The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 01282003 - D4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM, DENNIS M. BARRY, AICA f Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County DATE: January 28, 2003 SUBJECT: Growth Management Component of the Reauthorized Measure C-88 Transportation Sales Tait Pr ram SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS `l. ACCEPT a supplemental staff report responding to questions, comments and concerns raised by Board members during consideration of Iters SD.2 on the January 21, 2003 Board of Supervisors agenda, 2. AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign a letter transmitting comments to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority on the Authority's paper Options for a Growth Management Program (see Exhibit A); and 3. CONSIDER other actions related to the reauthorization of Measure C-88Transportation Sales Tax program. FISCAL IMPACT None to the General Fuad. The existing sales tax program ties each jurisdiction's share of the sales tax revenue to compliance with the countywide growth management program. An extension of this sales tax may contain a revised growth management program. New requirements in a revised program could affect the County's ability to obtain its share of the sales tax revenue for transportation, BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On January 21, 2003,the Board of Supervisors considered item SD.2, regarding comments on the paper Options for a Growth Management Program, circulated by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority(Authority)as part of their effort to reauthorize Measure C-88. The Board directed staff to revise the draft letter included with the Item to: 1) oppose the reliance on jurisdiction's self- certification of their lousing elements as a means of promoting housing,2)emphasize the need to strengthen provisions of the growth management program that promote housing and help achieve' the Authority's vision, and 3) reaerate the Board's previous request for a Joint meeting with Authority members to discuss mutual efforts that are needed to ensure'a successful ballot measure. A copy of the revised comment letter is Included in Exhibit A. CONTINUED pgATTACHMENT: a Ma X YESS SIGNATURE:.•;,„e,,,,F� si s,.,, ✓ . j $, RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD C€ MMITT E _APPROVE OTHER ACTION OF BOARD OR : ,` < < .' APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER n 'fit ;;: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE NANIMt € S (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES of THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SI)PERVISORS ON THE BATE Contact: Steve Goetz (9251335-1240) SHOWN cc: Community Deve opment Department (CDD) ATTESTED `r Public Works Department JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF Contra Costa Transportation Authority THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ANIS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR u.\Transportation\Steve\ba\sent\reauthorizemc.f.doc BY . r 9 DEPUTY Growth Management Component of the Reauthorized Measure C-88 Transportation sales Tax Program January 28, 2003 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) In addition, the Board directed staff to bring to the Board for consideration the January 15, 2003 correspondence from Chair Freitas of the Authority to Board Chair DeSaulnier, which is included as Exhibit B. This correspondence describes the Authority's intended process for extension of the transportation sales tax. That process would involve amending the existing Expenditure Plan pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 180207 to identify uses for the additional revenue generated by extending the sales taxa Under Section 180207, such an amendment could be approved by a 2l3"s vote of the Authority members,followed by a 2{3's vote of the electorate, The original Expenditure Plan required approval by a majority of the cities and the Board of Supervisors, before it could be put on the ballot. Staff had previously advised Board members that the Authority's intended process appeared to be an inappropriate use of the statute,circumventing review of the Expenditure Plan by the cities and the Board of Supervisors as provided by state law. A copy of the complete statutes is included as Exhibit C. The Board further requested County Counsel to provide a written opinion on the consistency of the Authority's intended process with state law. That written opinion is included as Exhibit D. County Counsel believes that to reauthorize Measure C-88, the Authority rust prepare a new Expenditure Plan and have it approved by a majority of the city councils, as required by PUC Section 1802000, The annual amendment procedure in Section 180207, which only required approval by the Authority board, does not appear to be adequate for reauthorization of Measure C- 88. If requested by the Authority, the Board of Supervisors generally is required to call a special election and cannot refuse to do