflect actual construction bid
arnounts, or be terminated if the activity that was funded has been comb-Ieted. Recommended
changes are summarized. <A-ttachment-Action) _
1AA Monthly Investment Transactions Reports for December 2002. State law, and the
Authozdity's investment Policy require this report. (Strrrzriaary Attachment-Action)
2.A.5 Quarterly Financial Report, The Quarterly Financial Report focuses on *.rends in sales tax
receipts and investment income for the fourth quarter of calendar year 2002. Q9uarterly financial
status reports are also provided.. (Sur urnaryAttachment-R.ction)
2.A.6 State route 4 (e)Projects—Status date. Status updates for three 4 (e) projects are
€T
included: Railroad to"overidge, Loveridge to Sly-:50 and Puss Avenue Park and Ride gat.
(Surninary Attachment-Action.)
1A.7 State Repute 4 (e)'Widening Project®Railroad Avenue to Loveridge Road.—Amendment
No. 1 to the Memorandum of€ nderstand.ing(THOU) Nvith East Contra Costa.Regional Pee
and Financing Authority. (Project 1405). The current 1V OU provides for a$2 million
contribution, only for the Harbor Street Qvercross.ng. The proposed amendment will allow
funds to be expended on all consta-uction phases. Agreement, 14,05.02 tree. 1) (Sumnr.ary
Attachment-Action)
2.A.8 Contract Renewal: Financial Advisor*. The current contract with the Authority's Financial
Advisor, Public Finance Management(PFM) expires soon, Staff seers approval to extend the
agreement and Contract 148. Contract 148 (Summary Attach7nent- ction)
1A: 9 Authorization for the Authority Chair to execute agreements with Caltrans. Each time the
Authority enters into an agreement with the State, Caltrans requires that a resolution,be adopted
by CC TA's Board authorizing the Char to execute that agreement. Resolution 03-02-P world
mer:^onalize that the Au'riority's Chair is authorized to execute such agreerr^en's on behalf of the
Authority. (Sutazrnary Attachment-Action)
2>AACss Semi-Annual Financial Statements for the Six Months Ended December 31,2002. Staff
will present a comparison of actual expenditures, compared with budget for the first six months
of the fiscal year. Further analysis of this information may lead to proposed mid-year budget
ad;ustments i s March. (Sunsnaary Attachment-Action)
AUTHORITY AGENDA
February 19,2003
Page 3
2.AJ1 Route 4 Corridor Transit Study-Staff seeks authorization for approval of Extra Work
Order No. 3 to Contract 139 with Wilbur Smith Associates and Amendment No.2 to
Cooperative Agreement No. 14.00,06 with BART for extra work items. *
2.A.1.1..1 Extra Work Order N o 0 3 to C on s u I ti,r-.g A gre eir-aent,leo. 13 9 wit.11 Wilbur Smith,
Assoclates in the amount of$43,1150 to cover, extra work items: Phase I
Environmental Site 'Assessment,Wetlands Evaluation and Station Area Pm-n-nmg,
2.A11.2 Arnendm ent No. 2 to Cooperedve Agreement No. 14.00.06 with BART in the,amount
of$40,000 to cover BART staff. work in support ofulhe extra work itenns.
2A Authorization for Travel. Autho-14zation is requested for the Authority's Deputy Director of
Planning to travel out of state to speak at,the Southwest Region Transportation Model User's
Group 'Conference. This frip, estirnated to cost$500, would normally require APC a-im- roval, but
is being broughtdpi ectlyto the Authority, (Attachment-Action)
2.B
2.&1 City of Antioch Calendar Years 2000 & 2001 Growth Management Compliance Checklist.
Staff recommends approval of a first payment of$989,214 in Fiscal gear 2001-02 Local Street,
Maintenance and improvement funds tot?e City offAntioch, and a second (off year)payment of
FY 02-03 funds on the one-year anniversary of the first payment. (SumnlaryAttachment-
Action)
2.13.2 Status of the Decennial Model Update, The consultant t--arn of Cambridge Systematics with,
Dowling Associates continues to make progress -on updating the countyvvide travel de-mand
forecasting model. Staff will-rovide,a progress report. jsvnvnary Atrachnsent-Action)
2.13.3 Authority Approval; to Begin Contract Negotiations with the Selected Consultant for
Transportation System Monitoring*. Authorit-y staff-released, RFP 03-2 in Ja:.-.ua,,y to solicit
proposals for rnonitori ng the transportadon system in Contra Costa as part of the 2003
Update and the 2004 Update to the Countywide Clomprehtnsive Transpottaticn Plan. Proposals
were due on'January 30, 20103. (Summary Attachineist-Action)
2.BA Extension of Contract for Paratransit Coordination Consulting Services*, Sirice 1992, the
Authority has contracted with Mr. W01liarn T I
1-skarn-in,to provide consulting services on
paratran-sit issues and to serve as the Autlhornty's Pa=-aTnsit Coordinator. 1'14r, Liskarnm i-no-nitors
Daratransit issues for the Authority,makes recoixiinendat=ons on the Measure C Paratransit
funding program, Section 5310 funds, and allocation for-m-nulae, serves as the facilitator for the
Pa-ratransir,Coordinating Council, works on paratransit coordinado, issues, and develops several
reports throughout the year. The current extension woul
I Ild befor one year, fro mmarch 1, 2003
to Febnary29, 2004, and would continue the terms and conditions it this past year's extension.
(Summary Attachnsent-Action)
AUTHORITY AGENDA
February 199 2003
Page 4
2.B.5 Refining the Growth Management ent Program (GIMP) Options Paper. The GMP Options
paper was released by PC in October 2002 for review by all interested parties, Since thea, many
urisdictions, several RTPCs, and the CAC have commented on the paper. Staff has compiled
the comments for review and discussion by the PC. The next steps are for,staff to refine the
GMP and begin assessing them in anticipation of developing a preferred GIP Opdon for
inclusion in, the Measure C Reauthorization, The PC he'd this item for further discussion
regarding the goals and objectives of Measure C. (Sumnia,ryAttaclbtraerzt-Ir formation)
2.B.6 Defining Scenarios for the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
(CTP). In January, the CTP Task Force reviewed and discussed potential scenarios for the 2004
Update to the CTP. Based upon these scenarios, staff will generate alternative project
descriptions for analysis in the CTP EIR. (Surmmaty Attachment-Action'
2.B.7 Paratransit Study update. Last month, the Planning Committee referred issues related to the
Paratra bsit Study to the Paratra.sit Coordinating Committee(PCC). The issues included the
leve: of Measure C paratra;sit funds to the study(fmds that would otherwise be used for
paratransit service), and the broader scope of the study proposed by the County. A letter was
sent to the County Board of Supervisors to determine if the County would be willing to
participate financially in the study, The PCC formed a subcommittee to address the scope and
funding issues. The next meeting of the full PCC is not until March 24, 2003. The PC-)lamas to
review the scope of this proposed study in April. (Surrrizory Attaclinsetzt-Action) +
Z.011� fidltui .Plan Cornma* te
2.C.1 Report on Community Outreach.and.Opinion Research Efforts in Connection with.the
Develonment of an Amended Expenditure Plan and Reauffiorization of Measure C.
2.0.1.1 Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee Deport: Design Con-irnunity&
Environment(DCE) will provide a report on the Expenditure Plan Advisory
Corr-rrnittee (EPAC)meeting held or, raruary 23; 2003. (Attachment-Inforrrlatia71
2.C.1 e2 Schedule of Public Workshops. DC&E wi':l present a::update on progress to
convene a series of public workshops on the Reauthorization of.Measure C. The
Committee should confi'm the number and the location of the workshops.
(Attachment-Action).
ETND;0F CONSENT CALENDAR
3.0 MAJOR DISCUSSION TEMS:s
3.C.1.3 Opinion Research -Focus Groups. Our public opinion research consultant, Evans
McDono,.:gh (EMC) will present the findings of eight focus groups held between January 22 and
fanuary 31, 2003 on Measure C Reautho,zation. (Attaclaraaerat-.1r2fort7r.atiori)
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
......... ......... ......... ........................ .. ...... _ _ .. ......... _..._ ......... ....
AUTHORITY AGENDA
February 19,2003
Page 5
1C.3 Opinion.Research -Rolls. EMC will present the key objectives, and overall approach for the
baseline poll to be conducted in raid March. ( .tachmes d-Iisforrtation),
4,0
4,A A� rrstrfior
4.AJ2 Legislation. Staff will.report on legislation introduced in the 20 3-04 Legislative Session. The
Authority nay tape action on these or any other bilas relevant to the Authority's Legislative
Progrann car i acluded in the packet.
• SCA (Torlakson): 50 percent local voter threshold for approval of transportation s-les
taxes, 'Ine'udes "Sr;mit Growth" set-asides. Reconmended position: SUPPORT i,
can ended.
• ACA 7 (Datra): 55 percent local voter threshold. Clarify Authority eligibility,
Reccrrarrzended position: SUPPORT if carnended,
4.As12.1 State Funding Crisis. Staff will report on thelatest developments statewide and at
:roe regional level regarding the`--an-mortation community's response to the crisis.
i Swnni ary Anacl meat-Action to be Lernsinedj
4.1 Letter to BART regarding appointment of new Director. Directow Willie Kennedy has
resigned from;he BART Board, Her district is comprised of 47 percent C--ntra Costa residents,
32 percent Aia4neda residents aatd 21percent,San I~rancisco residents. Ala neda cuirrentlyhas
four of nine BART seats. Therefore, a letter to BART is recom r:ended,requesting that the paity
appointed to fill this spat be a resident of Contra Costa County. (Ilio 1 ttachr lent-Action)
None
5.€I CCR�SB€ l DENCE.A l3 CO ? I�t�A
5A Authority letter, dated 2/1 /03, to the City of?ittsbt;rg regarding future placement of
signage at Century Plaza/Auto Mall that could fall wi-th;n the dight-oaf-way of Route 4
expansion.
6.€I ASS3;C11 A3 'CI T SS's
6.1 Central County (TRANSPAQ-
6.2 Bast County(TRANSP AN):
63 Southwest County(SWAT)
6A West County (WCCTAAC):
6e5� Ccnference ofMayors (COW
AUTHORITY AGENDA
February 199 2003
Page 5
i _
M Chair's Co rm.ents
7.2 Co m-:dssione£'s' Clo m eats
7.3 Executive Staff Comments
7.3.1 Report from Bay Area Pat�ership Meeting cif l'e ruary p0tb.
8.0 C o Jan-amy/Pe ruary/March 2003
9..0 tc lMareh iSth at 5:00 p.m.
"Footnote: U nder California Government Code Section 84308,Commissioners ars reminded that they must disclose on the record of the proaceding tiny contribution received from any party or participant m the
proceeding in the amount of more than 5256%thin:he preceding i 2 months. Farther,no Commissioner shag make,participate in making,or in anyway attempt to influence the decision in the proccoding if the
Commissioner has willfully or knowingly received a contribution in an amount of more then 5250 within the preceding 12 months from a party or his or her agent,or from any participant,or his or her agent,
provided,however,that she Commissioner'snows or has reason to knew L1at;he participant has a financial interest in the decision. For further elfOrmatiOn and-for defnitiens of certain terms herein,
Commissioners are referred to Government Code Section 54508 and to any applicable regulations adopted pursuant thereto.
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
_. ........ ......... ......... ...........__.... .... ._...... ......................
CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
SUMMARY MINUTES
January 1S,2003
Commissioners Present: Donald P. Freitas,Chair,Julie P-lerce,price-Chaiur
Charlie Abram,s, h Anderson,Don, Tatzir.,fancy—1 Wiazka,
Maria Allgria,JaneAbelson,Brad Nix,Federal'lover
Commissioners Absent. John Gioia
Commissioner Alternates Present:
Ex-Officlo Member Present: Joe' Keller, Gregg Wheatland
Staff Present: Bob McCleary.Martin Engelmann,Adelle Bourgart,Brad Beck, Susan Miller,
shan
m Noeimsave Murray, Stan Taylor(Authority Counsel),
Anita Fitzgibbons ("Executive Secretary)
A. CONVENE MT ESTI The Chair convened the meeting at 6:07 P.m:
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-
C. PUBLIC COMMENT,
There were no public comments.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES., Authority Minutes or'December 28, 2002.
ACTION:
Commr sioner Nix-moved to approve ffie minutes,second by Commissioner Tatzin. The motion passed
9-0 (Commissioner Alegria had not yet arrived).
Commissioner Alegria arrived at 6:10 p.m,
EA WEAK loonse fen.ltem- r commended by the following committees:
Commissioner Pierce asked the Chair to remove item 2.C5 farm the/-
Consent Callendarfordiscuss"'on.
ACTION-
Commissioner Tatz"In moved to approve the Consent- Calendar except for item 2.C.5, secord by
Carrs.missionerPrix. The motion passed 10-0.
2.A
2.AA Monthly Project Status Report,
2.A,,2 Warrants Issued for Month of November.
2-A.3 Listing of Construction Change Orders(CCOs) that exceed,$25,000. Authority pollicy requires
that this '-'.s*be submitted to the APC for information,
AUTH(J'R711 Y MEETING, Summary mutes,May 114, 2002
2.A.4 Monthly Investment Transactions Reports for November, State law, and the Authority's
Investment Policy require this repot.
2.A.5 Route 4(east)Bailey Road Interchange i Willow Pass Grade Lowering (Projects 1401 &
1402)< As part of the final close out of right-of-way acquisition, the County is requesting
amendrn n s to three existing appropriation resolutions. No additional funds are being requested.
Resolutions 9I-08-P,91-37RP,9I®47-R
1A.6 Release of Request for Proposals for Independent Auditor. The Authority uses a competitive
process to select arr independent auditor every four or five years. Our current xuditors,Macias 'Gin".1
have been under contract since 1998,
2.A.7 Submittal of FY 2001-02 Compliance Audits. The City of Pittsburg, Parsons l3rinckerhoff
Construction Services and the Lam orinda School.Bars Program have submitted compliance audits ir:
accordance,with CCTA Resolution 9302-A {rev.41,
2.A.8 El Cerrito BART Parking Garage(Project 2301). Last month El Ce Aito's City Manager rrade a
verbal presentacior. on the City's approach to the proiect. The Authority agreed to an appropriation
of up to$50,000 to develop implementation documents, which are to be in:place by January 31,
2003. At staff's request, the City Inas prepared a detailed surnmary of the proposal, including the
d
financ*al plant, schedule and anticipated agreements, The City staff attended the APC rneetirng to
present the detailed proposal. The APC strongly supported the project concept, and asked that a
formal agreernent with El Cerrito be completed for the March or April meeting.
2.A.9 Rome 4 Corridor Transit Study. The study's po?icy advisory committee has now approved the
el3ART"C-2"a;terrnative that was reviewed win the Authority last October. Staff requests that the
Authority form, ally endorse the proposal, so that it can move into the environmental phase.
Resolution 03-01-P
2.A.II Renewal of Smith—Watts Contract for Legislative Advocacy.
2.B Plrirt 6rnit <
2,13.2 City of El Cerrito Calendar"Fears 2000 &2001 Growth Managernent Compliance Checklist,
Recommend allocatiorn of FY 01-02 Local Street Maintenance and Irrnprovement Funds in the
amc int of$311,066.
1R.3 City of Walnut Creep Calendar Fears 2000 &2001 Growth Management Compliance
Checklist. Recommend allocadop of FY 01-2 Local Street Mainte-nance an;d lMiproverrnent Funds
in the amount of$727,075.
1BA Town of Danville Calendar`ears 2000&2001 Growth Management Compliance Checklist.
Recommend allocation of FY 01-2 Local Street Mairntenarsce and Ir provement funds irn the
amount of$541,335.
2.B.5 City of Concord Calendar Fears 2000 & 2001 Growth Management Compliance Checklist.
Recom,nend allocation of FY 01.7 Local Street Maintenance amid improvement Funds lin the
amount of$1,339,126.
AUTHORITY MEETUING, Summary minutes,May 15, 2002
2.B�6 City of Clayton Calendar Years 2000 &2001 Growth Management Compliance Checklist.
Recommend alloewdon of EY 01-2 Local Street Maintenance and*Improvers ent Funds in the
amount of W8,655.
2.B,8 Approval of Agreement with l vett&Braila to provide Ongoing Planning Services for the
Congestion and, Growth Management Programs. Staff recom-mends approval of an agreement
in the amount of$480,000 to provide consultant services in support of the 2003 CMIP Update, the
2004 Countywide Placa Update,possible revisions to the Growth,Management I m ple entat on
Doc r eats, and ongoing planning staff support,
IC.1 Update to the Summary of Regional Transportation Planning Committees' and Transit
Operators' Project and.Program Submittals. An;updated summary that reflects input from
WCCT AC has beer,proposed.
2.C.2 Projects Definitions and Costs Estimation -Approval of Contract with CCS Planning and
Engineering. Ln November 2002, the Authority approved:he selection of CCS to update the
A.utho ty's Cost G:< de and provide project definition and cost estimation services for prospective
Measure C Renewal projects.
2.0<3 Public Outreach/Polling/Strategic Planning M Approval of Contract.with Gray-Bowen &
Company,Inc. i"&November 2002, the A-uthority approved the selection of Gray-Bowen &
Company(GEC)to provid:-Public Outreach/Polling/Strategic Puna-Ang services for the
reauthorizat or of Measure C. she Gray-Bowen tea:: mch;des Zell &Associates,
Evans/McDonough Company(---MC), Design,Community &Environment LC&E„T.-he Next
Generation, and Barnes,-1moshe , 1itehurst,Lauter and Partners (BMWL),
ICA Refinement of Measure C Renewal Process. Gray-Bowen &Company presented its zn tip
recommendations for ref n-I .g the Measure C Renewal Process, A more detailed milestone schedule
is in preparation.
2.Cw5 Schedule of EPAC Meetings. Design Comrnumity&Enviro nment presented an update on is
progress to convene the first Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (, PA Q meet°:'gig, currently
scheduled for Thursday, j anwary 23d at 4:00 p.m.
ACTION:
Commissioner Pierce moved to approve Iter:2,C,5, second by Commissioner Glover. The motion
passed 10-3.
DISCUSSION:
CommissionerPierce requested that this item be pulled from the Consent Cale:�dar for discussion,
She:noted that,this issue was discussed at some length at the bast EPC rneeting. The conn lta*t
submitted a set of"ground miles" at that meeting which has been distributed here tonight Ms,
Pierce felt that the staff report in, tonight's packet did not accurately reflect the action taken at the
EPC nneet~r,g. She recalls the co=ittee endorsed the ground?ales and agreed t_ a,t they can only be
changed by a unanimous decision by the EPAC. It was also agreed that the EPA% would be
AUTI-10RITY ME 21�G, Summary Minutes,delay 15, 2002
consensus based; there should be no Chair or'dice Ch air; and no one interest group will, dominate
the process.
