The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 01282003 - D3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORSContra e FROM: Donna Gerber, Supervisor j tom. �, Costa District III County DATE. January 23, 2003 SUBJECT: TrI Valley Transportation DeveIP r._.snt Fee SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. AUTHORIZE the chair of the Beard of Supervisors to sign a letter to the chair of the Tri Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) requesting that the TVTC recommend to their member jurisdictions that they raise the fee schedule for the Tri Malley Transportation Development Fee (TVTDF) P€ogrerg in steps, as shown In Exhibit A, to e level that represents 0%of the fee amounts justified bythe Fee Program's nexus analysis, and consider further adjustments to these fees after completion of the proposed new fee study; and 2. APPOINT the Board of Supervisors Alternate representative to the TVTC and direct the County Administratorto update Attachment 1 of the Board list of committee assignments. FISCAL. IMPACT None to the {general Fuad; The new fee study would be funded by TVTDF Program revenue. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The Tri Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) includes Contra Costa and Alameda counties, and the cities of Danville, San Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore. The TVTC was formed to address transportation issues of common interest. In 1997, the TVTC unanimously adopted d recommendation to its member jurisdictions to adopt a uniform development fee,known as the Trl Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTDF). Program,that would be collected on new construction in the Tri Valley area to be used to help fund °I I specific transportation projects. In 1993,all the jurisdictions individually adopted fee ordinances and jointly formed a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement(JEP4A)to administer use of the regional fee, revenue. The JEPA requires the TVTC to prepare and unanimously adopt a Strategic Expenditure Plan, which among other things,establishes priorities for the allocation of fee revenue to eligible projects and recommends adjustments in the TVTDF Programa, In 1999, the TVTC adopted their first Strategic Expenditure Plan. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT- YES SIGNATURE RECO#allME DAT " OF C04N"I°Y`ADMINIST tATOR RECOMMENDATION ATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE, APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(-5 GEHF-R, ACTION OF BOARD ON L=�M 28, =3 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED �L-OTHER x AUTHORIZED the Chair,Board of Supervisors, to sign a letter to the Chair of the Tri Valle Transportation Council(TVTC)requesting that the TVTC recommend to their member jurisdictions that they raise the fee schedule for the Tri Valley Transportation development Fee Program in specified steps, to a level that represents 50%of the fee amounts justified by the Fee Program's nexus analysis,and consider f icrther adjustments to these fees after completion of the proposed new fee study;RECOMMENDED that the Chair, Board of Supervisors and the District III Supervisor discuss the appointment of an alternate member of the Board of Supervisors to the Tri-Valley Transportation Council VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY AT THIS IS A TRUE x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT Nme AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES, NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE LATE SHOWN. Contact: Steven Goetz (9251335-1240) cc: Community Development Department (CD®) ATTESTED Jarmary 2.8. 2M11 PWD JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF TVTC Chair, (via CDD) TIME BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TY �^ ��' ,{5 # .` y} gip;a 19 #. eJw 'Y t"'u�1'r}a.