so. however, if the Authority does not comply with the requirements of Section 180208 or the California Environmental Quality Act, this could provide a justification for the Board to refuse to call an election until the Authority complies with the law. County staff was also requested to provide additional background material on the Authority's deliberations that led to Chair Freitas' January 15, 2003 correspondence. This background material is included in Exhibit E, which contains a staff report prepared by staff of the Authority, and excerpts from the minutes of the meetings of the Expenditure Plan Committee and the full Authority concerning this issue. This material also reflects the relevant public discussion. Cue to time limitations, there is additional information that may be relevant to this Issue that staff may provide to the Board separate from this report, but prior to the Board's meeting, In order to accept such material, the Better Government Ordinance requires a written explanation from the involved Department head and a %vote of the Board to accept the materialif it is provided later than 24 fours prior to this meeting. In addition to approving the recommendations as described in this Board Order, other actions related to the reauthorization of Measure C-88 that the Board may wish to consider Include: Directing Community Development Director to work with County Counsel to get a determination from the state offices of Legislative Counsel or the Attorney General on the County's interpretation of the statutes applicable to the reauthorization of pleasure CM88; Direct Community Development and Public Works staff to initiate planning for workshops in each supervisorial district to allow residents to participate in defining an expenditure plan and growth management urogram, and coordinate with the Authority and interested cities on these workshops; and Request the Board's Ad' Hoc Committee on Smart Growth to report to the Board on related initiatives that could be coordinated with the reauthorization of Measure C-88, such as the Shaping Our Future project. Exhibit A: January 28, 20303 daft comment letter to Chairman Freitas, CC TA Exhibit 13: January 15, 20033 letter from Chairman Freitas to Chairman DeSaulnier Exhibit C: Public Utilities Code Sections 180000-180207 Exhibit D: County Counsel's opinion Exhibit E: Attachment 1,Authority Staff/Expenditure Plan Committee Report Attachment 2, Expenditure Plan Committee minutes, December 9, 2003 meeting Attachment 3, Authority minutes, December 18, 2003 meeting t "A' The Board of SupervisorsJohn Sweeten Clark of the Board Costaand County Rdrrunistration Building CountyAdrn'snisretor 651 Pine Street,Room 106 (�325)33a-1SaLp Martinez,Cali€omia 94553-1293 g p� a .I John Glalas, 1st District � Gayle S.€ffkama,2nd District Donne Gerber,3rd District Mark€oSauinfer,4th District Federal 0.Glover,Sth District _ January 28, 2(}43 Honorable Donald P. Freitas,Chair Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3478 Buskirk Avenue,Suite 100 Pleasant Hill,CA 94523 Lear Chair Freitas, I am writing on behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to respond to the Authority's request for comments on the paper entitled. "Options or a Growth Management Program"(October 21, 2002). The County understands that this paper is aimed at stimulating discussion about the shape of growth management provisions in the reauthorization of Measure -88. Two committees of the Board of Supervisors have reviewed the options paper. On January 28, the Board of Supervisors authorized transmittal of this letter, which contains the following comments. I. Allow alternative Level of Service standards for pedestrian or transit oriented development. On page 11,the paper describes options for the Measure's Traffic Level of Service(LOS)and Performance Standards. The Board of Supervisors supports the option of allowing different standards for pedestrian-or transit-oriented developments. The current standards focus of moving cars rather than people and could discourage more pedestrian-or transit-oriented designs.This problem has recently occurred in Alamo,where the LOS standards prevent redesigning roads to be more pedestrian-friendly. Offering an alternative performance standard that accommodates increased pedestrian: activity would give communities more flexibility in achieving the type of community they like, 2. Reauthorization of Measure C-88 should include compliance with the existing 'urban Limit Line. On page 13,the paper describes options for Measure C-88's requirement for cooperative,multi-jurisdictional planning. One option its to add a requirement to jointly establish and comply with Urban Limit Lines. Rather than have each.RTPC and their member jurisdictions establish joint urban limit lines, the Board of Supervisors recommends the existing Urban Limit Line,Contrary to what has been suggested in the options paper, the County believes that there is already a consensus around the existing Urban Limit Line. This consensus was established when a majority of