Chair Freitas agreed., saying that the EPAC will have stakeholders; and hopefully,by consensus
they will be able to arrive at recommendations. He pointed out that ground rule#4 states, "Since it
is an advisory body, the EPAC will not take formal votes. Instead, it will work to develop a
consensus regarding the issues it addresses. Where no consensus emerges, varying points of view
will be presented to the EPC." Chair Freitas added that this has been debated many tunes and the
EPC warts to be very sure brat everyone is on the same page.
<€lIJI� Ii None
IT
4.0
4.A Adzfaistkat€ranitiietsCo ens
4.A,10 Legislations
4°A.10.1 Transportation Funding in Crisis:An Overview and Recommended.Approach.
ACTION:
Commissioner Fierce moved to accept in concept the policy positions recommended by stay(and
amended to add the words `or regional' to the gas tax recommendation), and add a seventh
recommendation as suggested by Commissioner T atzin, second by Commissioner Anderson. T he
motion passed 10-0.
DISCUSSION:
Bob McCleor, outlined the status of ffie current budget crisis, emphasizing the following points:
Tire Governor has projected an 18-month General Fund deficit of$35 billion;
The legislative anayst's office predicts a.deficit of$27.5 billion;
There is an underlying General Fund structural deficit of$15 billion or more annually, and
many programs are going to be reduced<r�size.
The recom mendaLions from the A-PC ernphasize;pursuing substitute revenues, maintaininR
commitments, and working from,the CMA level dap to develop priorities for project delivery
with diminished revenues.
We car: expect six to eight months of ur,certa nty, because a resolution to transportation funding
is unlikely until the final deal on the state budget.
Some projects are expected to move ahead once the C T C makes decisions about how it deals
with tie.STI'and TORP shortfalls; However, CTC staff advised that they do not envision any
additional Actions on TCRP projects until they are given legislative direction, because the
Adrninistredar has stopped the transfer of general fu-ids into the TCS account.
Commissioner Tatzip referred to staff's recommended policy positions, saying they are oriented
toward raising more money and keeping a project list in place, He added that it is appropriate at a
tir ae line this to deter i e how we can reduce the cost per unit of project delivered. He suggested
adding a 71n recommendation to look at all structural(process) issues that keep costs up and see
what can be done to reduce them.
AUTHORITY MEE T D�G, summary Minutes, May 154 2002
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .
.......... ......... ......... ......... ......__.. .........__.. ..._....... ........ _ _ .......................
Commissioner MY addressed the first two staff recommendations that support increasing the state
tax on gasolime. He expressed'the view that Contra Costa r-night not see a fair return from such an
increase,noting that the state has demonst.rated a strong proclivity to take any funds made available
to it. He suggested Lhat perhaps a regional tax might be a better way to goe
Connmissioner Allierce asked if the concept should be more of a return-to
-source pp ad&rsn
tee back to a
locality so the state will not have iurisdiction over it.
Bob McCleary added that frame state car.,borrow money from viae state highway account, but it is
t seventy five
consvitudionally protected and they will have to pay it back even-tually, He noted th a, sev
percent of the gas tax funds come back to our county or.a strict formula basis, so there are
.-i
-:)rotect,ons m -,)lace. He added that institutional(process' issues can be pursued if the Authoty
feels it,is appropriate. In fact,he stated dhat representatives of`the Administration had, explained
that"accelerating projects" meant lookivag for ways to streamline the delivery process,no',providing
I.
more money, MTC has placed a regional gas tax is on the table, and one of Authority's tasks;IS
to
find a way to lower the vote:-approval vireshold to 55%so the money can be cos trolled locally.
Commissioner Nix suggested amending theist recornmeendation to read.., "Support a five cents
M05)per gallon state or revona7 fuel tax increase ...... This was unanimously accepted by the
other board mernbe.rs.
Commissioner Abrams askedif anyone had ever considered calculatumig the gas tax on a percent
basis rather than *per gallon T Mr. McCleary replied that there is an ongoing discussion about
possibly doing so, or mdexing the tax, However, eldher would reTaire_changing the procedure for
I t
collectirlR tax data. Right now the excise tax is collected by else distri-butOr,rasher than, bythe retail
outlet,which reports it as part of its
total sales,
Comm- issl"oner Abelson asked if it wo-u d be possible for the retail outlet to convert the cents per
gallon to a percent? Mr. IvIrc-Cleary replied that the retaill outlets do not currently have the
rnechanism needed to track individual commodities,but it is fens `o`_
4.A.1U Status of$1 Increase in Bridge Talk.
There was no discussion on this item,
4-A.10.3 Federal TEA3 Special Project Allocation Request. Proposed letters: to Congress-
womm,Ellen Tauscher seeking Special Federal Appropriations aur Route 4,East,Loveridge to L
Street/Contra I'Llorna,; to Congressman Richard Pomba regarding Vasco Road safety improvements
and piachaseof Mococo lire; and to Congressman George Miller regarding Capitoll Conndwr
stationx-provements and the 1-680/S.R4 interchange.
ACTION.
The following action was taken on each of the three draft letters:
Congressman MD err The members agreed 7-3 to add$2 million for Concord's Commerce
em
Avenue extension to the letter(Commissioners Anderson, Freitas and Glover voted no).
1 Cong-lessrnar.Po-.r.bo: The members agreed unanimously to arnend the letter to clFziiffy that the
$40 million, would be used for right-of-way acquisition and e-vironrnents-1 work for e13ART.
AUT HORIT Y MEETING, S u-nmary MJ nutes,May 15, 2002
3. vongresswon an Tausch.: The members agreed unanimously to amend°?le setter aand make the
Route 4 East prosect description simpler.
DES C i.JSS F.W,
Bob McCleary reported that the APC had directed staff to send:eaters to Contra.Costa's
congressional representatives regarding appropriations for the next Federal Transportation.Act
(FTA), Draft letters were included in the meeting packet for review and suggestions.
1) Letter to Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher:
Chair Freitas suggested revising the protect description in the first sentence of the second
paragraph.
2);,.,ester to Congressman George Villers
Commissioner Pierce said that she did not know (when the APC met) that.the City of Concord had
;heady submn iated a letter to Congresswoa-r,an Tauscher with two projects; 1) the Commerce
Avenue extension, which extends from the exit off highway 242 at Concord Blvd.; and 2)
Panorama give extension which connects with the North Concord BPART station, giving it a
second exit. She said that Concord has been working on these two projects for a long tirne and she
would like tc see there included is the letters from the Authority.
Commissioner Abrams expressed concern about adding the two Concord projects, saying it elevates
tea to a,h gher level than all the other regionaYmult ilarisdictianal projects. He asked if other
jurisdictions have projects that would fall into the same category?
Commissioner Anderson -noted that tine APC discussed criteria for selecting projects to be added,
and one criterion: was for any project that had already broker: ground, was in the process of
completion and that would not req ke a great deal of money to complete the project. bn light of that
criterion, she was not sure the two projects should be included. She suggested the projects be
refs -ed to as part of Concord's letter to Congresswoman Tausche~, but not added to the Authority's
letter as two new projects.
Commissioner Glover felt that adding the two Concord protects would open the door to an
unending srtean:of requests to add `special' projects. The fact is, there is not enough money
available and it would be better to go forward with the draft letter as presented tonight.
Chair Freitas agreed with Coni:-ussioner Glover, saying that Congresswoman Tauscher is a`ready
receiving correspondence from TRANS AC about these two projects.
Commissioner Pierce responded that the 1-6801SR 4 prosect was included but has not yet broken
ground. Therefore, the criteria were not firm. She added fgat the letters were drafted at APC
without going to the RTPCs because of time constraints—this led to missing important information
about prosect proposals separately in the works.
The members agreed to add the Commerce Avenue extension:at$2 million or,.a 7-3 vote.
AUTHORITY MEETING, Sum.nary Minutes,May 15, 2002 �
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
............ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ............ ............................ .......... ......... _........ .... __
3 j a.,btter io�"orgressr-.an .;.chard i om o,
Commissioner MY,said that Congressrnwn Po 'bo's support will be very important when the issue of
eBART is on the table. However,the letter asks for$40 million to purchase the Miococo line, but
does trot address the environmental issues, which would cost another$5 mi ho .
Corm missioner Abrams responded that the feasibi-ty of extending eBA-RT from.Bren-twood to :'rack,
is cuestion ble at?gest. Ex-'Of 71it,-ewes Keller said drat ar'.ongressman. Poinbo is aware of the
pote"ndal meed to extend eBART to Tracy; and is supportive of t"he extensions to Antioch h acid
Brentwood. Commissioner Pierce said fiat we-may have an opporti-Irity to acquire the entire rigz t-
of-way, vv hich means we reed to get it environmental!, cleared as soot; as posstlible.
Chair rreltas noted that the APC had raised 'he dollar'anount to$40 million, and u;e letter could
be av,.ended to clarify that itis for aco� isition a•:,d environmental work. The clar%fication was
accepted,
4.'z -- ia
4.B<7 RTPC Review of Visions,Coals,and Strategies,The Authority adopted the Vision, Goals and
Strategies docurnen ri,11i:ly 2000 as a cornerstone of the 2000 Update to the Countywide,
Transportation Plan.Last August,the RTPCs were asked to revisit the document to dere ne if any
revisions were necessary. Staff has cornpiled the review comments for disc-ssion, and suggests
some modifications,
ACTION.
Commissioner Anderson moved to ainend the language under Principles and Assumptions: Bullet
2, ",.,.providing travel options,help enable independent living—," The words 'and to' will be
changed to `that'.to prevent iritis-interpretation of what s being offered, replacing "to.. both sustain
a strong, viable...economy" with "to.,<strpngthen tne..,ec€a^umy," Under Goats and ,Stmtegies,
add another bullet to;tern.three that would say, "Encourage kcal jurmsdictidns to develop bicycle
facilities and to connect those facilities into a coordinated network." Commissioner Tatarka
seconded the motion. The morion passed unanimously, 10-0.
DISCUSSION:
Martin Engelmann distnibuted t<e Planning for the Future Booklet to all.the members, .brad deck
t en reviewed the elision,Goals and Strategies. The PwTPCs had reviewed and ccrnn:ented on
ther;. A-le noted that, overall,the comments provided minor edits and fine carting e.g.. "safe,
dile a.� ata_d a fordable alternawiv s �o tie s_n le cccupa t a toriobzi�, grid p_ vise a> d
expand," instead of;last, ``eXpaild S fm,epi venient, lin rda' le alterrxatives, s9
Camrnissioner Pierre referred to the Principles and Assumptions section, and asked for clarification
of he phrase"....prov ding travel options acid help unable independent living." Slee suggested
changing the word "and' to 'ti at' to prevent `?.i.sinterpretedor, of what is being offered.
Com isioner Pierce asked for the specific language to be used it the section regarding Smart
Growth. ?fir. Beck replied that t<^e suggested wording was"....i iteg-r-ate the transportat on, system
facilities into "he neighborhoods," He believes tare intent of the phrase is that future development
would be transit-oriented. He also pointed out that this is nr of the fin a' document and he anticipates
additional changes prior to adoptions,
AU 3 OR 1Y MEET NG, summary Y-1inutes,May 15, 2002
Cornmissioner Nix referred to the fourth bullet under 1?rinciples and Assumptions, and suggested
changing the language"Achieving this vision will involve an ongoing effort to both sustain a
strong, viable econorny and preserve and enhance the environ-ment." He suggested replacing
"to...both sustain a strong, viable...econorny"with"to.. strengthen the...economy."
Public Comment,
Bruce Ohison, Fast day Bicycle Coalition, suggested adding anodher bullet to iteLn three that would
say, "Encourage local unisdictions to provide bike lanes on local streets and to connect ect these bike
lanes into a network,"
Cindy Dahlgren, County Connection, expressed concern about the change that was suggested for
the second bi llet tinder Principles and Assur ptlans, saying that the suggested language may
possiblyll mut the intent of`travel options.' Chair Freitas suggested, "...provide travel options,
help unable independent living, and be cost-effective....>,
4.0 Ekndlt Conte :
4.C.6 Opinion Research methods and Plan. EIIC presented a public opinion poll/focus group
schedule and objectives for the reauthorization of Measure C.
Bill Gray distributed copies of a memo from Evans/McDonough that detailed their upcorning work
and schedule. He reported tlbat the effort to recruit focus groups and set up meetings is underway.
He hoped to hold tete first round of focus group meetings it the Next two weeks and be able to
report to the EPC and Authority in February. In March, the tear plans to present an outline of the
issues before going to the field with a poll, l r. Cray added that the state"f7scal crisis is ;raking this
process a lot more challenging, which means the crisis will have to be addressed in the focus groups
and po°ling process,
Chair Freitas asked Mr. Cray how big t-he survey group would be? lir. Cray replied fhat it would
be approximately 400 to 600 people(it will actually be 800),resulting in plus or animus 3%accuracy
on a cot.ntywide basis.
5.0 —CORRESPUNDENC
6.
6.1 Central County(TRANSPAQ.
6.2 East County(' RANSP1L AN).
6.3 Southwest County (SWAT)-
6.4
AT).b.4 West County( CCTAC): Report of December 13th meeting
TO
7.1 Chair's Comments:
Chair Freitas thanked Commissioner Tatzin for his hard work,no`.ng that his input was
always valuable and he wiffl be missed..
AUTr ORI TY MEET-U-N-C, Summary Minutes,May 15, 2002
7,2 Commissioners'Comments:
Comrrd sioner Tatzin noted that his term. on the Authority was ending and that army Worth
would replace him. He said he appreciated the hard work and effort of. the Authority ad
staff. He offered two thoughts on the upcornzng>enewaL l} with the two thirds requirement,
there are a.number of groups that could defeat it, which underscores the need for cooperation;
and 2) ty e fin&ncial condition of the state is worse that we expected, so it wi be imn- octant to
analyze he poll` g data and .decide whether or not to go forward with the renewal or post-po e
it. He said he enjoyed being on the Authority and rioted that he will be CornmMioner
Alegria's.,alternate, so he ray attend meetings occasionally.
7.3 Executive StaffComments:
Bob McCleary pointed out a change in the EPC nneeetilnng sc ?edule� will be held or the
second Monday of each rnor-f-h at 4:30 p.m.
8,0 C t .ianua y�e:):Liay/ a,ch 2003
the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.rr. to February �9, 2003 at 6:00 p.m.
lH{ORUY MEETING, 9;rrmay Minutes,May 115, 2002
PROPOSED ACTIONS TO VAPJOUS FUNDING AGREEMENTS: Febraary 6,2003
Resol tion :u-:ben. X31-10_P - -
Revision:
Coop NUMlb
Proponent: City of Wallnut, Creek
Adoption Date: 6/20/01
Funds app�r°opriated: $1,86^,00,0
P inose: Construction of Geary Road 1rnprovern.ents.
ProposedAction: Te irate # g
, ostification: actiy ty is _bee'rs rrr
copleted.
Resolution N-=-,ber: 99-15-P
Revision: 1
Coop Number 14.0(3.000
Proponent: County of Contra Costa
Adoption Date: 4/2x/99
Funds appropriated: $9,000
Purpose: Disposal of excess right-off'-way for SRA-Wil®ow Pass Grade Lowering.
Proposed Action: Tertninem
J { t
ustilicadon: Activit has L3evn co. fete '.
Resolution Wl u oer011-04-P
Revision. I
Propor.ent: County of Cornua Costa
adoption Date: 3/21/01
Funds appropriated: $18,500,€100
P=ose: Riga-of-way acq isitior.with' CRI P Funds for SR4 Wde biro
Railroad to Loveride.
Proposed aclron, Te 4rrare
hustif c tion: Full allocation has been received;.or :purchases.
R.esoi:it -Qrl Nu-,n b er: 02-11 D,
Revision: �
proponent: Tosco
Adoption Date: 2/20/02
Funds appropriated; $4,297,622
P- ~pose: Settlement for right-of way for property on SR Yaplos are Phase T.
Pro°o used Action: 3.-MId date
Justification: Actavityas been core-Meted
Resolution-Nuumber: 02-0%7-P
Revision: 1
Proponent:t: 'l own of Moraga
Coop Nl urnber: 16,00.04
Adoption Date: 5/15/02
Pends Appropriated: 130,917
Purpose: Const^, ,tion; Services for Moraga Way Safety E prover bents.
Proposed Action: 7%erininate
Justification, activity lias been completed,
2.A.3-1
CCTA—Ar inistradon&Projects Committee February 6,2003
Subject monthly investment Transactions Reports for December 2002
Summary of issues State law and the C CTA In vest-me nt Molloy require That a report of
€! investrne bt transactions be developed and presented for it fog ation to iLhe
i7 r2C, acting as the Authority's internal auditor. This report covers
!_ ;# transactions in Decerinber 2001
G f Aquarterly financial analysis for the second quarter of FY 22-0002/03 is
r.
included ire.this mont'h's APC'packet. A.related item is the General Pumoose ,
Financial Statements for the Six MontHs ended Dec.ernber 3 d' 2002.
Ij
Recommendations � 'N/A.
Financial Implications A.su= ary of transactions is provided in the text 0eIaw.
Options N/A.
i
Attachments(See APC A. Trarasactions summary report for the,Local.Agency Investment Fund
Packet dated 2./6/€03) & u -nary report of the Sales Tax Revenue Portffblio �I
Su -I:n any report of the 1993 Interest Fund a
E D. Sum ary report of the 1993 principal Fund
` F. Spun,:cry report of the 1995 Interest Fend
, Summary report ofthe 1995?rl cipal Find
€
G. Summary report of alae 2002 Interest Fund F
H, Su-,=a-.y report of the TCRP—SR 4,Fast, Highway Fund
I. Summary report of the TCRP—SR 4,East,Transit Study Fund l
J. Quarterly FixnanL 1 al, Sung ary Tables
K. Junior Lien—Bond rate ccrnpanson
L. Glossary,Reference
' Changes from. � NO n e
Committee
V uring tats,rT'on .^.c Dece.- fiber X4002.
In December, a total of$5.5 mill-ion ,vas transferred from he Author..ty*s General Fund to the Local
Agency Lnvestta^ent Fund(LA117)for a higher retarn on short tetan invest rents,
In the Sales Tax Reve=-.Porrfb'io;tb e A;atnority re,,eaved a Decernber interest payment of about$39,000
on a U.S. Treasury security Decd aro the account.
For the Debt ,Service Accounts in December, a higher rate of return was available in d e Califor is Asset
Ylabnagernent Prograrnt(CAMP)pool than was available for direct 1-r.vestme nts ira individual securities,
and sin dng fiLad deposits for repayaneaat or the 1993, 1995, and 2002 Bonds were arcade accordingly,
v:\vr-�IFs1cs\APC12003\02-06-03\�,4 Mo1Y1nvTra-:sRpt02-03;Dec),doe
CCTA-- dininistr,ation &Projects Com.ntittee February 6, 2003
Vor the TCS fords,interest earnings were added to the C'ATMP account. Both CAMP accounts have
minimal balances as expenditures are being reirnbursed,rather than having funds advanced,
Transactions
the s_,tical A Agency lnvestrmy�t Fund�a voluntary ti vevst-went pool farad rnariage by the State Treasurer's
Office that is --pen to government agencies and non-profit organization in California):
• A transfer of$3,000,000.00 was made on December 2, 2002 from the Authority's General Fursd
to the LAI'account:
• A transfer of$2,500,000.00 was made on December 23, 2002 f:om the Authority's General Fund
to the LAIC'account, Transfers were made on, the advice of our Investment Advisor to rnax.rnize
returns on short-term balances.