°''�.:e'f +t .,Mf is'hrf$`'�� g ld"'.i.8 G:\Travisoortar�on\Steve\bo\sentitvtd€.?,doc Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee January 28,2003 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) In 2001, the TVTC initiated the process to update the Strategic Expenditure Plan, This included updating project cost estimates, revenue sources and schedules. The total cost estimate to build the 10 remaining projects in the fee program has gone up by about 80 percent since the first estimates were developed in 1998 ($857 million vs. $460 million). An updated financial analysis determined that there would be deficits in several years of the fee program's cash flow. These deficits would peak at $10.2 million by FY 2009/10. These deficits assume a continuation of the priorities and commitments included in the existing Strategic Expenditure Plan. No new funding commitments were proposed in this calculation. In April 2002, the TVTC directed staff to review the adequacy of the fee schedule in the TVTDF Program and the need to raise fees as part of the update to the Strategic Expenditure. Plan. Subsequently, staff conducted a review of the fees recommended in the initial nexus analysis used to establish the fee, which was prepared in 1996. In 1997, the TVTC adopted the Principles of Agreement for the TVTDF Program,which included fee levels that represented only a small portion of the fee levels justified by the nexus analysis. With this fee schedule the TVTDF Program was projected to generate $76 million, or about 15% of the cost of the projects eligible to receive the fee revenue. Since that time the fees have undergone annual adjustments to reflect increases in the regional Construction Cost Index pursuant to the provisions of the JEPA. A comparison between the fees justified by the nexus analysis and the current fees is provided in Exhibit A. In July 2002, the TVTC considered increasing the fees by 80%. For residential uses, an 80% increase is still about 50% of the fee level recommended by the nexus analysis (adjusted for inflation). This fee adjustment would raise about$112 million by 2013 and provide approximately 13% of the funds needed to construct the eligible projects. This fee increase would represent an interim adjustment in the TVTDF Program. The Strategic Expenditure Plan would allocate funds to update the nexus analysis with a new fee study. Further adjustments in the fee schedule would be considered following completion of the new fee study, and be part of the next and more extensive update of the Strategic Expenditure Plan in 2005. A description of this proposal is included in Exhibit A. TVTC members were concerned that the July proposal would disproportionately impact housing construction. While the proposed increase would put residential fees at about 50%of the levels in the nexus analysis, office and warehouse uses would only increase to about 20%of the fee levels in the nexus analysis. The TVTC directed staff to prepare a now proposal that minimized fee increases on residential construction in favor of higher fees on non-residential construction. At their October 2002 meeting, six of the TVTC members supported a fee increase that would leave fees for single family, retail and other construction unchanged, slightly reduce the fee on multi-family construction, and significantly increase fees on office and industrial construction. A description this fee schedule is included in Exhibit A. Depending on the state of the economy,the October 2002 proposal could generate up to $23 million in additional revenue over the next I I years. This proposed fee schedule would fund approximately 8.4%of the total costs of all eligible projects. The proposed fee increase and revisions to the Strategic Expenditure Plan failed to receive the required approval of all seven members to the JEPA. In an effort to reach a consensus. I would like to offer a new proposal. This new proposal would request that the TVTC recommend to their member jurisdictions a fee schedule for the TVTDF Program that would gradually raise the fees, starting in April 2003 with the fee amounts described in the October 2002 proposal, These fees would subsequently be raised in steps every six months, except for the fee on retail construction. By October 2004, the fees would reach a level representing 50% of the fee amounts in the Program's nexus analysis. Further adjustments to these fees would be considered after completion of the proposed new fee study, which should occur by the time the next update of the Strategic Expenditure Plan is completed (in about April 2005). The proposed fees are listed in the far right columns of Exhibit A. These fees obviously would generate more revenue than the amount generated by the October 2002 fee proposal, but an approximate amount cannot be determined at this time. . ............. Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee January 28, 200 Page BACKGR 3Ut D/REASONS FOR RECC3lti/lll E.N ATION s continued 1 believe this proposal to be superior to the previous proposals. Compared to the previous proposals, this proposal has new development paying a fee amount that more closely represents its fair share as determined by the TVTDF Program's nexus analysis. The stepped increases follow a model used by the East County Regional Fee when it was initially established. Those fees had automatic annual increases over three years (in addition toadjustments for inflation)to reach the level ultimately viewed as fair at the time by all parties. The table below provides an additional comparison of my proposed TVTDF fee schedule with the other regional fees assessed in the County. l would like the Board's support for this concept prier to submitting it to the TVT . Comparison; of TVTDF Fee Proposal with Other Regional Fees in unincorporated Areas New East CC South West CC TVTDF Traffic Imp. County Regional Land Use Proposal Authority JEPA Fee Single Family (per d.u.) 3,088 7,902 894 788 Multiple Family (per d.u.) 1,954 4,847 894 814 Office (per sq.ft.) 5.53 1.05 1.43 0.23 Retail (per sq.ft.) 1.14 1.05 0.89 0.23 Warehouse (per sq.ft.) 3.74 1.05 0 0.23 Other (per ply. hr. trip) 1,007 7,902 894 788 1 am also recommending that the Board of Supervisors appoint an alternate to the TVTC. An alternate will help ensure that the County will be represented at TVTC meetings when unanimous decisions on matters related to the Strategic Expenditure Flan are required. Exhibit A. Comparison of Various Fee schedu€es for the TVTDF. jE O O7 10 V7 ! CAS rd OD 2f} r CAS ® CN C5D C? LS C7 C1 r 0% 0 CAS CO r- 7 O} tL f� r CN co <0 CC'S L toL. C!S40- r C7i t"S ECS CA3 c� L*3 IXS e tLt t 0 C a 0 f"'- 'd• CO 0 C:> r- 0 0 � 00 I- Com`) to `Z A 0 o CCS Cp rf C C 413 Cif C'�f Cif CD C�4 C A a� a. z (13 04 f� fr f 0 GCS G3 X 0 !#S ei o o c T- x in U) T-- C53 cV car Et# " z da Cp b � CO r r vi Cr £€3 Cif _ x to I- LU w w f.f- g ; U) gfg CO s- C> C3 Cit 'IT U- ?C Cif CAS s e- C*7 0 Z C� +a- 0 LL 0 0 C> IT 't CD c 37 Q3 c CC �- t ti? o 00 w CO a) €l� 0 r- M C0.} a tt d B` £ 0 co US t ate- � r CS Ct9 C 7 C4 i7 Ca3 C3 i cr 1C as , «o us Com! >+ [Cr n � CSi cL 6�3 0' W �' � a= 0 CSS - 0 � C — C3 E CS a o `tea - 0 d LS cl 0 Ct2� t8 }t! ¢13 tn cq V) "t c9 In � W M to r M tY3 tL9 }� r r C3: 2 C14 4fl r at M. U� M r L1 Gfl r «U `I t C� 7 1- et 00 0 CL rCrt'ai I- L� 0 CN N LSV co CN 0- 04 Orr 8fY3rC+iDo 2a 0 a. SC3 5th r t C rt dS2 (D LU z C-4 m LO 0 0 co Lb 00 ygy 0M 0 r E Lt3 uj w UL 4) tlp o o c o m c z w w 0 0 LL E z 0 a r r CO 0 6�b ar: c6r r 6 6 Yf3 LL £� w 0 CL fl- t-- N w r 2 - 0 W a d es I- tL1 4 ! fl- 04r 0 (D Z (0 M C'4 T- << g5 Q3 Cu C2, L — 0cr li$ M UP v Cr f� cL <) co x 5 !i--- a� m z 0 0 0 0 0 sib as;, 0 CO to to Z LL et 0) itb A-- I- M a6 C6 6 r C6 t CO T- L9 C, � N }e . r Cl) CCi co Plbtoin s- M m' Cl) 10 v® CB Cb r CCS o a � � C*) e Nm e® cei B�- ilb IN � CL i 6b e$ co 0 #�- co r^ c- ,� tP3 0 0 0 is 0 0 pCt? C73Cia9 `Y o C`t hl C-i co 040 I LL. t g$ O Co C a a o 0 0 0 LLtd7 yc sEnQ3Mrr � C!i N 0 � 311 z Cit Qg � � It - it1 g 080 tib 0 <0 CCS It) � 2 m C`d e- E 113 w L#3 u Lt, o i0 \ C-R \ co LL y{�C� tr7 SX3 e- .e-o 0 � z; � c L3 U 0 0CD ICT eri0a cc z a 0 4- T-- 00 0 � Ci }� C6a: r6Uf, LL fd1 co gt C14 M Uis CLQ I-- c- a t-- IRt � Z cp t Co co C'! CU 9 z? CU d-� CL }� 0 C3 c s. C7 m' v C Q7 _ c Cy 1 - E e :v 0 m LL @? Cii = o cn CL CL C, �a E—amu. ,, "cz ?li ig z cu �G3 � o w 0 The Board of Supervisory ` John Sweeten C3er k of tthe Board County Administration BuildingCosta Ind County Administrator Fait Pine Street,Room 106 (92�;33�-i9E3a Martinez,California 9 !i3-1293 County John Glola,Ist District Cagle&tlllkema,2nd€3 strict Donna Gerber,3rd District Mark DeSaulnier,4th District Federal 0.Glover,5th District, January 28,2003 Honorable Claudia McCormick,Chair Tri Valley Transportation Council 100 Civic Pima Dublin, Cts 94568 Bear Chair Mcornnick, On behalf of the Contra;C€sta County Beard of Supervisors I aril requesting that the Tri Valley Transportation Council (TVT ) recommend to their member jurisdictions that they raise the fee schedule in steps,as shown in the attached table. This proposed fee schedule represents 50%of the fee amounts justified by the Fee Program's nexus analysis. In addition,I would also request that the TVTC consider f ether adjustments to these fees after completion of the proposed new fee sturdy. This proposal has new development paying a fee amount that more closely represents its fair share as determined by the TVTDF Program's nexus analysis. w If you have any questions on this matter please feel free to contact Supervisor Gerber or myself on this matter. Sincerely, rw Mark DeSaulnier, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 1` D/JC:talk Enclosure cc: Members,Board of Supervisors G:\Tr spof'ation\Stevelbolsent\TVTDF Lettmdoc