voters countywide approved the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land,Preservation flan Ordinance(Measure C-1990)which contained the Urban Limit Line. It is worth rioting that when the Board under took a comprehensive review ofthe lUrban Limit Lime in 2004, which resulted in a unanimous decision( -0)on boundary modifications that placed approximately 16,000 acres outside the Urban Limit Line,the public's commitment to the Urban Limit Line was reaffirmed. The Year 2000 Urban Limit Line review and boundary modifications were subjected to aro Environmental Impact Report and extensive public hearings conducted by the Board of Supervisors. The adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Board's action in Year 2000 was subsequently challenged and then ultimately upheld lin court. Additionally, the Centra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission in its publicdeliberations has adopted a policy to honor the Urban Limit Line in discouraging sphere of influence(SOI) amendments and annexations beyond the Urban Limit Line(adopted 2/10/99). Chair Freitas Letter January 28,2003 Wage 2 of 2 Consistent with the voters' intent in 1990 and the LAFCO policy,the County believes that the cities should use the existing boundary of the Urban:Limit Line as the absolute maximum extent ofpotential urbanization at least through.the Year 2010. We would have no objection:to the cities establishing their own Urban Limit Line or Urban Growth Boundary for the purpose of complying with the Growth Management Program so long as it did not extend further than the current Urban Limit Line. Such a provisionn will ensure that a reauthorized Measure C-88 will have a meaningful impact on future growth in the County and provide a significant base of voter support. . The,authority should strengthen strategies to promote affordable housing. The Board strongly supports the goal of Measure C-88 to address housing options and job opportunities by fostering the creation of Dousing opportunities in Contra Costa pursuant to state-mandated housing elements. The growing number of residents outside the Bay Area who commute to Bay Areajobs,underscores the need to increase the supply of housing for these tyke ofworkers, Without such opportunities,continued freeway congestion is truly inevitable. Options to eliminate the current housing element requirements in Measure C- 88 or to rely solely on a j,urisdiction's self-certification of their housing element will not help accomplish this goal. Rather,reauthorization provides an opportunity Authority to strengthen its effort to promote affordable housing to help achieve the Authority's vision. 4. Expenditure Plan investments should support the type sof growth that makes our transportation system work better. On page 17,the paper describes options for growth management that increase links to the Expenditure Flan and other Authority programs. The Board favors all of these options, but is particularly supportive of the following four. • Supporting infill and redevelopment; • Subsidizing transportation needs of infill, affordable housing and redevelopment; • Investigating the impacts of land use changes; and • Focusing investments on growth.management. In the Board's previous comments to the Authority regarding the reauthorization of Measure C-88,we urged the Authority to allocatefunds for planning activities(e.g. planning charrettes),and transportation projects that will support development that is consistent with smart growth principles. Using the reauthorized Measure C-88 funds to support infill,redevelopment and affordable housing would be consistent with this earlier request. Such investments make for efficient use of existing roads and transit service and help accomplish local planning goals. The Authority is currently involved in evaluating laud use changes by participating in the Shaving Our Future effort. The Authority could use its travel demand model to investigate potential changes in Contra Costa and the region that could reduce demands or improve the efficiency of the transportation system.,and allocate transportation funds that would support those changes. This activity would assist localities in matching their land use decisions with transportation investments,and Delp the Authority realize the vision it adopted as part of its Countywide Transportation flan. Reauthorization of Measure C-88 would provide$1.6 billion to invest in the County's transportation system. This revenue could significantly influence local land use decisions and the performance ofour transportation system. For instance,any sales tax funds allocated for future transit extensions should be tied to local efforts to plan for transit-oriented development adjacent to these new services. The State Route 4 East Corridor Chair Freitas Letter January 28,2003 Wage 3 of 3 Transit Study identified the potential for substantial increases in transit ridership if e-BART were accompanied by transit'-oriented development around e-BAIT stations. The reauthorized Measure C-88 funds could be provided to these jurisdictions to find planning activities around these new stations. Such growth management policies would maximize the authority's investment in these facilities and encourage the type of growth that makes the transportation system work better, as well as attract jobs that would provide a better jobs-housing balance in Contra Costa County. 