In the Sales Tax Revenue Portfohoe
On, December 31, 2002,the Au 1tority received a semi-as nual interest payment of$38,750.00 on
a U.S. Treasury Note ($2,000,000,00 par; 6/30/03 maturity date; 3.875% coupon). The interest
earnings were deposited in the Authority's General Fund,
in the California Asset Management Program(CAMP)debt service acco refs for the 1993 and 1995 ail
2002 bonds:
s For the rnonthly sinkiniz find deposits for the 1993, 1995, and 2002 Bonds, for the time between
now and the debt service pays:eats, a higher rate was available in the CAMP Fool than with
direct investinea ts, and mor..thly deposits were made accordingly.
the principal accounts for the 1993 and 1995 Fords, an F ISA note had been purchased
;previously, Thus the balance in these principal accounts is the sur i of tine CAM?'Foo'a?d the
direct inves- eats.
I"the CAMP-accounts for the Transportation Congestion Relief Pro ram (TCIRP) fords
0 Rather than be advanced fands for T'CR'-J-Punded projects,the Authority is now spending
Measure C f rids and invoicing Caltrans for reirnbursenient. Balances in both CAMP accounts
are fairly low. No activity, other than accracd interest earnings, occurred in December in the
CAIV2 accounts
Borrower Rate
Attachment K shows the comparison of the borrowing rate for the 2000 Bonds in December. The 2000
Bonds are a variable rate issue,with the rate set by the market weekly. The Authority receives an invoice
ruorithly for the i sterest casts for the month. ForDecember, due to the Ch:istrnas holiday,the invoice
incl riled a co seiaativd esti ate fen the last week ofthe month. T:e actz al market rate was less than
C:1wPFiles1RPC12003\02-05-£331(4)1V o?ysnvTransRpt 02-03(Dec).dcc I1 ,42
....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
........ ......... ......... ........... ........ ........ ....... _ _ .....
CCT A-AdminLstration &Projects Committee February 6,2003
half offfie estimate. The--we on.Attachment K is based on the invoice,the amount paid,rather than based
will be deducted on the January 2
on the actual rate. I'he December overpay-;-nent w-. 003 In."JoIce.
he mvestrntntport-fol4 ois in coplice Vitli theAuthorit)'s adopted policy governing theinvesunen,
of imnds. Though, some uncertainty exists for state reirnbursement of-projects funded with, TCR-2 f-,nds,
tile Au'l- ority appears to have suffic-lent cash=, ,d haves tints to ineet exDected expenditure requirernents
over the next six months,
kvIonth-Ily and quarterly reporting requirements,as per state law(Governmen-t Code Section 53646) and the
A'k,,.thorlty's investm ent polk-v (Resolution No. 02-01-A), are 'ai:
\' le con: ned in the attachments to this itenn.
Related itenns are also included in this mont*h's packet. The report is mailed to APC rnernbc.rs at the next
available meeting after receipt of the staternents, 'The APC serves as the Authority's intern.L, Auditor.
""he report t is presented by the Chief Financial Officer, acting as Treasurer.
Attachments
Attaellirnent A is the transactions surnmnary for our LAI FE acco-mt duning the orith, of December 2002-
Pi-b'-'-'c Financial Management(PF M) -manages both the Valles Tax Relvervae Portfolio and the CAMP debt
service accounts:
Attac'=. .-.ent Bs the PFM surru-nary for the Sales Tax Revenue Portfolio,
Attach=ient C is the PF VM surnmary for the 1993 Interest Fand account.
Attaclia-m-ent D is the PFM su--=ary for the 1993 11_;ncipal Fund account.
Attacbm ent E is the PFM summ-ary for the 1995 interest Fund acc-mmt.
Attaclunent F is the PFM summary for the '1 995 Principal Fund account.
Attachment G. is the PFM summ—nary for the 2002-Interest Furnd account.
AL-taclio.tint H,',stahePFMsc aryfor theICRP SR4Railroad t M To-veridg-pro eCI
;� e p r
Attachnaent I is the PFM sunim a:v, for the T 011P SR 4 East Transit Study
Attachment J confains the Quarterly Irrvestment Su=zary
Attachmnent K is a table comparing+,he JIM-or T ien Bond borrowing rate agairnst current rates of return.
Attaei=,en,t T is a glossary/reference section,
C
CAW F;Ieq.\APC\20G3\G2-06-03\1A)
M-,IYhv-,-a-isRpt.02-03(Dec).doc IA.4
`CTA—Ad r nistration &.projects Commiftee February 6,2003
(; Subject [ Quarterly Financial Report for the Second Quarter Ended
December 31, 2002.
Summary of Issues j The ref7ort corta`ns Salus Tax Revellue tre-ds anda s"'=--nan-y oftash and !
investment hol" ings, Some lzoldings have restricted uses, such as the �!
II 8inking funds to be used for debt service payments.
I
#! Recommendations � These reports are Mvided in accordance with the CCTA Irivest ent Policy
and past pxactices:
Financial Implications N/A yy
Options i i e A"•StJEit -may eiv^f35E t^ �1e seC?, edirections to -staff rarviSi tse
I
alianen, r naa czaf reports.
Attachments 'See APC A, u :t;.ary oL the Authori-v's Anvestrncnb Pox folio
Wicket dated 2/6103) B, Sales'-F ax Revenue comparisons
Changes from � one
Background
i-scusS"on of budget to actual var antes(i'rclUding Safes flan revenues):45 contained in the ern-iaAY:,"iva
Fivancial Stateniems item,—,a this APCI Packet. �Yscnssion��tl„e i av�stnie t transact iris zs cs�irtai_ed:.
t ie Monthly Financial Transactions <tcn in e packet,
C:\WPF' te:,\!it C\2003\02-ub-031;51 Qtr Fin Tope 12-02.doe
`CTA -Administration and Projects Committee February 6,2003
Subject State Route 4(e) Projects-Status Update
Summary of Issues iThe Authority and TRANNISPLAN x adee a request for ad-i io al details,
beyond what Was provided in."he monthly Stat-as Repo-le-t5, for the following:
SR 4(e)Widerdng Project, a lroad to Loveridge, (?roject 1405); SR 4(e)
R
Widening Prqject, Loveridge to S -l!60 ro ect b406);B?rss Avenue Park
' and Raleµ..of(BART
l f .
ecommendations Accept staff report,inforrnatso n only
t
Financial Implications { NIA
Options N/A
z
Attachments None
f
iJ Changes from .SPG'requested an update in fpr ii of the status of the 3,41iRTII ri-Delta
Committee
nrnittee discussions relative to the Bliss Avenue ark&Ride dot. (resolution is not
JortY co?yeting, 4P6=directed staff tojacilitate a meeting bet`✓ een the parties
i and the City of Pittsburg.
Background
At the Aatl-ority and;"RAINSPLAN ineetings in 3atxaary,there was a request Lcr additlonai detail or;three
Route 4(e)projects to explair;curient status. i formatio"n on each p o ect is provided as follows:
Loverid e Road to Somersville gad t 4 and S rnersville l cad t SR 14 6
This prcjeet has suffered a significant delay because of the inability of p? rA.to nZke Fix be';.y dec6sions
relative to the appropriate environmental document approach, The craginal approach, as discussed and
meed capon with both Caltrans and.F H A.,provid6d for two separate enviromnental doc nneM ts. The
first would be an Initial Shady/Environmental Asiessn:ert(1S/EA)to cover the spceif c fully funded
,- fx� ,�{ me (i-1 , g ex ridge Road � ).
ZOTe. �iZ itaff t�?SC? .,r5v-1 i x. �.;t�i. reconstruct z� i�vCton�LtL�e }'T anrerct aT� � �t1i
second, a"'pier I" docurnent,wool-id cover the balance oL he corridor,thereby al ow;ng esta`olxslun ent of a
uay pro ec.x n. e rAtu document would also address concernsby the US FisStan line for right-of.�
&W`ldlife Service(USF*)that the corridor be exarnired as a vaho'e,
Numerous meetings with Caltrans and FW.A were held as early as May 1999 to discuss tris approach.
Corm-rents from FIRWA at the meet.ngs indicated that they needed to discuss the approach"in house".
Draft concurrence letters were Sent to KIWA with a request for a vrritten"sign-off". The b WA Staff,
newly appointed to the position,gave verbal approval to Caltrans in discussios'•s that were held,separately
between the two agenzies, eTaests for written con",-rence were again sent to FHWA via letter and e-
rnatls 4t the prompttn g of Authority staff. in N'over fiber 200 1,Authority staff sent its ow a letter to
FOIA stating that"ere understand that we have your general concu-fence Lor the proposed
v_.ria43 nna.enta dQc'.»a .,rpt strategy a.¢:.d based on this are moving a:..G'ad in �the onvlrt3arnvT3tal do.,ulnell.s,
Regpuests for written concurrence continued again via phone, e- aill and c�eet?ngs with Caltrans. At no
point did the FF-'WA representatives indicate that there was any d sa ee ent with the approach.
kowever,in.June 20-02-, Calians received a leiter born F11WA stating, ""ale can..not justxLy or support,the
tiered documnert aonroach-..s,
C:\WF«iies\A C\2003\02-05e03\(61)Bz Rte4 Updates.doc 2,A,6p1
CCTA-Administration and Projects Committee February 6,2003
Since June 2002 additiona'meetings and discussions have taken place with FHWA and again fetters were
sent outlining a revised an roach,At each meeting, anew"twist"w1~H
as added to what WA required.
Most recently, in a departure fronn tradition,.l~HWA.upper management has refused to meet with
Authority staff directly(in fact,we were"uni.nvited"to a meeting that we were supposed to atterid iia
Sacranrnento). tIW.A apparen by pr=efers to work through Caltrans,but reuses to empower Caltrans to
rnnake any decisions. Cahrans has indicated they are raving problems on luny projects with F HWA and
would Ii KI the chance to establish amore efficient and collaborative approach with the new F WA
representatives..
Several approaches are possible for the revised environmental document, One-problem is that east of
Loveridge,subsequent projects are not Bally funded, We could abandon evaluatra g the entire ooiridor but
given the urgent need to establish a plan.Zine(.for righAt of way protection) and Fish&Wildlife concerns,
this does not appear to be the niost prudent approach, The approach that now seems acceptable to all
parties is to prepare one document with NEPA sign-off only on the'T nded"portion, FIIsWA defines
"funded"as those prosyects contained ii:the RTP,Track 1. Authority staff has indicated to Caltrans that:f
we no not receive written concurre:rce from.F WA In the next few weeks on this revised approach, our
congressional representatives will be asked to intervene.
The delivery of the Loveridge project has been delayed by as-r uch as one year. by FH-WA's indecision.
The initial approach had the e-nvironmental docur`^nents on separate schedules with the -overidge
document due first. In,fact,Caltrans had already reviewed and cornniented on the draft subr ittal last
Spring. The corridor document had completed technical studies but was put on hold pending the outcome
of the Route 4(e) Corridor Transit Study. T'ie two projects row n eed to be combined in one do}curnent
with the corridor portion being broug.�t up to the sane level of detail as tie Loveridge document. One
:tern worth noting is that the recently cornpieteo corridor transit study calls for future rant transit to leave
the highway median.at Loveridge. As a result,the freeway geometries can, be changed to provide only a
standard highway median east of Loveridge,with a cost savings to the Loveridge project. In addition.,the
two projects card be coordinated. As an, example,the design will include footings for the aerial structure
at Loveridge for eBART. Authority staff is currently reviewing a devised scope of-'work and reviseCi
schedule for the consultant. At this point,we are hoping that the envtronrniental docum, ent Can be
complete by the end of 2003.
railroad to Lo verfd e€1405
In curie ;.999,the Authority reta ned consultant Mark Thomas&Company(MTCo)to perform
Prelirni nary engineering st=udies and eenvirormental documentation for the project,with a goal of obtaining
final environmental clearance by September 2000, Due to coordination issues with FHWA and;.JS Fish
&Wildlife Service, final environmenta clearance was delayed.until February 2001.
Recognizing environmental clearance documentation was well underway,the Authority retained
consultant MITCo tci prepare plan Specifications and Estimates(PS&E)documents in 3uly 2000. At that
time, staff envisaged project delivery ti-ne savings by dividing the pro ec.t cons-a'uclion into ao=ter ole
packages: 1)Frontage Road Relocation,2)Harbor Overcrossing, 3) &Railroad Interchange
and 4)Landscaping.
The rightof-way acquisition activities on this project have been sign ificant and con plicated.
Approximately 64 parcels are affected by the project,many of which are r^ll-;ake acquisitions recuirirg
businesses and residential parties to be relocated. The total acquisition cost is estimated at$312 M, Contra
Costa County Real Property Division was retained.in January 2000 to perforins the:necessary acquisition
activities on behalf of the Authority and State(Caltrans). Their effort was prioritized to meet the
U:\WP iles\APC\2003\32-Od-03\(5)BL Rtt4 Updates.doc 2.A..6-2
CCTA-A dministration and Projects Committee February 6,2003
constriction bidding scheme desc6ved above, Effective"Order OfF Possession" Amm all tab's necessary
properties:or the Frontage Road bellocationprojec was ob ialme»Yr, October 2001 and foi¢1b Harbor
Overcrossing proO
ect in March 2002, Effective"Order of Possession" for the remain. g proper ties
needed for the Mainline project, (primarily businesses 'located along Bliss Avenue), is scneddied for
February 2003. Iounty and A ufo£ity staff are working diligently with all affected panes to relocate in
advance oft e Mainline constraction now scheduled to begin i t October 2003.
Constndcbon on this pro ect began in Novernber 2001 with the Frontage Road Project. The Harbor
Overcrossing Project construction began _.jure 2002 Both these projects are scaedul to be completed
by early s'uri mer 2001 The large Mainline package is now scheduled to begin construction Obis dal"20103
arid be coinpleted in early'4006.
Miss Avenue BART Park&Ride Lot
The BART Park&Ride Lot located on Miss.Avenue,between Railroad Avenue and arbor greet,was
constructed by BART approximately Eve{5)years ago. No Leasure C fUnds were involved, However,
the facility has been underutilized because Tri-Delta Transit has not accessed the lot�Ie to tl eir liability
et7r�e�±es.
Ever since t e original facility was cons acted,BAIRT,Tri-Delta Transit and the Uity of Pittsbilrg have
been tying to resolve t.:e bus access issue. Bliss.Avenue is a privately owned road. Each abutting
property owner on either side cif the road owns to the approxim-ate cen ter"_in'e of the street. Street
maintenance is a shared responsibility by all owners, ;originally,the City made an ua successf-u'-attein-ot
to obtaln a releage o `liability waiver for Tri-Delta Transit to use the facility send all the property owners,
Since that failed,Tr,.-Delta,Transit has requested that BART provide an acceptable contractual docunier t
that wouI provide Tri-Delta the same access rights to Bliss Avenue that BTT has as a property owner.
After requests from both the Authority and Tri-Delta Transit staff,RAPT 1„gi staffp£ovided a drab
errrIt to Ewe,-docurn.ent last r.,onth for Tri-Delta"Transit to review. Based ,r,revent conversations witri
Tri-Delta staff,we 1 rbderstand that there stili maybe be provisions in fie docl=..ent that are unacceptable to
Tri-De', a fAiitho£ity staff is riot directly ir�volwred in the discussions). The utldori understands ds tldat
BART staff is currently trying to set up a meeting between both agencies to try to resozve the outstanding
issues.
r tale mean tyime, apprcxi£nate"y one-half of the Pari&Ride lot will bge, acquired for the on-going SR- 4
recently acquired by the Authority as part of the freeway acquisition process,
C:\w its CixCC3\02 f25 31; }Bi,ruc4 Updates,do.- 2,A.6-3
CCTA—Admini trado € & Projects Committee February 6,2043
Subject i Route 4(e) Widening. railroad to Loveridge Road (Project 1405)— a
Amendment No. I to Memorandum of Understanding OL,
t
14.05.02 with fast Contra Costa Regional Pee and Financing
it
i
Au'hor ty ( 'CR FA),
11 SummaryThe Aut�iorn-y arrd ECCRFFA entered to I,MQYJ 14.05.02 on Nove r r1b,er 28,
2001. This TMT Jroaided for contLb
t;cin from ERFF A of2Million for
1 1 Phase 2 of the SR.4(c)Railroad to Loveridge Widening,If bor Street }
i? Ove crossing(O")Project. The balan ce of Phase 2 cons action is Program, rx:ed 'i
E: with Traffic Conges:',ion Relief Program(TORP)funds.
9s ofconcern � 7
Because o concern over the-vulnerability of DIM?funding, staff waSHtis to ��
ex-oe d the entire allocation ofTCRP furn.ding($6.5 M)progra=ed.for this i(;
protect o_.t e ear`iest-chases of construction, The existing MOU with l
I E CCRFFA can be amended to allow IL-he contribution to be used notonly on tl.c )i
, a'bC1r Street eC3nstrE dtiori,b t aISC d^ other `_aaS�S, thersey a1'ow"ng the
Athori�tyo inchcase3CRP eligible expenditures orLthe H Gw`b✓t" Street OC f
Project . II
i
i
Recon niendations ADP Arn enadment No. I to IVIOU 14,05,02 with EC RFFA to allow a
redistribution of the Lnd contribution,
i
I i
II Financial �None. Providing flexibility in the use of ECCR..�FA fLrnds is consistent with the '•
�j1rapl€cations I project financial plan as well as the EC RIFFA strategic plan.,
€ tions 3 The A ou of to authorize ,, r, 14.05.02,
P P�C c��ad elect n d.�or�€�e A._.�,nd�°re.t No, 1 �o �� i
however, this cou`d potentially result in'Lhe loss of programmed TORP finds.
I Attach encs (See A. Draft ArrnendTzrent-No. 1 to MOU 14.05.^2 with E,CRFFA i
APC Packet dated I B. Original MOU 14.05.02, dated Nove:n-ber 28, 2001
4i I
216103)
Changes from Wone
1 Committee S
Background
The constnuction cost for the SR 4(e)Railroad to]Loveridge`Ride ging Protect is currently
;nrogra..u�ned with a mix of TCR', ECCR.-FA, ISTEAad:err:onstration, State TransRortation
Improvement Program, (STI-0:1) and Measure C ids, Construction has been divided into fhe
fotao;vin g four phases(or bid packages); I)Frontage Road Relocation; 2)Harbor Street OC; 3)
Mainline Widening and Railroad Interchange and 4 Landscaping. first Frontage g ) The f_,.t o packages,b bcnbage
Road and Harbor Street OC, are currently under construction and are"locall"y funded"using TC P
and E:_XRI A Binds,allowing he,.Authority to administer construction, he urge, third
cons -suction package, Mair�bine Widening and Railroad.Interchange,is to be funded primarily with.