5. Legal Procedure for Reauthorizing Measure C There is disagreement with the interpretation provided by the Authority's legal Counsel that Measure C can be extended under the procedure allowing for an annual amendment to the measure's existing Expenditure Plan,as described in Public Utilities Code Section 180207.This procedure would essentially only require a two-thirds vote by the Authority to mend the existing Expenditure Plan and place reauthorization of'the measure before the electorate. Then a two-thirds vote by the electorate would be necessary for reauthorization of Measure C. We are greatly concerned with the legality of this approach,as we have been advised by County Counsel that in their review of the statute the Authority must prepare a new Expenditure Plan and have it approved by the Board of Supervisors and a majority of the city councils in order to dace the reauthorization of Measure C before the venters, as required.by Public Utilities Code Section 180206. The approach now being considered by the Authority would not provide the Board of Supervisors(and the majority of the city councils)with an opportunity to vote directly on the Expenditure Plan that would:be part of the reauthorization of Measure C. We note Haat when Measure C was originally placed on the ballot in 1988 the Board of Supervisors and the majority of city councils voted directly on the Expenditure Pian before the measure was placed on the ballot.In relying on Section 18€3207 of the Public Utilities Code,the Board's (and the majority of city council's) only opportunity to vote on the Calan would be through its representatives on the Authority. The Board of Supervisors feels that it is imperative that the legal interpretation of the relevant sections of the Public utilities Code for reauthorization ofMeasure C needs to be resolved before it is too late. Accordingly, we have directed County Counsel to contact the Office of California.Attorney General to secure their opinion on the requirements under the statute. Enclosed with this letter please find the tables distributed by your staff to commenting jurisdictions on January 9, 2003, which have been completed to reflect the content of this letter. The County appreciates the authority's interest in our comments on this important effort and we look forward to helping craft a reauthorization measure that will encourage unproved coordination between transportation investments and land use decisions. In closing,we also reiterate our request of last year to schedule a joint study session between the Board and the Authority on the reauthorization of Measure C-88. Sincerely yours, V F_ - Mark De Saulnier, Chair Contra Costa.County Board of Supervisors rsor;ntx Enclosure �''�y Enclosure f cc: Members,Board of Supervisors 1tTPC's(via CDD) G:\TranspormiontsteveVoo\sentigmpeptions Attachment.doe ADDENDUM TO ITEM DA January 28, 2003 On this day the Board of Supervisors ACCEPTED a supplemental staff report responding to questions, comments and concerns raised by Board members during consideration of item SD.2 on the January 21, 2003 Board of Supervisors agenda, and AUTHORIZED the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign a letter transmitting comments to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority on the Authority's paper Options for a Growth Management Program with the additions and modifications to the tetter as noted by Supervisors Gioia and Gerber; and (See exhibit A); CONSIDERED and APPROVED the following three actions also listen in the January 28,2003 Board report. • DIRECTED'Community Development Director to work with County Counsel to get a determination from the Attorney General on a legal interpretation of process for reauthorization of Measure C. • DIRECTED Community Development Director and Public Works Department to initiate planning for public workshops in each supervisorial district on an expenditure plan and:growth management component for a reauthorization of Measure C, and coordinate these workshops with Contra Costa Transportation Authority and interested cities. • REQUESTED the Board's ad hoc committee on Smart Growth to report to the Board on related initiatives that be coordinated with Measure C reauthorization, such as the"Shaping Our Future Effort". The Board discussed the matter. The Chair invited comments from the public. There were no requests to speak on this item. The Board of Supervisors accepted the offer from.Chair Don Freitas, Contra.Costa. Transportation Authority, to schedule a joint meeting between the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday,February 19, 2003,on matters relating to reauthorization of Measure C-1988. After further discussions, the Board of Supervisors requested a report from County Counsel to respond to issues raised by Stan Taylor, General Counsel, Contra Costa Transportation.Authority, on interpretation of the public utilities code sections relating to the reauthorization of Measure C, and, as necessary,provide report prior to the joint meeting on February 19, 2003 between Board of Supervisors and Contras Costa Transportation Authority. Encla Exhibit"A" EXHIBIT John W eBoadThe BoardSupervisorsContra � Board and County Administration BtuidingCosta CowtyAdim,Intstratcr 651 Pine Streit„i?oot� 101i (925)335-1900 Wlartin�z,California 34553-#28 n-y 3 Coir John Glo a, 3st District 14 Bayle B.Ulikerna,2nd District Donna Gerber,3rd District N Mark DaSaufrler,4th District s �= Federal D,Glower,5th District January 28,2003 Honorable Donald P.Freitas, Chair Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3478 Buskirk..venue, Suite 100 Pleasant Hill; CA 94523 Dear Chair Freitas, I am writing on behalf ofthe Contra Costa County Board.of Supervisors to respond to the Authority's request for comments s on the paper entitled; "Opt ions for a Growth Management Program"(October 21, 2002). The County understands that this paper is aimed at stimulating discussion about the shape of growth management provisions in the reauthonzation of Measure C-88. Two com-m-ittees ofthe Board of Supervisors have reviewed the options paper. On January 21, the Board of Supervisors authorized transmittal of this letter, which contains the following Commentsa 1. Allow alternative Levelof Service standards for pedestrian or transit oriented development. On page 11,the paper describes options for the Measure's'Traffic Level of Service(LCIS)and Performance Standards. The Board of Supervisors supports the option of allowing different standards for pedestrian-or transit-oriented developments. The current standards focus of moving cars rather than people and could discourage more pedestrian-or transit oriented designs.This problem has recently occurred.in Alamo,where the LOS standards prevent redesigning roads to be more pedestrian-friendly. Offering an alternative performance; standard that accommodates increased pedestrian activity would give cornnnunities more flexibility in achieving the type ofconu unity they like. 2. Reauthorization of Measure C-88 should include compliance with the existing Urban Limit Lina;. On page 1`3,the paper describes options for Measure C- 8's requirement for cooperative multi jurisdictional planning. One option is to add a requirement to Jointly establish and comply with Urban. Limit Limes, Raflaer than have each RTPC and their member jurisdictions establish joint urban limit lines, the Board of Supervisors recommends the existing Urbana Limit Line. Contrary to what has been suggested in the options paper, the County believes that there is already a consensus around the existing Urban Limit Line. This consensus was established when a majority of voters countywide approved the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Ordinance(Measure C-19919)which contained the Urban Limit Line. It is worth noting that when the Board under tools a comprehensive review of the Urban Limit Lire irr 2000, which resulted in a urtarurnous decision(5-0)on boundary modifications that placed approximately 16,000 acres outside the Urban Limit Line,the public's commiftnent to the Urban Limit Line,was reaffirmed. The Year 2000 Urban Limit Line review and bourrdarymodifrcations were subjected to an l✓zlviron ental Impact Report and extensive public hearings conducted by the Board of Supervisors. The adequacy of the Environmental hupact Report prepared for the Board's action.in Year 2000 was subsequently challenged and then ultimately upheld in court. Additionally, the Contra Costa County Local agency Formation Conutnission in its public deliberations has adopted a policy to honor the Urban Limit Lire in.discouraging sphere of influence(SCSI) amendments and annexations beyond the Urban Limit Line (adopted 21119199). Chair Freitas Letter January 28, 2003 Page 2 of 3 Consistent with the voters'intent in 1990 and the LAFCO policy,the County believes that the cities should use the existing boundary oft e Urban Limit Line as the absolute maximum extent ofpotentiadurbaiiization at least through the Year 2010. We would haverto objection to the cities establishing their own Urban Limit Line or Urban Growth Boundary for the purpose of complying with the Growth Management Program so long as it did not extend further than the current Urban Limit Line. Such a provision will ensure that a reauthorized Measure C-88 will have a meaningful impact on future growth in the County and provide a significant base of voter support. 