S T2. and any remaining TCRID finds. This project is Kheduled to begin con stru.ctio b in Fall 2003,
C:\W-PF'i;est°C\2003102-06-03\(7)B` ECC'RFa FiMOU Ad Ldoe 2,A,7—i
CM—Administration &Projects committee February 6;.2003
ECCRTFA-included the SR 4 widening prgject for$2 M in its Strategic Platin, Programmed f,,lnds
from ECCR FA were applied to the Harbor OC Project(per MOU 14.05,02 signed NovernIber 28,
2001). To date,ECCREF.A has been invoiced for$1 M of the $2 M contribution for trie Harbor OIC
construction. however, due to the changing Lndir g climate,and as a means of ensuring that all
T C RP funds are used, staff wishes to shift the already invoiced$1 M to construction management
costs for the Harbor CC and Frontage Road Projects,and reallocate the-°e raining$1 M contribution
C
to onstrzctior/vonstr:ctior Management on any of the four(4)phases of construction, This Will
allow the Autl3ority to invoice the remaining TC RP fdrding ars early as possible,using all eligible
construction expenditures from the Frontage Road and Harbor CC Projects,
To facilitate the above ft;nd redistribution, Arnen!ment No. 1 to MOU 14.05.02 is needed to provide
the flexibility to apply E;CCP.F'F°A funds to construction and constructio<Managen ent costs for aE
construction phases of the project.
C:1WP iles\A4,C12003102-06-03\{7�/BL ECCRFFA MOU Ad'.doo 2A71--2
CT —Administration and Pro ects Committee February 6, 2003
Ii Subject Extension sof Contract with Public Financial Management for Financial
Advisory Services. Contract No.148,Extension No.L
Summary of Issues The Authority contracts w to Public Financial Management(PAN for
# f 2artGic"t advisory services for assistance in debt issuance and updating the
multi-year strategic finance plate.. The contract a endure F would continue
the terms and condltiens approved by le Authority last yea.. lvlr. Alex
T meta o'PFM has ser ed as the,$Authority's Financial
i anc a}l .d iso sincey 199 ,
1 f
andw5�}6ibd c�«�}«t:L�ue to be the leGid in workingYVit a X.Sutharity staffin the
{ I
3.pcom-mg year, iVIiGst rec- t y,Mr.B..r�iett assisted the fiut"b'.3"Aity in he
a
issuance of the 2002 Re-funding Bonds,
v
Recommendations i Stafs recor"iie'nd.s exteris on of the contract Wits PS'olic Financial
1 Mwa agement(PFN' through March 1,2004.
li
Financial Implications � The Authority spent approxi ately$75,000 for tasks related to the
Authority's 2'002 Refunding Bonds. Costs for the upcorning year are
est'rnated to be relatively nnodest. i
Options 1 Revise the contract amendment tens and conditions �
j 2. Cir ulatd an RFP for services to consider other firms
}
4
1
' Attachments (See APC Proposed contract a-mendment KPfor financial advisory services for �
Packet dated 216103) � the year ending IVIarch 1,2004.
iI Changes from None
Committee
�acl� ro€ta�d
the Authority selected Pub Ili c Finan-ria! Management('1PFM) as the Aut .ority's Fanar$ ia.Advasor
beginn-ing its 999. Under the termis of the contract, PFM advises Authority staff on deist issues and
strategies to reduce debt serwice costs; assesses the financial element Cb the strategic plan; and provides
additional financial services and advice requested by the Auth on-t;,, In the past few years,PFI
Managing Director.Alex Burnett has advised the Autho ity and staff on December 2000 debt issue and
follow-upitems,aas evaluated.market finance conditions, and has worked with staff on the 2002 update
to the Strategic lPlan. He also has assisted the(Authority on the analysis for, and tae issuance of,the 2002
Refunding Bonds. On the Strategic Plan, Cameron Parrs assisted.Mir, Burnett. On the 2002 Ref mdirg
Bonds, Erwin a a: :.assisted Mr.Burnett.
Discussion
In.November 1998,when the last RFP Was issued,an, interview panel found PFM to be the:host qualified
it tennns of ger_eral fiy ancial adviscty services and transportation experience. tri jan ary 2002,women the
F-inancial, Advisory Servicles contract was extelided, several.Authority merx hers asked staff to Conside.,
rWissu rag an RSP in 2003, Reasons givers by mernbers wer the desirability of rotation of"financial
servzcd providers,and the fact that PFM also serves as the.mut ority's invest hent advisor. After caret it
ccnsidera ion of these issues, staf'r is recornarnending a continuation of the current contract withPF�ix�'.
,tie rationale is as follows,
C.i il-�s�APC\2003102-06-031(S,B-_Fi.-andist Advise;03.dec LA-8-1
CCTV - d ixt tat ren and projects Committee February 6, 2003
a Service provided by Alex Burnett and PFM has been exemplary, For the debt analysis on the
bo=d issue, and fo_the update to the finance element of the Strategic Plan, staff has found that
the IF_-M a inaancial Advisor work has been thorough and objective. PFM has been very
responsive to questions from Authority staff, The work for the two bond issues has been timely
and complete, and valued by staff and by our other:financing tear"partners. Authority staff has
appreciated the integrity oft he ana`ysis,not push3ilg a pa $ic lar financing option or issuance,
but keeping tie Authority's interests azad policies at the forefront.
z Continuity at this time would be use,,ul. In the upcoming year, staff anticipates no new debt
issuance,no new, refunding bonds. The assistance that afinancial advisor would provide is
anticipated to be primarily for analysis of finance options associated with the potential loss of
state fanding, and finance options related to alternative projections of future sales tax reven:?es,
and analysis of timing and spending options for making best use of available funds, These are
tasks miainly related to the Authority's strategic finance plan,tasks with which PFM is quite
farn�iliar.
The strategy provided by the Financial Advisor drives investment decisions. The Financia'
Advisor assists the Authority in analyzing revenues and expendibares and developing the best
strategy for the use and investment of fu-ids and debt financing. The Investment Advisor assists
the Authority in selecting the most appropriate investment instruments and rnabar?tyy schedules,
given the Authority's Investment Policy and projection of invest-able cash balances for each
future month. Nancy Tones and Nsesa Kazadi of PFM have been the principals at PFM in
providing investment Advisory services to the Authority, The current-partnership between our
Financial Advisor and our Investment Advisors works;veil,partly because they are able to share
resources and inforrnation about the Authority's finances very easily, At this point,Staff does
not believe the quality or innovation of the Financial.Advisor or Investment Advisor assistance is
irhibited by having different divisions of PFM'motion in these capacities.
Recommiendation
Staff recons:ends a one-yea.extension oft:e current contract with PFS/for Financial Advisory Services
as per the attached contract, effective:until March 1, 2044.
C:\WPFife-q\APC\2103\02-06-C3\(8)BL Financial Advisor 03.doe 1A,8-21
CCT'A_Administration &Projects om?ruttee February 6,2003
} Subject A thorizat€on for the Chair of the Authority to Execute Cooperative !i
Agreements,Contribution Agreements and Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreements with Caltrans
Summary of Issues Each time the Authority approves entering into a project-related agreement j
with Caltrans. Caltrans rewires a formal resolutiorq of the AWhority l
f' ..# Yq fn
2¢ 5{� Chair
(gyf�9/y r� d�vtY �Y6/� r� �csg 1S y� 5z mpz�,
cei ifyi g fnat the 4�' aiL lies.'irudeed, a7utL on.,LV+.i�.o s'�'xec' te,SYld agreement
ent 1
(certii?ed copies of Board rn notes are not acceptalme). Caltzans has agreed
+Y h �yg�w�q A
F.�%tbi£mss 6nJ1!' �y1S iL+S VIiA Li viS O,rL1¢4.if��a1 SS„�.ab* M`"vdtayr�J :X+.d wel.Vrized o elSA,cute
will,he acceptable,thus reducing�-jbare paperwork and processing` 1
Recommendations approve Resolution 03-02-13
i Ii
Financial Implications bone
€ P ti ons ( Execute irsdividuai resollations for each agreeirnent I
1
Attachments (See A PC Reso1.121tion 03-0-/-'-'
Packet dented 216103) i
Changes from Arone
Committee
f
C.'\WPFiles\APC\2033\02-06-03\�9)BSL C aitrsns Agnit Res 03-02-Moc
C°CTA-Admirfstrati€n and Projects Committee February 6,2003
Subject � Semi-Amnual Financial Statements for the Six Months Ended
'E i December 31, 2002.
,
,
Summ any of Issues Financial statements are deve owed serni-an ually. This packet items
�i
d contains the Genera' Purpose Financial Statements for the barst sax months 3
of the fiscal yea;., for the period ended Decemiber 3L 2002. The format is
l the same as the annual fiscal audit. I
i
Re omikuendatl..ons his Item is presented for APE..,review and comment
i
� I 3
Financial I1 plIcatio ns 1 N/A
I� Options N/A
1 �
I
Attachments (SeeAPC General Purpose Fitimcial, Statements for the Six Months Ended
Packet dated161003.) � December 31,20102
tf
Changes from ? 11Ton e '
,
Committee j 1j
Background
alae Adn'n-Istration and P-'ects Corfunittee (APO -Pu afclo S as an auditor' ?I_dZe
�,-i.G:dy
reviews divestment ansactions and financial reports.
As per direction fronthe AP: , �ila cin statements are prepared ce -i-a nla%ly, With tS.Sreport, staff i5
submitting fall General Purpose Firrancial Ztaternents and supporting infornmai n for the six rontb
s
ended. December 31, 20101 The fo,=Lmat of these statements is identical to t e statements normally
reviewed by the A--PC following the fiscal audit, to facilitate Comparison with the prior year statements.
Discussion Rems
T e +imird sched le,beginning on page Of t`_^.•.e attachment , compares budget-to-act-tiall levels for ieVenueS
and expenses for the first six months of the seal year. The six-month budget colummIs l2 of the total
annum.budget for F. 2uu2/03, The schedule beginning on page 6, and the info—nnation gathered iii
evaluating he variances, will be used in developing the FY 2002/03 Abid-year budget revision. Some
fife figs that may be cif interest are as follows;
1. WHe Sales Tax Reve-hues are $1,895 u'lliox over budget for the f fist six months,these
revenges are based on estiim-atas by the Board ofEqualization for the final two iron th.s of the
period. 1��ih.e Boroa�r�d.opf`Egaua:i4Ze..ion+�`C:eiadn up"
payment
ent'nor December,when est-Mates are
re-concii ed to actual revenues,e11ues,will not be available- ti mid-March
��: rc 0 a ie n
-anti' _gid-1Naa h 2' 013, and o�
Equalization pay-lents are in tumn based on estinia-ates by the Department of Finance.
2, Traf:ic Congestion Relief-Program.(TClU?: f rads received are$3,471 million liess than budgeted
for this tinge of the year. This is because certain TCR--f r:ded activities have lagged behind
origin al budget estinb_ates(and also because some budgeted TCRP funds were actually received
in the prior yeas). `i'"CR.P re;nnburseziieni invoices have been sent prom t y to the State, and So far
the Authority has not experienced extraordinary delays in. receiving re.'inbl?rsed fu ds, At
various meetings,however, concern has been expressed that future reirnbursel eats will not be
forthcoming as prom eptly,
CN,W Hes\AC12u031012-u6-03\(lC) ,S7_F:lmStlmit6rno ?2-C2.doe 2.A.10-1
CC' -Administration and Projeets committee February 6,200-3
3, Due to adjustment of a prier action(RIDES funding)by t_be Bay Area.Air Quality Mannagernent
District, Trans ortat on for Clean.Air(T FCA, funds will be reduced is FY 2002/03.
4, Payor-ea is to Bus Transit acid Paratransit providers are provided quarterly un advance. The over-
budget amount is due to`he third quarter payments being xna e in late Decembm
5, Project expenditures are considerably below budget. As explained in the rotes to the-financial
statements, this is mainly because certain SR4 East project elements have been.delayed.: Bailey
to Railroad, so ndwall and Railroad to Loveridge right-of-way acquisition; and Loveridge to
Sommrsville,YS&E and right-of-way acquisition, Also, th e is because SR4 East railroad to
a,overidge right-of"-way budgeted for FY 2002/03 instead entered escrow in FY 2001/0-12.
Next Steps
With.nPut ga4ned from exam-I'llation of`d?e financial statements for+,he first six ii`oriths of the fiscal year,
staff is preparing the-mid-yeas budget amendments,to be presented to t��-,e APC and Authority next
t?fTii ef�,
CAWFFiicslAFC\20013\02-06-v3\(10)B Fin Stmt 6r--,o2°A.l 2
CT"A—A dM inist3 atadon and Prqjeds Committee February 6,2003
Subject State Route 4 (e) Corridor Transit Study—Extra Work Order #3
f! j for Consulting.Agreement No. 139 with Wilbur Smith associates 'I
i
Summary of Issues Wilbur S.-mih Associates is un-der con- tract con—tractto the Contra Cash,
Transportation Authority to conduct theStatetlR^ode 4(e)Corridor Tr ss :
Study. l xtra Work Order#3 is necessary to -.over add Tonal work related to 1
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment,Wetlands Evaluation and Station 'A
Area Planning.
i !
fRecommendations � Stag"recornmends approval of Exta Work Urger#3 in the amount of
$43,150 for Consulting Services Agreement No. 139 with. Wilbur Smith
Associate AdNquate funding to accori n odate this extra work s in c°tided, 4
in the approved Contract No. 139, App-roval of this extra wore a der would
reduce the contingency budget to$0,
! Financial I€ts.nlications This project is beim fdr.ded by Traffic Congestion Relief Program Funds,
however, due to the State budget crisis,there is a chance t`uat any work
k performed after Jan�,a y lit,will not be seftr0bursed. In that case,staff
I
requests approval to use Measure `C' fub ds for this work.
option's The Authority could elect not to approve the Extra Work items;however,
j staffbelieves the additional work will hep to f—urther define tine project
scope,schedule and budget, In addition, t will" allow continued. discussro ns I'
i p
i
with the cities regarding station location and development.
Attachments is (See APC Proposed Scope of Work for the Phase I Environ ental Sire Assessanicnt, !
Packet dater 716103) i Wetlands Evaluation— and Station Area Planning.
e; Changes from, Comrnissioner Pierce requested that language be added to the Station Area �
Committee .Planning Scope that the work be coordinated with the `'Shaping-Our
I•
Background
At thein December meeting,t e Policy Advisory Committee(PAC) for the _ra zsit Study adopted a final
'ep{Ji ani re .i`r re tdtatiCnS.
The PAC r'ecornmended ado `on of the eBA-RT("C-2")alternative,
whicli would implernenit service from Bay point to Loveridge utilizing the freeway median, and then
transition to the Union Pacific Mococo 1"ine right-of-way to Bryon. The Autlh.ority approved Resolution:
03-0 1-'11 endorsing this preferred alternative in January.
It was expected that the next pease of the project, envnron_rynental studies and a ridership develop rne at
plan would begin irnr-xediately. Dire to the State budget crisis,there
is uncertainty on the a`yra.sabiirty o
the 5-M rennarn.ing in 'CRP i"u ds. Thi order to keep the project moving, some preHurainay:y work-can be
started or.the next phase, which will provide information that would beg;used in the envirommertal
process. TI.Es wort will also inc rude rennernerrt of costs and schedule. ,zt1her,the station.area plary i g
will allow for continued discussions with the cities on exact location of sta.iens, availability of land i
those areas, and any information on frtmre developrn en t that might ianpact a station being located in that
area.
C.\WPFiies\APCU003\02-05-03\{i i.?)BW WsA A.-nd 3.doc .A: 1-1-1
OCTA—Administration and ProjecLs Committee February 6,2003
Detailed scopes of work are attached and the budgets break down as follows: Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment($46,080^•),Wetlands Evaluation($39,007), Station Area Planning ($70,000),Project
Management including nmetings, fi nal printing and broad distribution of study summary report and other
reports; independent QA/QC review and contract management($49,9"13)� Wilbur Sr ith Associates has
indicated there is a savings in the base contract of approxhnate`_y$I65K. This Extra Work Order would
consume the remaining contingency in the contract plass the savings in the base.
oshn there is a slight possibility that the Alath or ty rn fight not be reimbursed for Work perfortned past
January 1', due to the sate budget crisis, to that instance,Measure 'C' :ponies would he needed on the
order of approximately$240,000 N,15A Work and BART sta*ftime},this amount would, be charged to
Project 1407 SRR—So r?ersville to `C' Street.
C:1WPPi;es1APC\2003102-06-03\(i i.1)BL WSA Amd 3,doc IN I h,I-2
.............. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........... ........... ......... .._ ........
... .......... ........................._ .................
CCTA — Administration and Prgjects Committee February 6,2003
ISubject State Route 4 East Corridor Transit Study—Amendment No. 2 to �(
Cooperative Agreement No. 14,00.06 with. the Bay Area Rapid
Transit District (BART) i(
--if
Summary of Issues j The Authority and BART ar,e co—leads for the State Route 4 East Corridor
Transit Study. The Study is fun ed by the .traffic Congest.on Re.iCf,
Program(TC .P). The Authority molds and administers ala contracts relative �
to tie S,nidy. BARTI is performing some of the associated work for tine
study, and the cooperative agreelnent outlines tine reirribursmne t process.
' An amendment is necessary to define the scope and budget for additional
work that BART staff will be undertaking.
( I
Recommendations i Approve Amendment leo. 2 to the Cooperative Agreement No. 14,00,06 in
the aintm: t of$40,000,
Financial Implications The Califomia Trans port atior iss-ion(CTC) approved.$2M for the j
S udy iri December 2000 and d this amendment is within that bud-get l
li However, due to the State budget crisis,there is a sh-ght chance that any
wort,perfcrmeo after January I",may nL�t be rely abursdd. ?n that event,
staff requests approval to use Measure `C' funds for this work.
Options The A thnority could elect to modify the amendment.
111
Attachments (-Vee.SPC A. Amendment No. 2 to Cooperative Agreement No. 14.00.06
.packet dated 216103) B. BART Scope of Services �
Changes fromi Ione i
Committee I
Background
Con tit�,led BA-RT staff support is necessary to assist it-l- the additional work described in 11-L. BA :i
staff will.be an integral part of*fie ,earn effort and wail play a key read._ the Station Area PIararo g effort
and in fLrther effort to defl^e the Phase ` Environmental Si+e Assessb e:t for he UP condor.
C:\WP iads\A.PC\2003\02-g6-03\(i .2) B1.,BAU.Amd 2.doe 1A..11.2®1
CCTA—Administration stration &Projects Committee March 6,2343
Subject j Authorization for the Authority's Deputy Director of Planning t�
4, s Travel Out of State to Speak at the Southwest Region
i� Transportation Model User's Group Conference ,
Summary of Issues The Authority's Deputy Director,Planming,has been aired to actress the
Southwest Model User's Group at a one—day cornference o March?, 2003 in
Phoenix,Arizona. _a e Aiefficrity's adn- nistrative code re7mahes pmlior APS.,
aonroval for staff to travel out of'state. 1i
Recommendations d That the APC approve this request.
' "inandal Implications ; Costo the trip,inclurir g ai far, hotel, and meals is estilidated at$503,00, !
Options � The Authority may elect not to approve the trip: j
Attachments j
0 hanges from E
Committee
Background
T h-�Aut'.ority's Deputy Director, Planning, Martin Engei.'riann,has beer,asked to Speakat t we annual
So,Ahwest Region Transportation Model User's Group(SRT`US)meeting to be held on Marc':7,2003
i`n Phoe ix,Arizona. The sponsor fog°this year's meeting is the City of Phoenix. The group is inturested
learning about the status of the Authority's decennial update to is travel forecasH g de and models.
A.uthorlly staff is currently cc.npletzng a n:wjer effort to perform the decennial update to its travel demand
forecasting computer models. This effort had involved sot::,megor recisions regarding model structure,
software selection, and CAIS capabilities. The Authority's :deputy Director for Planning, is overseeing this
fell vy^Ee St f *, v;6 t th fer a'7 a b ,� ' - � "f., y t t"
3 °3 Z ir)vC3x1v .et.S G�: '• 4wJn lenge vJ 't:n�' Jv 1b� e�i+ tai SIvT4 L div v� /�rdwv^I iL 'e1^ut 4i eCiiaQieiSt✓e
participants,who comprise the western state's top modeling professionals, would proNide and iinformal
peer review of the Authority's strategy aria' approach fox undertald g the decennial model.„.p&tc.
The cost of the trip is estft ateo at$530, including airfare,hotel, meals, and cor:aeren e fees, The
Authority's Ad i istrative Code Aeg7airds prior APC approval for out-of-state ravel by staff.
C;\wNf>es1A,'Alit?031,3-"5-43`,Der D:;
CCTA—Planning Committee Febmary 5, 2003
Subj ect R City of Antioch Calendar Years 2000 &2001 Growth
Management Compliance Checklist
Summary of Issues i she City of Atntioch has sSbmitted its Calendar Years 2000 &20131 i3icnmIni aLl
Growth-Management Program Compliance Checklist for alocatic n, oflocal
street maintenance and irnprovement finids,
Recommendations Staffrecommends approval of a first payment of$989,214 in Fiscal Year
1. 2001-02 Local Street Maintenance and Enprove mneent ffi-nds to tHe City of
Anatio-c'n, and a second'Koff year)payment of FY 02-03 funds on, -ffie o-.,--,-Y.ar
anniversary of the first pays ent.
Financial Implications A total, of$11,7314,194 is estlinated to be availlable for Local Street
Maintenance and Imp.rovemneW fiands in fiscal year 2001-02,based on, actual
sales tax receipts, FY 02-03 allocations will be deter-mfined based on ap-wal
revenUes,
li
Options j The Authority has the option to disapprove a ehedlklist,reTuest additional
informnation, such as an audit of a specific checklist question,grant
Condit onaa approval, or otherwise apply-flexibility to individual
circurtistances.
Attachments k The City of AntilocYs Cal,endar Years 2000 &200 C-NiP
See 02105"103 PCI Packet I Compliance Cheeldist Summary,
B. Checklist,Attachments, and Housing Report.
C, Letter fro M&-tin E nge'Unarn transrnitt_Mz schedule for"'neckh'st
approval.
Changes from j lvbnei.
Committee
Background
I e Gro,,x,LH Management P.-ograin Contained in Measure C indicates,+-',-.at the Authority will annijal v
' -
,
.c Vew and allocate flinds to clti es and t1ne County,siioject to submission of a Statement of Cornplian-ce by
the local Jurisdiction and findings made by the Authority,
In ity adopted Ordinance 01-C?, anien.ding the Measure C Ordinance to ohange
January 20 00 1 the Author-,
the cornplianice review period frog n armual to biennial.
The Biennial Compliance Checklist provides a YeE�cle for measuring local jurisdictions' fUl-fillmerit of the
requirements of the Growth,Manager tent Program during the repo-_tLng period of Cain,dar Years 2000
and 2001. Jur;sdictions in co=hance will receive funds far local s+,reet rna-intenanct and i1tr1provements
annually,receiving the second-year's funding on the one-year anniversary of thee previous year's
alloced.0n,
CA-My Documents\CCTA Fles\ .Authority\2003\02\An*ioc.,,i CheckEst.D00
y 8, 2003
A su=—ary of the completed chyck ist submitted by the subject Jurisdiction is at-ached, Staff
reco:�rnends approval oft e sdictiori's C ckl.ist and s.x'ocatio i of f irzds.
CAC Review
The fill Citizen advisory Committee(CSC)reviewed the City of A tioch's Checklist or; januaby 22,
2003, and recomm- ended approval of the Oneck:ist.
Third Revision Housing Element Update
The City of Antioch continues to work or its third revision Housing Element update. As indicated in
previous sub.- ittazs,+I.e 4urisdiction's second revision Housing Element was found by HCD to be in
compliance with State Law.
1-2
.. ............ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
... .......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ............................... ......... ... ......... ........... ....... ......... ........... .............. .....................
.............. ......... ...........
'CTA—Planning Committee February 5,2003
Subject Status of the Decennial Model Update.
Summary of Issues a he consultant tear_<of Cambridge Systematins with,Dowling Associates I
cE3.i`"i 'eS to make progress'+''.,rlupClating 3.:av co"?.�"tywide travel demand
1
!1
forecasting model. Stab will, provide a p ogress_epi ,
1! Recom nendations hI/A
t I'
( Financial Implications The Authority authorized athe consultant agrees ne i�t wife :he Cannbridge II
n � te:n ✓aySyst- aticsccnsultantitnf !I
! 20101. 'ectal cost of the effort is estimated at$750,000,which includes model
development, a traffic cou:n.t database, a-nd the Lard Use Info nation !
V
i System, ('I'JIS). II
I 1
Options N/A
Attachments A. 'lernorandurnRE: Status of the Decennial Model'Update,"h—anuary 28,See i
-3 PC Packet 20,03
u 1
Changes from None.
Committee
Background
As the Congestion Mainagemient Agency for Contra Costa;the Authority is responsible for develop-Lng
and A naiiita.irin.g a set of"travel demand forecasting.-mod.e s, By state law, these models are required to be
consistent witxn the regi£7ria model developed and:.aintcin ed by MTh`. Measure C also red fires that the
,au.tfior ty have a computer rode:for use on the Co.mtywide Transportation Mane
hn the early i990's,the Aufrhority developed.four subarea models. These modee Is were used to evaluate the
Actio: 1csais for Routes of l egion.al Significance,for the 1935 Countywide Plan,and the subsequent
2000 Update t that .The-,nodels have also beef a plied extensiveIy" o,,.a; � ti „s t e t t
o a.Alai: a p Joy l�„�as�ursd.c� o.<� o va.nias,
`fie affie impact,Cif develop:sent plans and genera'pia . amendmients. The Subarea models are still bel ng
used intensively for various study applications throughout the county,
In 2000,the Authority retain ed Cambridge Systematics to prepare the Decennial Model update. The
decennial model update involves ch'axnging tae i*nodeling software,from l NrLViE/2 to TransCAD, and
consolidating the four subarea models mto one courntywlde model.The update also _c.i:ii.ri.es transitioning
to new technologies that weren't available when the subaarea models were first developed. The TransCAD
sofhvare integrates a GIS package with transportation planning software, and we are using the Morld
Wide Fleb nos:ccal review and input to the model network and'` ' e, b =m +m
�e land ias�r o� natio n sys.urri.
Work_ ng as a s bcoarm-n:ttee to the TCC,the`I'ecrnica:Modeling Working Group oversees the effort, and
perfo=technical review of deliverables. The'f MWG iincludes staff frorri local urisdict crus,MTC,C, a nd
Caltrans. On occasion the MW s holds expanded meetings that bring lin the p iva.tevsector consultar t
community to receive the benefit of thecommunityr expertise.
C:''Miy Dccurnents\C'_TAises\I.Act:icri€y\2CO3\Q.L,DccCnnial Madel Update,Dcc .¢ a —i
CCTA--Plannirg Committee February 5,2003
The current staisot1e Decenni :Model Jpdete ilsprov-iced in ehe atacched report, Should anyone
wish
o receive more detailpeP.formationj or have questions 3egaiding specific deliverables,please contact
Martin Enge'mann at 925.256,4729.
C:W-,y Docum--ns\CCaA Flies\ .Aszthcrit;\"2003\02\Dcecennia3 Mode;tipdate.Dx 19 • 2---2
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ............. ......... ._........ ................ ............._....... ......... _ ........
......................... _ _ _ ___
°CTA—Planning Committeg February 5, 2003
i
Subject Authority Approval to Begin Contract Negotiations with j
f
the Selected Consultant for Transportation System Monies i
f� toning
I
fSummary y of Issues T e Authority-received four proposais in response to �IPP 013-2 for -ni-
tonng the transportation system as part of the 2,0C3 CLIP Update and the a
2004 Update to the Countywide Cosnpre sd< sive"€���sp�ration Plan.A
( select-,on cora 3ittee of local and Authority staff has, after rev ewing the
proposals, recommended the selection ofr i€nleyml-lorn. 4
Recommendations � Auithorize staff to begin contract negotiations with Kimley Horn it and, if
those negotiations are not successful with the second nnnost-1hienly rated
I`tn.
Financial
Implications 'l,l.e Lost cz _A•o.nnito.€ng is estimated a:range froi,n Sl 00,000 to s,r,0,000,
of w?:ich approxi:nately 25 Percent woe:id be funded thronng_:the CMP
(Or& 9592)and 75 percent through tine Transportation Planning and
Growth Management funding category(Org. 9591)
Options
i
Attachments
fi 'E
Changes from Committee i Not applicable.
ac gr€and
As paint of the 2004 Update to the Countywide Com;.prehensive Transp rtation Na..",the Authority has
agreed to non'tor the aehievernei.t of the traffl.c service objectives (TSvs) established ;n.the Act-on Plans
for Routes of'Regional Signnif=caince, The last 1'i on3itornig of the TSOs was done inn 2,999 as mart of the
20001 update.:_. addition, as tine designated congestion manage- me_.t agency for Contra Costa.,t_`•:e Author,
ty is respoi silo for.monitoring the adopted level-of-service standards onn,the designated CP networkc.
To carry cut hese rn-onitorin g activities,the Authority re:eased l:-P 03-2, Transportation System€ iMo ni-
m-fin-g to retain, a qua'.f°ed cons? itant to monitor tine trannsportatlon system,within Contra Costa.The se-
lected. consultant w`h lbe spec 31v responsible for:
Monitoring and reporting of tine achievement of the traffic service obectives ('DSOs)for desig-
rated routes of Regional Significance; and
2. Monitoring a-,-,d reporting on, the acinieve?n'e nt of t e ieve,_oT,�Svrv:ce (LOS) stanC aids established
in the 230: cmp 1.ipdate.
?:n respo ase to the_RFP,the Authority received four proposals by the Thursday, January 30, 20003 dead-
ne. A oornittee of local and Ai.°tlhorniy staff reviewed the pr43posa is and recon-imen,ded i,e selection of
\i r:,e\CCTA l�_:.PS11.Aut:.ority\2GC.3102\2.2003.Rr'03-2 se;e"lio n.doa 3_-;
CCTA Planning Committee -February 5, 2003
Kirn ey-Horn,which was rated first by all Mi embers of the selection corranittee,The committee gave�irn-
ley-Hors.high marks for the quality of the proposal,the t1horough tiess of the proposed scope, wnd its unt—
dersta,ding of he ssres involved. The primary issae for the committee was the proposed budget,which
substantial'y exceeded our expectations.
Staff is ask :g for authorization to negotiate with a imley-Hom, the most-highly rated f rm."f staff B not
i? to reach agred."*Ilt wftl {l 1?ey-�'<orn, staff would ike�1';tlhorfzation to negotiate witpb the Second
highest ratted farm,DKS Associates, ( KS was rated second by all members of the selection cornrnittee.)
3-2
- L
OCTA—Planning Co iee February 5, 20053
Subject Extension of Contract for Paratranslt Coordination Consulting services
i
Summary of Issues I Since 1992,the Authority has contracted with Mr.W�iliaxn Li' :i to
provi v consulting services on, parattrans t issues and yo se ale as the �
A-mhon ty's�aratrans t Coordinator. < r skai�im-morpaLatransit 1I
4 1,
I ! issi.3.es for the A A,hority,.snakes reco.=:r��sen€atior":s on the Measure C 1�
s 'Darat a_sit fa:ding progrwn, Section 5310 funds, and allocation fo=a1a,
serves as the facilitator for the ParatransIt Coordinatiag Council, works on
f
1 I paratransit coo -_rat-on issues, and develops several reports throughout the
' year, The current extension would be for one year, from March 1,2003 to �
February 29,2004, and would,continue t;:^::e terms and conditions un this past
s ( year's extension,
Recommendations Approve the contract extension,
Ill Financial Implications � :'ihet 5c[tontrYact extension isQon a tiirne and mal.-Iriais 2basis,wife a a�n�C:a�:aY Dasa
amo4 nt not o exceed S58,V00 and a cont, a V7.,4'�iL?-- s e discretion. V: +.
the Executive Director not to exceed$2,000.
Options A, Change the terms and/or conditio s of the contract extensio .
B. D°rect staff to investigate other options for paratransit coordinatio
G serVICes
Attachments .
See 02/05103 PC Packet A° Am,endment No. 11 to ConTra Costa Transporlation Authority
Agreement No.24,'
7. I�
i Changes from : Ivcne,
Committee JI
Background
Mir, Liskar-m—n has provided paratra sit corordunation services to the Authhonity snide 1992, Paraatba-asit
services provide to the Aut iioraty ii cl;;dea.
• 1YK/yFefSeC�pirag Au�tas3CorY ttY shY
taf-Finr�fron-net on pa aitranslt issues,
•
ce
tranKt
• Moraitor leg'islation affecting para-L.&nsit service,
• Mand"toring claimant use of Measure C funds,
• Establishing claims schedules and maK ng Measure C fmdii:g return entaatioA s,
• Coordinating the evaluation process for-ase of s. 53'0 IP-40 g. funds,
• Workir.g with staff to reco:=en dl changes to the Measure C a location/fbrrvula polices, and f—
use of Parati°ansit Program reserves, if appropriate,
• Revieva b g r jai eerly reports of all Measure C and TDA A-ticle 4.5 chin�iants,
• pn 1p. ementing Authority action plans for the Paratri ansit Coordinating Council PCC in Contra
Costa.County,
• Recon e ding procedures for resolving issues on paratramit items,
4-1
C:Wy Docurnerts\CCA Files\i.Av'i onIy\2003\02\BR.DLTR Liskam 2-7-02.doc
CCTA—Planning Committee Februa?y 5, 2003
* Presenting an ad nuai report on the Americans with Disabilities ct(ADA) status of operators in
the County, and on?CC and paratrans-It activities,
Working with operators to coordinate fixed route and paratransit service,
Cord.iatiiregio-nal vob ' ':lttedS user
Coordinating with the East Bay Paratraxxisit Consortium,
Representing the PCC on the Area Agency or.Aging Long_Ternm Care Task Force,
Coordi hating the FCC's Regional Trips Task Force,
Provide other reports and presentations as requested.
Additional noaratransit related tasks are now also being provided by Wilber Smith Associates and Nolte
Associates. Wilb—jx Sa hit h Associates is analyzing the 2000 Census and consequert possible updates to
the paratransit for=,fla Nolte and.Associates have leer,working on. issues related to the Paratza.sit
study,and the update to the anneal claims Yobm,,
Staff proposes a continuation of the c rrei:t terms and conditions of the current annual contract extension
with Mr. Liskaman. Attachment A includes Amendm_ent No.'1 to Contra.Costa,Trarsportation Authority
Agreerneut No. 27,with an ui)dated scope o'Lwork f;r March i,2003 to February 29, 2004
Ali extension to �:r. Liska m's contract is supported by the Contra.Costa County PC'C.
4-2 ry a
CCTA®Planning Committee February 5,2003
Subject Refining the Growth Management Program (GMP) Options
Paper.
11
Suary of Issues
The GAP Options peer, was rel sed by�C an. 00-tober, Since f.en,many
ii °urlsdietions, several R.TKs,and the CAC have commented on the paper.
5
Staff has comp sled the clorE'ment€f ew and discussionby the PC.Tzie
,i next steps are for staff to refine the CMR options and begin. assessing them.
in anticipation of developing a preferred G. p Option for incl sign _._the,
Measure C Reauthorization. If
a
i
i
II Recommendations Review dom=ents received,discuss the range of cornments offered, and !�
_ f
! p.ov�de dir ction, or the next steps to take to def-ine the pgpose and
characteristics of OMP options.
Financial Implications N/A s
!� Options N/A jl
1' Attachments If A. Sum— ary Matrix
i indicating c tmnen¢S received to date n the GMP I �
i
is Options paper
u See 02/0 5IC3.P Packet I p
i
B. Index of correspondence received and anticipated review schedale
C. Commend. of comment letters reCeived
i r
Cages from The PC held this item for further discussion regarding the goals and I
II Committee � objectives o [�,�Yasure C.
1.
t ;!
i'
Background
As na,`d'of the Measufe reauthorization effort,the Authontv has ci cu:aved r Managenment
Options aper to st_�lla.e diseussi;ns concern. how the existing
p p b Measure C{.rMR could be izrproved
n, on and incorporated into the renewal` Expenditare Plano
Attaclr:�ent A con4a: s a matrix Let,surn arizes the comments received., Attachment B contains a log of
the correspondence received to date,and the proposed review sched ule for agencies and pa�ties that have
not yet subm teed consents. A-achmer t C is a coo en ,' of � comments received C .,m Cas all vi t e �Gr 'i7eaa S r t J� to date.
T he Op-iorns Raper was di-strib ted in October 21,102,with convents due by December 31,2002. As
shown n Attach<rnen so far IC urisdict�ors 2 I�TRCs and the
CAC
C a e c -tcry .,r t
,j i , , .ytkl CAS.+ _�� ldAsuiAo-in�itii 4:Vd_ .. .
A'ftachn.ent B also indicates wi ch entities have scheduled fixture meeting dates to review and co:,=ent
on.he ,.,aper, The Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee(ERAS.)is expected to:old a discussion in
February or Marc.
�:� r,® , ' ��' -n 3i'� 'i ,,.'^, r�. �'} \� v. �.: '�':. i't�s4°rt yr r, '.r ry +..i •.
n
OCTA—Planning ening Committee February 5,2003
Other corm dttees, such as the Public Manager's Association,the Planning Directors of Contra Costa,and
the CTP Task Force have been infornned about the Options paper and are participating in the review
process,
At the PC meeting, staff will suns:-nanze the comments received,including any additional co n^�;nents that
are submitted after the agenda has beer, rb ailed out.
Schedule Imppcations
The Cor<cepttva.l Approac b to the New Measure C Expenditure Plan, adopted by the Authority in
September 2002, envisioned that the GOMP Captions Paper would be released in October, and reviewed in
November. This review schedule anticipated that staff would have received comments in December and
could begin refining the GMP options in January 2003.
Although staff has already begun work to refine the GIMP options,the review schedule has slipped by
about three months. We therefore expect to release a new or refired options paper in April,rather&b an
Pebniary. Tl s raises the question whether the review period for the Options paper should be formally
extended, if not,staff would proceed with the GMP refinements?used upon'the cczn,nents received to
date, subsequent con~bents wo ld be addressed within the ongoing process. Waiting to receive
cozments frog_all jurisdictions and parties could further delay the schedule fo-r refining" e GMP
options,assessing t1gem, and selecting a preferred aliternetive, Accordingly; staff recomniends proceedi g
at this time with the*next steps,recognizing that input will continue to he addressed in the on-going
process.
The PC discussed this matter at its meeting on P'ebr°=ay 5 PC questioned the need to release a refined
CMP Options.paper,noting that review of'he currentper was cr�oing and that many j��risdict ons and
stakeholders bad not vet 'ac ars op ortu-i!y to conimnent Rather than cart off the co:r ent period od on the
i GfP3icns Paper.PC recon.ended that we continue to accent corner`s wh51e we proceed wtt a
better defining the overall objectives of fhe_GMT,clarify the linkage to"Shaping Cur uut.Lire" and bcgir
i
oatlin ng preferred options for consideration and discussion in 'dune Staff notedand the PC concurred
! that it could be beneficial to sent out the matrix with the co=eats received to date to stimulate farther
discussion and encourage further cc menti.
Next Steps
ise a_q— .. v .,i sh __F tr. . .. Re'—'.Pa w3
_.�.,, j,a-Staff WOU14-will-, continue to
receive comments and use this
input to refine and assess the GMP options`:.rough Mefe F—May 2003,Te.tab seer,*�d: fi o
ii
paper- _ 3 released define objectives ani
clarify pee :ge of e GMP to"Sha n Our Future." Stabf w�i*llp send
�a�letterrt�o all interested parties
transmitting a matrix with
fh ry yy� ( p ve to t �}+pq/y (�uaa t q�tha a n, f 'e'er�`i£1�'nments Ciel
C' L,� matrix WdLh 'wile F.s��1.�v5't.3 r�VV�YV� �iJ daft CA.Sdte.]U. e�C21S that G
the_GMLP Options Pgper should be sent to QQTA by mid-May 2003.
1 2285-2
.... ......... ......... ....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........
. ..... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ............ ... ......... ......... ..........
....... ......... ......... ....._ ...
OCTA- Manning Committee February 14,2003
Subject Defining Scenarios for the Contra Costa Countywidgy
Comprehensive Transportation Plan 'CTP'
e
Summary of Issues In ja-uarv, the CTP Task Force reviewed and discussed potentia7scennari.-s
' fort e 2''04 Update to the Tom. Based�;poys Muse scenarios, staf "
generate alternative project descrytions for analysis in ;he CTP EIR,
j a �j
Recommendations Recommend the use of the four defined Scenarios, with any necessary
adjustments, in the development of alternatives for the 2004 CTP-Measure
t
C renewal process
r;
Financial Implications
i
Option's NA_
i
�
i�
Attachments � None
Changes from i None
1 Committee
u
Background
Ore of the first steps in the process for developing the 2004 Update-meas:re C renewal is to develop
scenarios from. which staff will develop alters atave approaches. The purpose of scenarios :s to help
deve`.op alternative st-rakegies that can succeed oder different 6futures99. gust as the vision describes
what we hoe to achieve, the scenarios describe the obstacles and opportunities that will affect our
anility to ac ileve that vision.. By bringing those uncertainties to sights we hope to crate sa:pore useful
S.1 cf aitematives for the authority and she public to consider,
ssder,
What is theQuestion?
Scenano making begins by defining what question we're tryingto answer. Staff suggests starting ig wzt`,
the following question;
What alternative combination of strategies, embodied in the 20104 ;'plate cid proposed
Expenditure Plan, would both gain the most voter approval and best achieve the
Authoriry's goals of a strong econorny and a high quality of life?
Key Factors
To define scenarios, we treed to decide what factors are most im.portant to the Authority's r n13 on., That
is, what factors would have the greatest effect on how well we will achieve our vision and address
Wa e\Ccta r:Ies\I,AL:,hort.y\2003\02\C ?Scenarios•Dcc 23,6-1
CCTV --Planning Committee February 5y 2003
future uncertainties. Authority staff suggests that two factors coda have the most direct effect;
available revenues and the pattern o,,'Iond use in the county and region. Revenues directly affect the
projects we can help build and the programs that we can help support, whether Muse funds come from
the new Measure C or State and federal sources. The pattern of future lane use, resulting from:local
land use policies and private locational decisions, will directly affect where we travel, when we travel,
how much we travel and how we travel.
Revenues. Both our experience with the first Measure C and the current funding crisis show how
uncertain funding can be. The first Measure C, for example, estimated that the Authority would receive
around $890 million (in 1988 dollars) over the life of the measure. Actual receipts, however, may end
up being around $755 mil'_ion (again, in 1988 dollars), 15 percent less than that original estimate. The
State:undig crisis will likely have significant effects on, the timing of projects and., perhaps s ulti ately,
whether those projects are built.
Land Use.Similarly, while ABAC over the years has been fairly close in forecasting where
development will occur, local and regional governments throughout the region are now looking at
redirecting that growth in new patterns, patterns that are intended explicitly to affect the demands
placed on the transportation systern. These efforts—the Shaping Our Future process in Contra Costa
and the regional "Livable Footprint" process--could result in significant changes in the location and
type of development. 'These changes may, or rn y not, have significant affects on travel demand and,
thus, the Authority's projects and programs.
Development of the Scenarios
To investigate how these uncertainties could affect the Authority's projects and programs, we identified
two possible conditions for both funding and lana use. Together, these would lead to four scenarios.
• Funding. For furIrrg, we identified high and .ow conditions. The high condition would
result from ar estimate of$1.6.billion from the rerewa.of Measure C and the estimate of
regional funds from the 200,1 Regional Transportation Plan. The "low" condition would result
from reducing the $1.5 billion estimate by 15 percent(the same percentage that the current
measure's revenues were reduced.) and by rising the regional estimate for the 2004 RTP, which
are expected to be lower than the 2001 RTR
• Land Use.Two conditions are used to represent the range of future land use patterns we might
see in Contra Costa.The first, which could be called the"taus quo" or "trent" would
correspond to ABAC's projections 2000, These projections represent what is likely given
current growth pressures and local plans and policies. The second, which some fright call
"smart growth", would reflect changes to those plans and policies arising from the ongoing
"Shaping Our Future" and "livable footprint" processes. (The schedule for this effort may
preclude using it for the 2,004 Update, however.)
These ranges are reasonable, first, given the experience of reduced revenues that the Authority
experienced after the approval of the current measure, and second, giver the ongoing debate over lard
use policies and approaches.
6-2
OCTA®Planning Committee February 5,2003
By combir:in g hese, we -an define four scenarios;
1, higher revenues and current land use trends
2. Big shortfalls in f n-ding and current land.ase txreids
3. Higher revenues and a new lard use patterrI
4. Big shortfalls in funding and a,new land use pattern
The following graphic shows hese scenarios. Other dimensions could be included in tae scea aYios iTM
addition to the two axes of funding and land use. The Authority could, for example, do se-nsitivity
analyses of the effec:.s of increases in the cost of travel (resulting, say, from tlZe increased cos: of
asol ne, tolls or, even, congestion pricing, on travel decisions. qqp
$1.68 Measure C +
0
$1.6B Measure C `I" 2001 RTP
2001 R "r Proiections 2004 t-
Proiecticr5 20001 shaping Our Future
`FALLS
d !
V 355 Measure C Y $1.358 MeasureC'
2004 UP '. 2004 ,RP
3
i Proiecticns 2000 Prciecticn 2004
Shaping C7ur Future
3
Next Steps
The precedin g four scenarios can. he used to help us develop reasonable alternative plan and investment
strategies and rase- them to develop the proposed 20}4 Update and Expenditure Plan. Each alternative
\\Jane\`ct1 ri`es1i.Aa,hor:ty\2003\02\C'T`?Scesarics.:)oc 23.6-3 3
CCTA-Planning Committee February 5, 2003
would be designed so that they would work whether any of the four scenarios corne to pass. The
alternatives need to respond these scenarios and can be tested against thea.
Often alternatives get discussed only after the 66pro ect alternative" is already d€veloped, This can mean
that the alternatives are "strawvmen"that are only discuss-ed as part of the. CEQA document, The
obiective here, however, is to identify three or four real alternatives Haat are discussed as part of the
decision-making process. Each crust help achieve the Authority's vision and reflect the diversity of the
county. To better understand the differences ar^ong the subareas of the county, we will need additional
input from the t ,pCs on their pr,cr tees.
As well as 4n orming the process of developing the 2004 Update and the proposed new expenditure
plain, the alter:atives wil'be used to fulfill the Authont_y's respons;Hlities ?rider CEQA.
6-4
a -
_ _ _ __ ........ ........ ..._
........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ......... ........ ........1.111 ........ ......... ........ ........ _ ...
....... ........ ........ .......
C CTA-Planning Commiftee February 5,2003
ii Subject i Paratra .sit Study Update I
i Sine; a.a y of Issues Last moo;tl ,t-he Planning Com-mmittee referred issues related to the Pa a'ransit
St-adv to the'Paratr isit Coordinating Comm i-ee(KC). The issues
ineluded the level of Meas,=C pa-at±ansit funds to the study tf=•,rids that i
would o iherwise be used for paratransit service), and the broader scope of i
kthe study propose by the Couhty, A letter was sen': .o the County Board of
S:mpervisors 10 deic ndne if the County �vould be willing to participate '
f 'ancia£`y in the study, The PCC zorined a suocon-m'ttee>to address the
scope and funding issues. The next meeting of the full PCC is not until
I,
March 24, 2003, fi
Recommendations � staff recon ends that the Co-remittee consider adjusting the schedule of the
proposed study to allow the PCC inp �� ¢� scope�os the study,
£ : k so he
Fhiar cial Ianplic-adons 1 Authority nnet: hers expressed a desire to keep the sandy to i,o more than
i i Sl0G,0JG 'to $150,000)inc`adin a $50,001 conrfbtion from MTC.
4 '
i
Optic-us love ahead w1t.the development of an AFP,using--jthtr tlle scope i
taecr'bed as'"'rack�below, or the scope described below as Track D with
additional funding). As a va.iat_on of the staff recommendation,the
I
Authority could also provide cern irzie is;o the PCC in its t sc,1ssIM- of
project scope.
i Adtadx rt eats Y �
See 02103103 PC Packet A. �et er o s �d� Freitas,��tho =ty chair,to�ole l if ia, `� a rbr an of the
i' Contra Costa County Board of S;rpervisors (1/5/03)
4
Changes fro-m. Drone.
Committee i
Background
Septe amber 2000, d ze Contra Costa Board of Supervisors sent a letter to MTC requesting a scddy of
paratzansit issues in ContraC osta County, I\ITC responded that a local partner be ide mil Seta to assist i,-
the
nthe study, -1;,e Board of Supervisors recd_ amended,that the CC±..A be the appropriate entity, and in
Mover Leer 2002, the Bow,d of Supervisors requested IMat CCTV consider acting as the:Local partner for
this study,
The Pian ring C.o=ittee reviewed the Couraty's re guest in December and recommended that the CCTA
proceed with the study, focusing on, rnaragenaent and coordination issues,and not mo
ctsing on surveys
+hat are available fror i other sources. The Corr ittee indicated a desire to limit tbhe dos.of the study to
no more tl^£a a SiCC,CCC (to$ SC,000) irciLidirig a col tribution of 5C,CC0F by STC toward t e consultant
casts associated with the study, The Authority concurred with the Planning Co:riznittee directions, and
raised two concerns related to the bread o-e of the study and fhe level of fading from t.earatransit
reserves, that would otherwise be used for paratransit ser-,ices. The Au"fdr'ty referrer the concerns to the
PCC to address the scope of work and furicing leve;options. It was a'-so agreed that a''letter would be sent
to the County repo-ling the discussion and direction taken, by the Aut'--ority and re nest ng t;sat the
C1MYy Documents\OCTA Piles\I.Aute<ori:y'2003\02\parat=s;t update,doc 2,B.7-1,
CCTA®Planning Committee February 5,2€03
County participate financially in the study, This letter was sent to the County on January 6, 2003
(Attach- lent A),
PCC Discussion
On "aruary 27, 2003,the Paratransit Coordinating Committee (PCCi discussed. a two track(or option)
study approach: Track A would use existing resource-naterial to evaluate techniques to irlprove the
efficiency and effectiveness ofparat:ansit services. 7-rack 3 would include original research into
additional issues and surveys identified in the scope of work outlined originally by the County. The trach
A approach using existing research materials and the focus on lnanageme nt and administrative
improvements would probably permit the study budget to rernain, in the $100,0000 to $150,0010 range,
based ole costs of si:::ilar studies elsewhere over the past several years. The track two approach would
require a mu3ch greater budget.
The PCC was not interested in a broader study that wo id use more Measure C paratransit funds,and was
interested In a study that would be ofiMMediate praCtIcal use to the operators. PCC 11 e bers
reco=ended that a PCC subcommittee by formed to identify the most pressing issues that the Co alty°s
paratrar_sit operators are trying to solve in effectively providing service irrproverllents and increasing
ef�zciency. Prior to the subeo::�Y ittee?reeting,the paratransit operators will identify three most important
:slues that they want to be addressed in the study, The subconamittee.will review these proposals to
develop a draft Study scope recolr�endation anal report the findings to the fu.lt PCC at the March 24,
2003 Meeting,
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the final development of the study scope be deferred until after the March PCC
sleetii g to a ldw sufficient time for PCC r 1vlliber lr.putg and COri5lderatl.or of any funding C�rltrlb3lilons
by the County. A proposed work scope would presented to the Panning Committee at the Ap ril
meeting.
:7-4
........ . ......... ......... .. .......
....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ....................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......._.
OCTA—Expenditure Plan Committee February 0, 2003
f; Subject i Report on Community Outreach. and Opinion Research Efforts in
Connection with. the Development of an Amended Expenditure
Plan and Reauthorization of Measure sure C, �r
Summary of liss€res i In January,2003,the Authority approved a work scope for consulting
services L-1.connection with the development of an amended expenditure plan' ii
to be funded potentially through the reauthorizeticon of Meas-are C. The
scope includes, among other services,community outreach,public pob in
` and focus groups and the facilitation of an Expenditure Plan advisory
a, � Co:�vnizeee. the con,suadrng team.will report to the EA C on actions aria'
i accomplishments in these areas.
i f
11
Recommendations Staff recommends that the EPC receive the consuitan.ts' repo,s and provide
I� additional direction as Necessary.
i
Financial Implications � N/A
Options I redirect staff and/or the consulting teamregarding the impementa.tion of b
i
t:ss work scope.
;i Attachments
a. TMemorand-u.from Design, Corm-:unity& Environment dated January h
31, 20)03 summariming the January 23,2003 IMPAC meetin&
I�
b. Memorandum from.Resign,Community&Environment dated February
3, 2003 regarding umcomma,Public Workshops.
;
c. MemnoraW.durr from Ales Evans and'Ped Nordhxas dated l~ebr-a -y 3,
2003 regarding Preliminary Focus Group Results.
Changes from N1
Committee
Background
A consulting team led by Gray-Bcwen and Company has been -engaged by tone Authority to assistin the
development of a revised expenditure plan to be funded potent a ly through the r eauthorizatio s of
Measure C. Services to be provided include,among other things, public workshops,polling and focus
groups, and the facilitation of an Expend-,-ire Plan Advisory Committee(EPAC),
To date,the consulting team has facilitated the:first rneeting of EPA.C,conducted eight focus groups
about transportation and related issues, and has established a preliminary schhedule for five public
infornmation-workshops, Detailed reports on these efzorts are attached for the co::.=ttoe's review ali
drS�usS�on,
\\AN'i°A\ F1LES\3-EK-Exp ria.Comm..\2003Nectin gsTEE 20031,.)EL Outreacr.cc; m Q
DESIGN , COM MUN ITx`' & ENVI RONMENT
MEIMORANDUM
: 600 SHATTUCK AVENUE DATE January 31.,20073
SLITET 222 -rc
K!Gray
B E R K E -E Y, CA 94709 Gray-Bowen and Company
TEL, 510 848 3815 FROM David Early
'PAX: a 3 0 848 43+ 5 R E January.23, 2003 EPAC Meeting
In response to your req and in preparation for the February i 0th EPC Meeting, 1 am
submitting this memo to summarize the first Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC)
meeting,which took place on i hursday,January 23,2003 from 4:00 p.rn.to 6:00 p.m. at the
Pleasant Hill Community Center. 1 served as facilitator for this meeting. A copy of the list
of attendees is included with this memo.
Summary of the Meeting
As shown on the attached list of attendees, 22 EPAC members and 15 observers were
Present at the meeting. Five additional EPAC members were absent,these were people
who contacted us in advance and said '.shat they would serve on the EPAC but could not
attend this meeting,
During the two-hour meeting,the agenda;terns that were discussed included reviewing the
r oe and ground rules for the EPAC, reviewing the proposed work program, and
determining the date and time of future EPAC meetings, due to a lack of time, remaining
agenda terns were tabled for future meetings.
The following is a summary of issues raised.
Establishing Co-chairs or Co-conveners. John Dalrym^le (Central Labor
Council} proposed that the tiPAC consider having co-chairs or co-conveners so that
EPAC members could better take ownership of a process that really hinged upon
forging a consensus, In response to this proposal,same EPAC members voiced the
concern that having co-chairs would create an unnecessarily adversarial relationship at
the beginning of the process. Others expressed the desire to wait to snake any
decision, about the issue until rnembers could get to know each other better.
Ultimately, members opted to wart until future meetings to revisit the issue.
a Monthly Agenda. EPAC members recommended adding a regular agenda iter` t0
approve the following month's agenda.
PAGE 2 DESIGN , COMMUNITY & V I R O N E N T
Concern About EPAC Role;vis-i-vis Other CCTA Advisory Committees.
Several EPAC members expressed a desire for close coordination with CCTA's other
advisory committees,such as the R iPCs, PCC, BICC,TCC: CAC and the Countywide
Transportation,Task Force. One EPAC member raised the suggestion that
representatives from these other committees should attend EPAC meetings to
enhance coordination across all of these groups. Another EPAC mernber
reccrnmended that the EPAC should take the lead role in advising the CCTA on the
Expenditure Plan because it is a group that needs to coordinate the concerns of all
stakeholders; in,contrast, CCA's other advisory committees are primarily geographic
or:node-specific. At the very least,members all agreed that the various roles and
tunes for coordinating among all committees needs to be clarified. CSC&E is exploring
these issues with CCTA staff'and will report back at a future EPAC meeting.
Meeting Length. it was evident from this first meeting that a single two-hour
meeting each month will not be surTicient for the EPAC to be able to address all of the
issues before it. Therefore, I asked that EPAC member-,plan to meet for three hours
at future meetings, Additional meetings may also be needed.
g Background about Measure C and Other Related efforts,such as
"Shaping Our Future's, Several EPAC members requested background
information about the existing Measure C and growth management,"Shaping Our
Future," and examples of other counties that have passed successf l transportation
measures. We plan to provide this information at the February EPAC meeting.
Using "Shaping Our Future" Process as Guidance. Several EPAC members
were concerned that we should not try to "reinvent the wheel" and suggested that the
Expenditure Plan be based on "Shaping Our Future", EPAC members agreed to
consider this further atter learning more about"Shaping Our Future"and the Measure
C process.
a Integration of Mitigation Fee Processes. Jeff Hobson (Transportation and Land
Use :caution),on behalf of John Dalrymple (Central Labor Council), expressed the
desire to add the issue of integrating mitigation fee processes to the list of agenda items
for future EPAC meetings, We will add this item to a future agenda.
* CCTA Governance, Jeff Hobson (TALC), on behalf of John Dalrymple(Central
Labor Council);also asked that the EPAC consider whether CCTA,as currently
formulated,was the appropriate body to implement the Measure C reauthorization,
We will add this item to a future agenda,
- Evaluation Criteria to Guide Development of Expenditure Plats. Several
EPAC members expressed the desire to set a vision,goals and/or criteria early in the
Process to provide a framework for the Expenditure Plan. Some EPAC members
wanted to establish specific evaluation measures, Others did not want quantitative
evaluation measures but did agree that some criteria or articulation of goals or
principles would be desirable. EPAC members resolved to discuss this further at the
February meeting.
Date and Time of Future EPAC Meetings
EPAC members decided that future meetings would be herd on the 4th Wednesday of
the months starting at 3.00 p.m. However,the February meeting wi?I take place or,
Tuesday, February 25, 2003 at 3.00 p.m. to accommodate certain members'
schedules, suture me�tings will be heid in the CC`TA Board Room (3478 Buskirk Avenue,
Ste. 100, Peasant Hill,CA).
In sun,-;,future BPAC meetings through August 2003 are scheduled as foi':ows:
Tuesday, rebr,�ary 25"
a Wednesday,March 2e
m Wednesday,Ap: 123"
Wednesday, May 2e
Wednesday,June 25'
® Wednesday,July 23'
Wednesday,August 27h
PAC ;Meeting ®January 23, 2003
PAC MEMBERS
cigar d M. Anderson Delta Pedlers and East l3ay Bicycle Coalition
Linda Best Contra Costa Economic Partnership
Guy Bjerke Home Buil ers Association of Northern CA
R Brown Save fount Diablo
john �alr°y:r�i� ��r�tra l_ab�� �ca�r�ci
Doris Daniels AAUW
Juliet Eihs Urban �iabitat
Seeve Fiala East a Area Trails Council
Jeff Robson rans or ratio n and band Use Coalition
Kristine Hunt Contra Costa Taxpayers Association
Rebecca Kaplan bus hiders union
Theresa Karr California A:)ar-ment Association
Bruce Kern Economic Development Alliance for Business
Sargent Lidtiehaie Orirda Association:
Kathleen Nimr Sierra Club, SE Bay Chapter
Say Trea ger , rs P arra€ . rans brtat;or^
Peter Oswald Centre
Edward Pancoast Urban; Creeks Council
Yehuda Sherrr;an ECAC
Igor Skaredoff Friends of Alhambra Creek
Bruce Stewart Neighborhood Rouse of North l ichn4ond
Evelyn Stiver-s Greenbelt Alliance
Ethan Veneitiaser Cal for �a,411iaor ;obs
n
Hena Clark gest County Toxics Coalition
PM Jakel Contra Costa- Council
Bruce Ohlson Easy day Bike Coalition
Leslie Stewart Lea ue of Women Voters
Deborah Workman West Lounty Senior Coa-Ti-tion
OBSERVERS Present 1/23103)
rrelle Bourg-art CCT
Judy Ca ney Aicaianes Lrnion High School District
Sita Chokkalingarrr Transportation and, Land Use Coalition
Mike Daley Sierra Club, S," Bay Chapter
Brandon, Earley CCCTA
Joel Goldberg BART
Lisa Hiarnmon WCCTAC
Liz Hansen AAU
Torn f-?ar& BCCTA -tri Delta Tr ranslt
K,at F,;a n Landau AC `i"rarrsit
a Lutz Supervisor Donna Gerber's Office
Paul Maxwell CCT
Hisha-n Noemi CC A
Robert Raburn East Bay Bicycle Coalition
Gerard Witucki CC Council on Aging
ate , 1
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............. ..............._..... ........ ........ .............. ...._... ........ ......... ........................ ............... ........ ......__...
DESIGN , COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT
ap �
i+
Mtn E M 0 R A N 0 UM
1600 ATT UA v E DATEE February 3,2003
SUITE 222 To Bill Gray
BERKELEY, CA 94709 Gray-Bowen and Company
TEL: 510 848 38tS FROM David Early
FAX: 51s 0 848 43 ! 5 RF: Public Workshops
in response to your request and in preparation, for the February 1 Cth EPC Meeting, I am
submitting this mer, o to surnmarize the status of DC&E's work to clan a series of public
workshops as part cfthe reauthorization of Measure C.
Currently, we are contracted for one round of five public workshops to be spread
throughout the County. The workshops are tentatively scheduled to be held in April 2003
and will be timed to solicit meaningful public comment regarding growth management in
Contra Costa County and what projects and programs should be included in the
Expenditure Plan. The workshops will also include time for CCTA staff and consultants to
report on their efforts with respect to the Countywide Transportation Plan and the Growth
Management Program.
We are working with he staff of the RTPCs and the County to identify appropriate dates,
tunes and venues for this round of public workshops. We have preiirnina�riiy proposed a
weekday workshop at 7:00 p.m.to the various RTPC and County staff members.
Based on our discussions with RTPC and County staff several of the meeting dates have
preliminarily been set: The current status of the five workshops ?s as follows. Pileasa; note
that aii dates and venues are preliminary only: no public outreach regarding
this informetion should occur yet.
Pleasant mill Community Center a Antioch Senior Center
Thursday,April 3,2003 Monday,April 21, 2003
Starting at 7:00pm Starting at 7:00pm
San Ramon Area
Maale Hail, San,?abio Location and date TBD
'Date To Be Determined CTBID}
Fifth workshop
Starting at 6:30prn or 7:00pm Location and date TBD
a� 3
PAGES- 2 DESIGN , COMMUNiTY & E V : RONMENT
We have also proposed to OCTA that a second round of public workshops should be
conducted in the fall to introduce the Draft Expenditure Ran to the public. The Gray-
Bowen tear, is working with OCTA to develop a scope of work and a cost proposal for
this second round of public workshops.
We have initiated contact with County stag to coordinate these workshops, and we
anticipate that the County and its leadership wall play an important role at each workshop.
......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
.............__....... .. .. ............... ............ ._............._...._.. . .......... .......................
0 'mum
To- Bob McCreary
"a ''ordhaa:s
Date. 2/12/013
Ria Pre minary Fovus Groq)Plesu is
The following memo highlights key findings frorn a series of eight focus groups
red it Contra Costa County about transportation issues and Landing, taxes, and,
growth, Participarts were recruaed fronn voter'Lists with those in extreme support or
opposition to renewal of Measure C screened out to obtain a g>oup of saving voters.
Each focus group was comprised of 6-10 paIicipants, and all groups were
professionally moderated.
.All groups were conducted at the Nichols Research focus group facility i
Concord with sar:�e sex -moderators. two groups (one rifer aro one worner) of
Central County voters were read January 22, 2003, t wo groups orae men and one
women) of East County voters were he'd sanmary 27, 2003. two groups Conti men
and orae women) of South County voters were held January 28, 2003. Two groups
gone men and one worner) of West County voters were l;geld January 30, 2003..
The following h ghligbts are only prelirrunary findings. A formal report will
follow.
`. The saliency and intensity of the traffic Problem has lessened in Contra Costa
County, particularly among inen. Ainong men, the economy, the budget crisis,
and Ira, are subsuming other concerns. traffic remains an im=portant problem,
;:est :got!he top issue to the degree that it has been in recut years
2. There was little knowledge or awareness of the original Measure C,but
participants were generally impressed with and.favorably disposed towards
Measure C's accornp list;rr:ents. Measure C's accor plishments were the single
most compelling argument for renewal of the sales tax,
3, Most participants were inclined to support renewal of Measure C after reviewing
,he Specific accori~plishments of the measure,
4. Most participants perceived Measure C ren ewa: as cont.niling the statics quo.
They did not perceive it as a tax increase and this was a major reason that they
were willing to continue -1L. Moreover, participants did not belie ze the-,the sales
tax would ever really go away even if they did lot vote to renew it. They
believed that the sales tax increment dedicated to Measure C would just get used
for sornetHing else and were inclined to renew the Measure because they assumed
that otherwise the money would probably go to somethiu less preferable,
S. Man, y participants qualified the:.--support for renewal of Measure C by saying that
the economy, the effect of budget cuts on other local services, and the disposition
of the governor's proposed sales tax increase would oe major Considerations in
how they would ultimately vote,
6. With the exception. of East County, there did not appear to be strong regional
rivalries. East Co;,inty participants felt strongly t eat their region had been ignored
and underserved by Measure C, BART, and other transportation agencies and
waited to see major investments in East County BART extensions and highway
projects before they would vote for the mineasure. Participants from other regions
tended to focus on BART and better planning as their top trarisportation priorities
and, signiaicantly, generally accepted that Last County deserved and needed
BART even though it would have little benefit to them..
7, Asked to choose between BARS'extensions and highway widening if they could
not have both, Past County participants almost unanirdno isly choose Highway
widening.
8. There was a strong preference among al: groups for:regional transportation
mjects and programs. Many participants felt that sales tax money should not pay
for local, rnunicipa: level transportation projects and prograrns. 'There was also a
strong consensus among most participants that the new measure should do
"something" about growth but little agreement as to what. Central County and
West County participants identified the growth management program; descriptions
as their top priority.
9. Growth -is perceived mrimarily as an issue of"too many people" rather than a,
enviaonrinental or open space problern, and participants generally favored no
growth to smart growth. The strong anti-growth sentiment was balanced by
fata:ism about the inevitability of growth and hence a belief that new
transportation investments were necessary in order to serve sew growth that was
coining whether we like it or not.
lir. Duration of the sales tax renewal did not appear to be a major consideration for
most participants,
Transportation Focus Groups -2-
........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ .........
...... .........._. ..._ _ ......... _ _................................ ......... ............. _ __
s
i
Focus Group
Findings Report
Prepared for*
Contra Costa Transportation
Authority
vans/h4cDo ough Company, Inc.
February 10, 2003
V € a7
i a , - CCTA R Focus Group Report 1
Focus Group Methodology
Eight ecus groups of 6 G participants were conducted amor!g
t:,e foiiowing pcpuiations:
— Cenral County-,ianuary 22,2003
concord,Clayton,Martinez,Pleasant Hili,Wainut Creek,unincorporated
areas
a st Courtly e lanu y ?, 1003
° 3 ,nts ocl%Brentwood,Oakley:Pittsburg,unincorporated areas
— South County a January 28,2003
E Danville;Lafayette,Morege,Crinda,Sart Ramon,unincorporated areas
-- Vilest County Jar'ary 30,2003
Rlclhmond,San Pablo,Pinole,Hercules,EI Cerrito,unilncorpcMad arees
One ferr;aia group and one rrla?a group was held for each region,
S with same-sax rn-bderators.
a Part dpants were screened to be,
I cry; vote
- Swim voters on renswa3 of Measure C(Strong supporters&stro;�g
oppor.ants were screenad out)
o3j - Derrogeaphicatly diverse w#t'hin heir region
A31 yro:ups ,,ere conducted at the Nichols Research focus group
fac!'y snConcord.
Groups videc3 and audit taped,
evic
c
C;CTA Focus G-roup kewor,
v&nc,i cDorough Com.pang, 3-2763
p
Concern about traffic is down; concern about the
economy is up.
4 Although there was `attic awareness of Measure
C and the CCTA, participants were aware of
recut transpo:-tation imprcvemei)ts in the
County, and when the accomplishments of;
{ Measure C were presented they were prepared
to by supportive.
Growth continues to be a major issue in the �
county i
i
I
(
3 1
iI- v
CCTA Focus Group Report 3
i
Been Eclipse
,. t m County
i 4 �;-ie sa:;e�cy of :he traffic problem�= ir: the �,o�...y a
has lessened A recent months. �
— The rneWs groups cited (rag; the economy, and the q
state budget crisis as op concerr!s. i
i — Women's groups focused r-;ore on education as a
ccr;cern,
However, traffic does remain a concern; for most
participants. i
-- People have recognized the inevitability ci traffic and
r have learned howto lave with it.
s
x Growth and traffic are often discussed in the
same breath. i
Participants connected the traffic in the County with �
growth, both in Contra Costa County and it n6ighbohng $
counties.
1 y
4
CCTA—Focus Group Report a
Evans/McDoncuez Ccrnpmy,0013-2763
r i A
Prepared to Support Renewal
E
O Although the, vras little knowledge or awareness of
the original measure, once participants were given the �
details € ost sad they would vote to renew the tax. �
,evaa: of them.,easurewas beenas ct€i4uing the
status quo. Because we were not proposing rise
the r taxes, bub mere;y keeping then~:¢he sate, there
was little opposiitor-.
6
3 Even if the renewal was rejected, nobody to ought their
s sales tax would decrease; ather, they felt tris l2 lent
} wo id just be snapped up by some other less
1 preferable pro ect, {
Participants were `Hnclined to vote for the renewal
based'on what projects the previous measure had i
ac;ompl spied ¢lle'rsupport was .not Yarticufariy bred to
what specific fro ects vrould be in the new plan,
.
E
OCTA Focus Group Report 5
a
Prepared lo SupportRenewal
€ ffi A few potential protects that had support from. participants in
most groups.
1 -e Mdeni ng HHghvyay 4,
1 — r.xpend ng. AR i to East bounty 4
Expanding paving at BAR€,
1 imp-nov ng connections bel t sit syetems, i
1 N Bio gh most pa:icipants were `nciined to vote for tine
° e rte he a,ts'A�te�r#��Y'�sy�+.ii.��'orb.was
/.iaua!:Ifl-ed] Y1 �ry !.3 r�i c��y p o-
£dm to p,the io VR. 1scai situSit¢'.o ,and a possibis
statew;idq sales tax in .ease were ai; cited as potential
obstacles to support.
:.Many said they weuid li ce y vote for the measure, but they
wanted ta see the specifcs of the plan,
Participants recognized that, although they aren't happy w th ,
l the traffic and transit systerris 1M,the County now, cutting off i
funding Mould onlyrnakelit worse.
s
_ . seeing their tax money spent exclusively whin the ~county s
O was an attractive feature of the measure, i
i t
c:C"%`A Fdcas Crr�•p RaporB b '
Ev -is/McDo or:ea Co perry,#03-2763 oho w
f #
Prepared aRenewal
Although there was little regional bias, a few regional issues
stood out.
East County was less inclined to support the reriewa',based on
aid accomp€is'rr=ants.
z 'Chary feel That they gave been paying both this tax and the BART
tax f or a long tlrtta and haven't seen any of the benefits,
The recognlze that their area is less populous then other parts of
the Ccurity,but feet that itis growing the fastest.
'They feel that it's"their tum,to get some projects In their area to
compensate for years of perceived neglect.
! "rhe two projects they keyed or,were extending SART into their part of
i F the County and cor:tinuing the expansion of Highway 4 Eastward,
m West County participants felt hat sor nething needed to be
done about the€-80 corridor.
8 The lack of s carpool lame from Highway 4 to the Carquinez Bridge
was seen as an oversight that should be remedied by the renewal. ?
CCT'A Fozus Group Report 7 t
t
Growth Is A SigniffcantConcern
^rowEh continues to be a major issue in the county.
— Participants feel that ton many people are moving Into the county. i
Participants tied the bulk of their traffic and transit problems in the County I
to unplanned:unchecked growth, 1
Traffic Is bac;because roads and other infrastructure have not been able to keep
I up with grotitAh.
a —
Transit systems were Inadequate for the number of naw residents,and too E
urnco"acted to each other to be useful. ,
There was a fatalistic view Of future growth:Although they don't want It,it's
coming,and they need to des?wit^i°s impacts,
— Pa:tic:psnts were willing toT
msey for Improvements to f!x the traffic and transit 3
problegrowth has 2!rea y caused. i
— Developers should be rasponsible for future transportation infra-structure when
they build new developments.
a Reaction was mixed regarding'smart gromth"programs, i
— It was generally agreed that growth should be planned regranWly and has been
haphazard arlunplannsd in the past.
— There was general agreement that something needed to be dune to canon#
growth
— incentives end other programs that ancounage new housing anywhere,even
urban Infill,were ether not fully understood or viewed negatively.
i
I
CCTA Focus Group Repot g
v s/McDmo�. Corny y,##03-2763
Primary Findings
m Concern about Is down; concern about the
economy ;s :alp. {
Although there was little awareness of Wileasure
and the OCTA, er is',arts were aware of,
r % r,t-r n-sporttion improvements in the
County, and when the acro-pi'sh e,nos of
Measure r presented they were r-a re
to �e supportive.
Growth
uppoi rQtive. y� yy g � p �y
t +,J tris t R co is1i�Su;es o be as d{edki'or k7 t..�FG Svi�' t7f�.G 7
county
my
OCTA Focus Group Report 9
-
Next Step&* Baseline
Survey Methodology
s
8.00
� tmi-vis s
®- Likely regIstared voters in, Coritra Costo County
'. -- randomly seiected
y — 5emple size a?tows for regionai analysis
ti t
dephome Interview
® r lned, professional interviewers
`e r r. of Error = 3.5%
Scheduled mid—March co p etlor
CCiA Focus Group Report �
s
Egos/-McDonough Company, #03-2763
aC2,
9
i
Next Steps Baseline
Survey Elementsr
Assess Attitudes and Politicai Environment
W Voter optimism
issue saliency
— Attitudes towards traffic, econorny,taxes, and growth
a Uninformed vote
— Early In survey
Test potential ba;iot question
Proects and Programs
— Extensive
w- Test support countywide and regionally i
sterm4^e what current or prospective proyects mast
characterize measure, not what projects should be in p:an
a Growth Management f
! Test support for possible growthnanagernent approaches
r
e Demographics
a OCTA Focus Group Report 1 p
0
i ns/McDono g Company,#03--2763
9C-N
...............................
....... ..._.... .... .......... ......._ .......... ........ ............. .............. ......... _...._.. ....._....... ......... .................
EVANS1MOONOUGH
wUnnpany Incorporated
y
December 30, 2002
dS
To: Bob McCleary
From: Alex Evans
Teti--N-Or aus
Re: Opinion Research Met ods arid Plan: Phase One
OBJECTIVE
Phase One research will establish basic,ulsl;c ocinion parameters or A e new
tran sportat.on expenditure gauge the current Saliency of traffic a""C '£rc` nspfsi'at'lon,
problem.s with Contra County voters, and mmeasure support for renewal of the County's /2
Cea'transrortation sales tai,
METHODS
L Review existing opinion research. data. Prior to heginnin g new research,
EIE C will conduct dna extensive review of. sting opinion research on
att t-ades towards transportation, takes, and.growth in Contra Costa,-oumy as
well as reviewing comparable data o m,t ger counties. Particular focus will
be given to the direction of voter optirmsm about&Ie region,the saliency of
traffic and growtiq issues among voters, and tax tolerance. EMC-will
s- marizv Endings in a docu ment for CCTV.Staff, Document will review
research conducted for t1he Contra Costa Council nn the sum er of 2001,
recent-research in Coma Mosta County for t-,:-.BART leis hic retrofi# nond,
and recent research conducted by MTC and the Bay Area Water Transit
Authority in Contra.Costa,County, Elr`C will also review recent research
conducted in other Bay Area counties on trawnsportation and relevant state
levee surveys as we:!.
24 Fiscus Groups. n tial research conducted for Phase One wi i be focus group
research, Each foes group will involve a two hour discussion among eight to
ten Contra Costa County voters facilitated by a trai sed professional
moderator, Fac 11ties will he provided to allow EMC staff, of e-r members of
the Gray-Bowen team, and C-IITA staff-to view the discussio tough a one-
way mirror, Each group will be video and audios taped to allow fob detailed
study afterwards and EMC will provide a detailed presentation of endings
shortly after completion of the feral group. e pay°to conduct eight focus
groups,two in each sub-regg on of the Co my in order to divide participants in
each sub-region ey gender,
315 FirstAvenue South,Sufte 400,Seattle,Wasf:l:; on 96104-Volce:206-552-2454-Fax:206-652-5022
45614th Street.Salta 620,Oakland,Callforn.la 94692 &Voice:510-844-0660$Maxi 510-644-0690
6931 Arlington Road,Suite 308,setlnesda, aryland 20694&Voiced 301-654-1669 a rax:240-465-1163
9
m
Focus Groups, in his instance, will primarily be used to intake sure that we get
ourbaseline survey rient--�using language that voters undersI d to describe
the expenditlzre pian and testing a hypothetical ballot question that we have
reasonable confidence will be viewed Dositively by voters. By conducting
focus g oups first we avoid the potential trap of underestirratirigvotes s ippon
fr n
or renewal of Measure C and for specific pro;ects and—rogras because they
sirr ply don't understand what they are.
This round o fFocus groups wisi also allow us to get an in-depth, qualitative
loch at low Contra Costa voters think and feel about traffic,transportation.,
growth, and taxes at the moment. These are complex issues and survey
research,patticularly when not informed by qualitadive data, often misses the
d.epfz,, subtleties, and context of voter opinion, hi focus groups, our
moderators will encourage participants to discuss and debate these issues and
will ask pa_rticip n is to explains the feelings,ideas, and values that inform.their
ODUL,o s.
At , important also to realize what focus groups are not. a acus groups are
qualitative,not quantitative, WI-6le we may conduct a casual vote on-Measure
C renewal among participaints, we are not concerned about whether tl''ee in
ten or six it tart parLic:.pants vote yes, We conduct a vote so that we can
ascertain who may change their ruin d during the course ofthe subseTaent q
discussion and ,/hy,not so that we can extrapolate that result to the overall
vot`ng public.
a malty, as:noted above, ;nese focus groups will in orris suoseruent s:zat
research. We will not, 1iowever, review an actual survey with participants.
Rather, we '�Jila lister to voter reactions to content treat wi:.t be incorporated
into the survey—a sw nple ballot questi on, descriptions of different projects
ur!der consideration for the expenditure plan,polar tial expendi ure allocations
I o diL --at transportation n=odes and projects —and niodify that Corteny,
based on the discussion to risme sure the,we are communicating ciea ly wild
res-oonderts who will particip ate in bite surrey.
I Baseline Surveys Once the focus groups have been conducted,we will start
work on tae quest5c:�nai e des°gn for the L3aseiine stirvtiy. �"e baseline survey
will be conducted thro R telephony interviews with 800 randomly selected
registered voters throughout the County. 'phe sample size has been selected to
ensure that we conduct enough interviews to analyze results by stab-region and
city ta-oughout the county. The overall margin of error will be ala 3.�°��
b wldr tiueslion,na,ir- �i+�/.ilJ.include several eral im ortant ei'.dtblezi mss.
Assessment of po tical environment and general attitudes.' 'his
section will include a series of questions designed to assess general
voter 3-o+EimSiLabout the County a-rid the region, ¢he saliency of traffic
,
_ ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
...... .......... ._ ......... ......... ..................._.... ......... .............. ............................ ..................
and transportation w tb rei4aria to caber locall issues, and ge ieral
attitudes towards traffics the economy, saxes, growth, and
'rans;✓ort do .
Uninformed vete: Early in the surveyJOefore we have provided
inforraati;n about Measure C or the:ro ects that it dight j Ad, we will
test voter support for renewal of the measure by asking them to vote
on a.potential ballot question, We will use ballot questions fro z past
successful easures, i<nc i:dinR the original Measure C, as a model and
will design. a question th-at is our best guess at what likely ballot
langma e might look lilke. The, nfonnmed vote will provide Our best
measure of seat voter support for Measure C is -in the current political
environment.
Fest support for potential projects and programs: This se;ti0r wi.�
test voter support for abroad set of potential pr,,eots and proa��nis. Ln
order to succeed, the neva expenditure p an will need to be
characterized by anumb er cf projects with voter support that.
substantially exceeds the two-thirds vote threshold. WEIte the
expe:idiaire plan niay i nchade and fund Many less pop{u;ar program.,-,
this will be our I.rst opportunity to q antitat,.vely identify'.:.close
p oJects and programs that probably have to be a high profile part of
the ex=iditure pay:.in order for the measure to be successful at trie
oa. t.
* Growth management program: T'Id.s section will.test different
«
- growth agerlent approache s, both in tern-is of their c�'ias elin°.
s:�ppo:t among voters and,n tens of their impact voter support for
relewal. of Measure C..
Demographics: This is the final section of the survey,w..ere we Wali
collect demographic and statistical irfoi atio x about respondents so
that we can better analyze voter attitudes by geographic and
demo aph is breakdowns`..hroughout the countye fey iriib*��ation
will include;
o Age
o Edin city
o Occupation
o Zd' catio
o C:r utti natterri
Upon.com.pletion of the survey, EMS' will provide a cornplete.set of efesstavular
r4su'ts to and f le rage Bowen.a Team rind w ll present detailed results,
findings, and analysis to the Authority,.
`immune
:/2/€33 — 1/17/03 RecrIlit focus group participants
Design fees group protocol
Review existing public opinion data.
Ow
v� sit� �oo aux
, Company fnc.62'm[ad
Delivery of Task 2: Rev ew existing nubsic oDinilon data
1/20/03 — 1/3 i/03 Conduct focus groes
2/€33/03 Present focus Floup flrdings to
Discuss questions re design with,EPC Board
2/27/03 Present focus group 1urbdings to E,PAC
Discuss auestionnaire design with. EPAC
3/43/03 review survey design and schedule with EPC
3/14 03 43,/23/ 3 Conduct survey
4/7/0.3 Presert survey results to EPC
4/17/43 Present survey resuits to CCTV.Board
.... ......... ......... .........
..... ......... _ ........ ...........
CCTV &Profects Committee February 6,2003
Subject I Status of Transportation Fiscal. Crisis
! Summary of Issues Without a transportation revenue increase, bath TCR'(General Fund
supe orted� and STT projects face significant delays based on the
E: Goveror's pro-oosed adjustments to the FY 2002-03 expenditures and the
( FY 2003-04 budget, Ever is the proposaa is not it _e .e ted in its entirety,
significant, General Fund support for transportation is not Iikeiy to be
available for at least tie .s
next 18 to 35 mons . The problem of addressing
f , these project conn—_:trnnen s with l:_. .ted f-unding s exacerbated by
distribution-al inequities in t e.-TCS program. In counties such as Sap
�
Francisco,
rLzc sco, Santa Ltib, Gn0. V3 Angeles, dCRs commitments pum exceed
TY
What they would otherwise have received for the $5 billion Program as
,heir fo fila share based or statutory formulas. The Authw t. adcpted
conceptual recommendations to potentially address this problem in lan�a>y. I
! u
li
' ecomm-e€ida.tlons i Not applicable.–status rept;rt. i!
t
Financial Implications Financial iniplYcaton s of the Goveror's proposals, and the precise status of
i, the 2002 ST1, are still uncertain due to the dynar:es of legislative miction on
them and the ranges of federal funding that r-4at be available, 'both n �
annual appropriations and the_renewal o:TE 21. Staff estira es that$400
to $8 ,lion will be available for delivery of STIP psojcc's .n the valance
of PY 2002-03. Cu nulativety, staff has been advised that$1.4 to
j billion in State Highway account funds are likely to be available through FY
l 2003-04, against$2.8 billion in STIP projects. Tlae cash -ow for TCRp
R projects that have a..allocation is estirnted at$„ billhon, unless the
Legislature xat`orizes canoe-ling existing allocations, over the next 3 to 4
f
e! ..ars.
Options Not applicable.
!1
Attachments List of STIP Projects Potentially Ajfected.
Changes from AI's'recommended that staff cautiously explore options that might include a
Committee delaying SS P projects, taut that before any definitive action Is taker:, we
should await clear direction frorn Sacrarnerto.
Background
As a resu't-of the State's fiscal crisis,funding for$5 billion of pro-.',cc'investments from:the
Transportation Congestion Relief Program:(TC .P) are jeopard_zed, as well as transit and local streets and
roads fun t g. Specifically, the Governor has recor.nmended deaerng any fi per Genera:Fund transfers
thro=ugh the next 1.8 months at least, and shifting responsibility for carrying out the program.to the CTC
with a o increase in fundis. The proposal is silent on the future beyond the next 15 nnont s, but implies
that virtually the entire TC P obligedon would be shifted to the CTC and traditional funding
mechanisms.The TCRP program also deviated significantly from historic funding formulas, generating
significant inequides in the distribution of'the project fiends. Those inequities make designated of "off-
the-top"
offt ie-top" allocations of new funding sources to TCS projects ever,more challenging. (Contra Costa,for
example, would be better off f nanczat ly with new revenves flowing ti-�rou;,�sta.«utory.;orniwias than with
"off the top"allocations to TURP projects,;
\\Mien\apc\2003\02-06-03\`_2.I FiscalCrisis,doc 4.A•12.9" l
CCTA—Administration& Projects Committee February 6a 2003
r° addition,the <ve-year 2 .ate gra s artatio ne rove ent rogra n; LIP now Faces a 2 to $4
billion deficit. That deficit threatens to be exacerbated by the FY 2002-03 authorized'oars of Lip to $474
n :LLion from the State Highway Account to ICRd projects, which cannot be readily repaid in the rear
term. Because Caltrans and the Administration lack a legal mechanism to stop TCRP projects that have
received an a.l<ocation, despite the Governor's proposal to do so as of Decenfber 31, 2002, the demands
for or-going`I'CPP projects against the loan from the Highway Account has not been sorted out.
hi staff's view, there are three likely co_nponents to resolving the fiscal problems; (1) approximately$400
to $800 r-.dl`ion in STIP projects scheduled for FY 2002-03 will go forward, and the balance will be
delayed or deferred, subject to a near-tears"allocation plan"by the CTC, {2)ars allocation plan for the
balance of FY 2002-03 and 2003«04 STIP projects will reed to be crafted, potentially including
amendments for some TCRP projects. This plata will use:gyp the balance of the$IA to $L8 billion
available, unless a new revenge source is introduced (or,in the unlikely event that General Funds were
transferred to transportation consistent with the original TORP progra.m)s and (3)the 2004 SCT'will be
delayed, while theseissues are sorted out, with the likely outcome that there will be little or no new
transportation capacity in Elie 2004 STIP, and existing cornmi-trnents delayed,unless there is a significant
revenue increase.
Staff is continuing to participate in statewide workshops on these issues, with the next meetings
scheduled February3tr.and 26t'% We will keep the Authority apprized,
11Eiie \s�c12o03\02-05 C31i2.:
Fiscal C isis,doc 4.A,12, _2
......... ......... ......... ._....... ......... .._......... ......... .......... ........... ...................._.......__.........................................................................................._....._..
.................................... _ ........ .......... ....._..... ........... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... .. ......... ......... ....................
s3,S�i o 0101 � a 0 aj tom: 0 0,0 t'�';�'"�tollct. l t JC 0l.
'
it4
! J 1 R J i 9 '
800,
f !
; cwt r �iiY rim " E£aE i } r4 r�
"i,
IN naI
Ct�s� i Ic
64
ar j
0 1'C'[ .0 on 'tf z Ln �j.k"t.a''4 � C�I�i o C.
C:.�7
f€�
# jC to u ? m m HIP, �; 0 ®�
.oa rv1Y {4 ; i r � � s E�.; E ms s
��
y a.' ' t CSS o f CLit Ei
i 1
ilan Lo
41
In
sco
Vill
s
' e >i Ns t r� r s rs w rs m rs a r7 i
s
I
IE m
C i t } � t +
ta&oe 1 } Z57# O � .'tea � '� +`"" � 0.QS
CL i
J 1 E �'� �'' *� 1 4Vii° �0 U
E
e i Osi
f t t"" pmt J� 5,+� 7+,� #� � 4t � s
t > + ( , � ci Jr of x s C ro !
ate, '` !tyiY +cis € � ;te
tai ,Gi. � £moi � u'i
J i U f OY;1`S ,Gd tlJ �t co
zff
Jami i jIesi� �l� i n; l <i ���
s J sum`
i� � l� i
SSSt E v n`
QJ (ae e 0 15 as o f
; �I c c�i�f sai 'c� (15
IS }v L) # 0 C
1cs i0 � a 0;-'cs �.c oja ' �' �; •o
lu � Ui y J' �J A1C); U�Ca 'J J Y SW J L J a U 47
( } E ` ,... E J. - 6
1 r + ?C�.. 'a".' .)f)f G.fCtlG. i!LicL tja. �. B. Qr CL,^ r.].,t1.��. ,1 ! .
7;6 .
O N O •'^ I C7 f7,. t f
t � i •� � �
C � U C: p C I i
!�,y
ma �2 a 1# o . o c -00
t
is ##< �� i � !
i en w � � Fo � c I '13U is
s9 +
231
i .c ° v a o i� j � y o °� 3 E C ° U U i
2 E d 75
w y 3 r o I
10,
> cv i
001,2 UIQ
i cs a x o > Q a n C: o ° rn i cv
Ci.O -So
`LL 6 ( t3 _ y
t 1 Cy 0 ,7 co ° ! 'cc 7? [` Ya.. C -0 j r1
n z o I ° c `�
,� �
cu o Eo "�
2 LS
aI
' » }! -" C b �" •� D N 1,� CUl N i C7 v C{ O � , f
0
cu
3 �, w c o m r •°i > ;•�
L� L ri t ,c m O > C� a` C5 G E o g 3 v ° Tj p o
CJ �:3t{7 � C) 3 q:. ev d O ct
! all ' i o
J G I Y i U EJ
I'11 a� G It �a> i ro I o 2s q sw x c j u
int� CL
d
yr d
M
#¢J
N
Tv
CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
I
0f%V11S IGNER 8; �
Ona,'d h,Freltas February
9 f
03
hair
ilia Pierce # �,'��iilis Casey
iGO-Cf18fP City Manager
City°of Pittsb urg
65 Civic Avenue
ane,'Abalson
Pittsburg,, California 94565
;herlia Abrar,rs f '
haria AlQ�ria
Dear Mir, sey:
ortnGicra Aothority staff has recently been info=ed of a si�zi:Eeant potential issue by City]of Pittsburg
h-= lacennent of a n 80-foot P ion sign at&,e Century Plaza/Auto
Were!Glover i staff, phis issue dials With tva y r r,
property that will by i<n future needed riga-of-way for wide_:ing of State Route 4, If tb,e City
3radh'ix
were to ar,t3rove&.e Diacennent of the sign at this location,there wo l be sig'.ifiS arit
4ancyTaterka additional' fiatu'.re prosect costs when Route 4 is widened'ti tough Road.
e
;my'North 'Fhe City of Pittsburg was previously given c.-awings indilcatin the"new"::fit-o way b- e
018 1-1tao for the`fl ature project Vhich would require-roving the sign, `We recommend that the sign's
L'
i
"ocation be moved 50 . to thl-north t0 avoid away conflict'w tri fature right-of-way needs.
j Transportation f. d ng is ext_rer hely ugh t,therefore responsible actions should be taken novo
�cbert j.McCleary by local govemiment to avoid future relocation and reconstruction costs.
Executive Director
'We would like the opportunity to Meet with you:to discuss tb.s matter prior to the issuance of
Sincerely,
I
R
3478 Buskirk Ave
Sulfa arceary
�Isaserr til Executive Di ector
�A 94523
cc: PaulMP,X.vveli
�IHCIVE; Susan Hider
251407.0121
)2,9140-0128
s
�#tp:lNa ,ccte,neP f
n
-OMMISSIONERS: CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Don F re;las
MN SCHEDULE 2003
Chair i Meetings are held in CC A's office(url.ess otherwise noted) at:
Hookston Square., 3478 Buskirk Ave., St--100,Pleasant Hill,941523
,, E
�zlie a avrce
VCv-C;air o
CCTV (Full Board) February 19
Charles .Ab"mr.s ai Wednesday the monthMarch 1s
Janet Abelson
at 6:00 PM April 16"
Maria Alegi a
A (Adrainistratio Projects) 1~ebr-aary 6�
�ahrs Cicia
First Thursday oy the .nonth March 6hi g
at a3 A t��ri'3:d
Federal Dover
r
B;;-ad Nix P (Planning Committee)
February 5rti
Julie Pie?"Ce First Wednesday of the month March 5`d
�
at 5:30 P Ap°z' ,end
� ?atark.a
CA (Citizen Advisory Committee) e ruary 26.'
Am
y Worth
arch 26h
Fourth Wednesday of the month p � 'd
Kris�1 a'sead � th�rii��
i
T (Technical Coordinating Comm.) February 20-
Robert McCleary Third Thursday of the month March 20`x'
Executive D-;."ectol at 2.-30 PM April
iookswn sccare
3478 Baskzk Ace. PCC ( aratransit Coordinating Committee)
s 't� lac Fourth Monday ° ojl ever other month �a�cla 24d'
Pleasant Bili,CA � J 3 May 19'
9523
at-2:00 P
?hone:
925-407-0121, € i�
SPC (Expenditure Plan Committee) Fe13raa y l0`
Fax: March 10"'
925-407-0128 Second Monday of even month Aril 1-th
!
at 4:30 P
E PA (Expenditure Plan Advisory February 2J�' (�Id s:ne�ule)
Committee) Third Wednesday of each month Mauch 26'' (r;._w Schedu?e)
at 3.00.d M (,t CCTV€) April 23`1 (new schedule)
i
As of 2/19/03 Item 8,