3. The Authority should strengthen strategies to promote affordable housing. The Board strongly supports the goal ofMeasL1r--C-88 to address housing options and Job opportundties by fostering the creation ofhousing opportunities in Contra Costapursuant to state-mandated housing elements. The growing nu giber of residents outside the Bay Area who commute to Bay Area jobs underscores the need to increase the supply of housing for these type of workers. Without such opportunities,continued freeway coiigestiotiistruly inevitable. Options to eliminate the current housing element requirementsinMeasure C- 88 or to rely solely or ajurisdiction's self-certification of their housing element will not help accorriplish this goal, Rather,reauthorization provides an opportunity Authority to strengthen its effort to promote affordable housing to help achieve the Authority's vision. 4. Expenditure Plan investments should support the type of growth that makes our transportation system work better. On page 17,the paper describes options for growth nnanagement drat increase links to the Expenditure Plan and other Authority programs. The Board favors all of these options, but is particularly supportive of One following four-, • Supporting infill and redevelopment; • Subsidizing transportation needs of infill, affordable housing and redevelopment; • Investigating the impacts of land use changes; and • Focusing investments on growth management. In the Board's previous certn-ients to the Authority regarding the reauthorization of Measure C-88,we-urged t4 1 ai I he Authority to allocate funds for planning activities(e.g. planning chairrettes) and tr ispoi ation projects that will support development that is consistent with smart growth principles. Using the reauthorized Measure C-88 funds to support infill,redevelopment and affordable housing would be consistent With this earlier request. Such investments make for efficient use of existing roads and transit service and help accomplish local planning goals. The Authority is currently involved in evaluating land use -hangs ley participating in the Sha,ill Ur Future effort. The Authority could use its travel deiniand model to investigatepotential changes in Contra Costa and the region that could reduce demands or improve tile efficiency of the transportation system,and allocate transportation funds that would support those changes. This activity would assist localities in matching their land use decisions with transportation investments,and help the Authority realize the vision it adopted as part of its Countywide Transportation Plan. Reauthorization of Measure C-88 would provide$1,6 billion.to invest in the County's transportation system. This revenue could significantly influence local land use decisions and the performance of our trarisportaltion system. For instance,any sales tax funds allocated for future transit extensions should be tied.to local efforts to plan for transit-oriented development adjacent to these new services. The State Route 4 East Corridor .......... _. _....._. ........ . .. .. ...... .. ... ........ ........ ......... ........ ........ ........ .............. ......._.. ..._......... .. ..._... _........ ....... .. Chair Freitas Utter January 28, 2003 Page 3 of 3 Transit Study identified the potential for substantial increases in transit ridership if e-BART were accompanied by transit-oriented development aro�Md e-BART stations. The reauthorized Measure C-88 funds could be provided to these;urisdictions to fund planning activities around these new stations. Such growth management policies would maxii22ize the Authority's investment in these facilities and encourage the type of growth that i- akes the transportation system work better. Enclosed with this letter please find the tables distributed by your staff to commenting,jurisdictions on January 9, 2003, which have been cotrspleted to reflect the content of this letter. The County appreciates the Authority's interest in our comments on this important effort and we look forward to helping craft a reauthorization measure that will encourage improved coordination between trap.sportation investinents and land use decisions. In closing we also reiterate our request of last year to schedule a joint study session between the board and the Authority on the reauthorization of Measure C-88. Sincerely yours, Mark DeSaulnier, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors isoim;K Enclosure W/o Enclosure cc: Members,Beard of supervisors -RTPC"s(via CDD) GAAdvance Growti Freitas letter version Idoc ......... ......_._.....1.1.11_. ._._.._.. ......... ......... ......... ......... ....._... .......... ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ........ ........... ........ ........ ........._... ........ ......... DA, JANUARY 28, 2003 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING ON A MOTION BY SUPERVISOR JOHN GIOIA (SECONDED BY APPROVED ON A 5-0 VOTE 1. APPROVED ITEMS 1,2, & 3 LISTED IN 1/28/2003 BOARD REPORT, AS FOLLOWS: 1) ACCEPTED A SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND CONCERNS RAISED BY BOARD MEMBER DURING CONSIDERATION OF SD. 2 ON 1/2112003, BOARD MEETING; 2) AUTHORIZED THE CHAIR, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO SIGN LETTER TRANSMITTING COMMENTS TO OCTA ON PAPER ENTITLED OPTIONS FOR A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, WITH THE ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE LETTER AS NOTED BY SUPERVISORS GIOIA AND GERBER, AND, 3) CONSIDERED AND APPROVED THE FOLLOWING THREE ACTIONS ALSO LISTED IN THE 1/28/2003 BOARD REPORT: A. DIRECTED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO WORK WITH COUNTY COUNSELTO GET A DETERMINATION FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON A LEGAL INTERPRETATION OF PROCESS FOR REAUTHORIZATION OF MEASURE C; B. DIRECTED CDD AND PIVD STAFF TO INITIATE PLANNING FOR PUBLIC WORKSHOPS IN EACH SUP. DISTRICT ON AN EXPENDITURE PLAN AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPONENT FOR A REAUTHORIZATION OF MEASURE' C, AND COORDINATE THESE WORKSHOPS WITH CCTA AND INTERESTED CITIES`, C. REQUESTED THE BOARD'S AD HOC COMMITTEE ON SMART GROWTH TO DEPORT TO THE BOARD ON RELATED INITIATIVES THAT BE COORDINATED WITH MEASURE C REAUTHORIZATION, SUCH AS THE SHAPING OUR FUTURE EFFORT. . ACCEPTED THE OFFER FROM CHAIN DON FREITAS, CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, TO SCHEDULE A JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2003, ON MATTERS RELATING TO REAUTHORIZATION OF MEASURE C-1983, 3. REQUESTED A DEPORT FROM COUNTY COUNSEL TO RESPOND TO ISSUES RAISED BY STAN TAYLOR, GENERAL COUNSEL, CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ON INTERPRETATION OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTIONS RELATING TO THE REAUTHORIZATION OF MEASURE C, AND, AS NECESSARY, PROVIDE REPORT PRIOR TO THE JOINT MEETING ON 2/1912003 BETWEEN BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND OCTA. LiASIDERWITHLi- JAN 2 7 2003 Issues Regarding Measure CReauthorizationCL XBOARD OF s €sc s 00-T-�COS;AC0. The hoard ofSupervisors has identified the following issues in previous discussions of the Measure C Reauthorization effort: * In tits=tional structure of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority—see following table * Legal issues (County Counsel's opinion}onthe"amendment"approach being taken by CC A, as opposed to a gnaw"sales tax measure)—see Board Order ft- om Community Development Director(January 28, 2003), Exhibit D * Linkage toShaping Our Future and smart rowtlh principles -msec Board Order, Exhibit A Boa.d of Supervisors' request (Jane 2002) for a joint workshop with OCTA Contra Costa County Board of.Supervisors � January 28,2003 .Prepared by the Cbmmunity Development Department and Public 011orks Department Board Structures of Countywide Transportation Agencies h 'i'»°pryyj�YM S�'+LS �a �{ 1 �FdE Cif. Hi7.0 ar d`'E i d f ¢ "W2i r`r yy q�v�y CbLJc�.� .Alanneda County 3 Transportation j 9 t (Mayors' Authority (all) (Oakland) Conference) Alameda County I Transportation l 5 Improvement i l 5 Authority i Ei (all) (Oakland) (Mayors' i Conference) (extension}measure) a I E (Regional Contra Costa ' { Transportation F Transportation 1l 2 Committees) y Authority i (Mayors' Conference G Riverside a Transportation30 5 24 i=(Governor's ,Commission (ail) (one each) ex officio) Santa Clara Valley 2 Transportation Igo * i (STC reps, j Authority f ex officio) j * --Includes 6 seats for the City of San Jose and 8 seats shared by the county's other 15 cities. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors January , 2003 Prepared by the Community Development Department and Public forks Department c 0 y c13 0 if3 �s t S, w CD c e tn t4 r 0--0 - Asa fl tY5 a+ tC5 v > �- L3 ! Ca n cc:, min 0 � tm v o (D t' c > 1 _ "- o : vs o cIsCLt' ° G5 G1 r9 .CLE3 S3 e,5 ta 5P 0 IS n 0 Al 0 711 o Ito cn > of0 0 c CD M 0 0 0 < m m z CA 0 :3 0 c CD CD C: 0 z 3 -0 CD cr (A R.�Q0_) UP co o CD CD @ Z::-- X 0 m m =. 0- 0 E 0 'a 'a M < < 0-0 cn 0 (n a 03 CD 0 in CD 'D CL CA C) —0, CD 0 ch CD 0 T ca o -0 0 in M. co 0 0 o 3 0-0N 0 :1 0 5 0 (D U) m qft Co. W CD —1 0 =r m 0 CD ; C CC— CD 3 0 m 0- En 0 3 0 CD (D 5' r- a 0 CD to CA CD CD CD m m CD = — CD 3 < 3 0 CD d. CD =r to �n 0 CL CD > 3 C-013 : -a3 0 > " 0 -U G) z CD -0 =� (---0 .. -N CCD 0- r w -0 . G) 0 0 CD tr 3 ID C) CD CnCD c— :7 x m CD M CD 2 EL ::r 0 3 0) ca cn 0 CD cX CD <n hCL ;u 0 0 :- m 0 CD 0 c = = CL 2. CL 0 w tr 0 CD 0 0 (D 0 0 CD 0 X 0 0 "0 q 0 0 P4, w cn CD Co =3 Ul, 0 CD D m CD -0 — -I ,I " = -T U) CD 0 z CD 0 -0 to 0 0 m C: m CD 0 CD CD cc "' eco 0 M su 0 tEd (n (D :3 m CD 0 (n cn '0 0 0 0 z 0 3 CE'00 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 O — < 0 0 = M 0 C) CO CD —. CD I A) 0 o En 0 (A cn 0 G) 0 ;:v Cc C: =r 0 0 CD 3 a-—0. , :r -0 5 to. '0 -0 '0 (D 0 0 :3 CD 0 IV CD43 0 CD 0 cn m a =3 51� R a CL co u CD 0 CD cn W r-r CD o -0 CD 0 0 0 _00 -0 0- 3 CA 0- 3. CO 0 .0 0 -.-0 0 oMa 0 CD 0 G) 0 m o Ul CD:J; G) r- U) 01 = 0 CD 0 0 CD -0 fn 0 CD m cn 0 c 3 0 r 0 0 O (D CD ................. ..................................... .......................... ................................ .................................. ......................................................... ..........''Ill.,.................. ............... ............ ....................................................... ........ ......................... ........... ............................................................. . .................................. . ................ .................I..............— cCO co co t a o tontr 6 0t ° o t cc � p 6a moi: �• �,. ��,� � °�- tun zCS 0 ° wR 0 ,0 4d Lie• i" W ta Owl tp row- IP C-u t7 G r" C✓ y 8w+ � � '�• �� 'w �f13 16 p to .ea p v i t3- U M K Q 0 p y�j fS p 5 U3 C p tn 000 -o � � � � 0 '� ��..�� •=�� tax.. to °� .� � tp ° ID .......... .......... 0 3 --q Cf) 0 cn 0 R: z > Z j (n cn (D Z t9 0 -0 T CD M (D m Cl) (P (P U) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5igW M i 3 3 i 3 2Li 0 0 � sa CD > Z > 0 0 :3 :3 U) m (n CD CD CL g * M 0 0 m �x 0 0 c z(j)c -0 CD 6 :3 -0 (D CD -a -0 C) (n -0 - F�, 0 0 CD m CD CD En -n 0 0 CD RZ C: &n CD (D m CD ? c CD CL CA 5' CL 0 CD 0. mi 0 CD i M = E: 0 CD3 0 M Z 0 CL (D co 0 to 0 0 z CD T :E 0 0 0 M" 0 .0 > 0 03 0 D 'a W 1 0 0 0 a3 M C 0 (D D CD =r CD co =r ;4: > CD Cn M Z) Z CcCD c > m CDG) 0 to 0 C!) C) 0 c)M 3 0 CL ch r 0 0 CD to Cal 00 0 0 '0 (n (n Ca Tl CD =r Co 0 ic I m > CD ............................................. .............. ........................ ........................... .................... ............... ......................................— ........................ .......................................................... . ................. ......................... M v 0 0 10 EL Va� c co c!5 G C3 D s t 00) L- E00 u = Et- ww c) C) f CLR ° 10 a 2 {' # 0 e 0 LLw CL 0 > o a a . a ' q m E C o S£f C 0 CL L-» y U9 7 il 0 Z Eu3 "C9 } V CL # m a 6 6 co co 0 fn 0 {�s1 V2 �r tib 7 _ ) v CL cL OL 0R CL¢ CL t�i3y � M +® C} 3 vy Ci3 6th Ai to > lz to 0) ; 7 S tU GS _0 .0 x C* fES E SK x 0 .0 t�" 6C.3 C€3 CJ `s (J3 ` ( # w _ L. fd .'mow 0 CC 45 C G n 0 t� sus as 'ca spaWw 0U) (1) cc � 5 > E e� :� as c CL +� cs 0 r � � = -0 CL cu LU C-I Fes-- 0 � � � z CD (f) 0 b CD o C) m =r w cn 0 x -z ::L 3 6 CL < z z ;u T W =- 'a -4 W a) U) 0 = 6 3 cn T 3 2: = — CD CD CD 0 z m CY (n (D co (n —1 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 CD a ;31 CL M (A 0 W z Z z CD M CD :3 -0 CL 6 q. o o 0, G) --I 0j ern 0 > g 0 CD =r 5. vi, m M 0 CD 0 0 x m (dS- -0 c c F z CD OL OL (DC 0 m rTJ (D X Z m 0 CD CD C. z G) C) " a CD i CD m Q CD 0 0 2) CD :5 CD :n CA 0 71 -01 rsf -0 CD 0 0 0 Cl) 0 -0 > ::3 10 0 m CD CD -V CD =r 0 =L0 M 0 El0 w cn CL < CD Er CD -0 tp CD cn 0 0 ........... c E E as st„7 "' � 63 s9x i19 i �a ,as a5 c�g� ia: 'L S%- 0 sagCaU "i us 0 Vr e � 10 CA 3 0 3 �1 [ Cl) C7 c UM. K P C) °� z` CL { aa "% '0 T a� x' to �o 0 €n C) 0 " � "� z cf; 3 � -a00 C3F z' C 7 0 C D a -6 -0 � :. ;:L ;a - v -1 - • 6 0 mCD e_ c CD � z 0 m > G3 CL ° OL`" 4 3`33 < a i c 9 u i 363 `0 ct) � F i p 0 Q Cn LD " t CDCDCL CD 0 (b i W U 0 "+ z 0 " 0 > m va CCS i s E b M i 3 i� cD :q ktt i �CD t 0 F t� � Cz _a �y cv �' ca ia3 cz 'U bra V) CL GO j gyres 0 ; cu, m � ; �, us es ..�. ca � � �, �.. ru fn $ -0 momvrrEss � L 10 IE � � �.• ,� us t� o 00 � 0 .0 0 ' o W CL o � > ;:, f7 t rzs 9+ C *.,-o CSs a�fy c tri a ; s t0 • 030 ms's a z CL z C a _ o 3 a �jE 3c 0 E 'U Cg s En 0 ; {l� G3 ? ' U €� =: 0 c' 3 c co CD CD m co CL m > t° > 0 E ut m o � s-, 'm F"oA -0 py n 0 LD �ie n c -1 toCr is 0 W En CD 0 CD CD CL cr CD CD nCD Cc 0- cn CD 0crCD M m C CL W. CD cn 0 cn vVD (D EO CD m M CA P 0 � O � � � C t�if2D -, fab �. w U� a Cr E ti tD m Cf3 " idJ CD w � 0 W C � C D n k 0 �• . � . 0 :3 3 o Z3IL 8$ f C e (D D CS � 0 CB3 C � =r C13 '10 � � 0 -0 0 s �.a 0 CD CD C3 3 rS A3 C 7" C C® CD t[2 rP O PO FwJ t_3 ° C) ae— a Z sojig 2 J u to r c sa ami s w a,•o z fi10 to 0 W ZD C3 E cCE ,RY s C6 Cctl0 Sp Cy t+7 Ci7 Q t3 C�3 O �.y7 G Qs C2 C.� CA Q) f # fyea«es ikea } IM o # # Z3tv # ° E a. Z # 5 LU9 t w cr Co x' 03 CL0 # o ° � cl CL u O- c 0 # 1 C3 z � exp cis # t 0. LU CL o € mCL 0 Vo o 0m 0 c.� ......................................................................................... ..................................... > CL 0 3 CL Z3 z z to CD —4 0 0 0 z 03 G) =r (D 0 CA C: EL n. E� CD ' CD c') CD CD a Fn 3 CL o m a Col- > �8 cn z OC, 0 CD > ncn cl- =r 3 a) a C7 o Co c CD M ;l (D (D — 2: CD C: CD cm M toG) cr, Kz cn -0 co CL 00 cn 0 C6 CD 0 M am 0 0 = o 0 C) 0 C :4 3 C5 -ao (n ;:I- M L CD �b 3 CD 3 CD w (D CD 0 CD CD cn cn 0 CL EL cr a &a cn e— cn ta i—, I a 0 =r m a CL =rM I -tp 3 < > M 0 0• 3 C: cn -0 -- CD c) — C2� 0 :3 M 0 nL 0 CJ C7 t1 CD0 = CD q cn 0 ---1 D U = (D 0 CL :3 w Ch rl CD. C 0 L m CD :r CD CD u 0 'E' 0 Ey 0 CL 0 cay0, can 0 CA CD 0 CD 0 0 iCU CL CSD < C-D 'E' ch 10 CL CL 451 Cd9 8D _0 CL 3 ;::w M cn rn 0 M cn 0 C) 0. M - =3 U):3 a) cn CL dB CD En cD W = M(n 0 m 2. 0=r 9.n. 0 c 3 c: o to:3 Ch CD CD w CD �I Z: C) ...................... ........... ................................................. .............................................. .................................................................. ............................. ......................................................... ............................................ ........... co sus C m 0 c cn w Ei t:� 02 s e o > a trs ra CL U. �aF ss C CL �a a� CL � o CL c� z to $ Tj --Z CO ' LU 0 ' v . c ' U o ` e5 V3 tt5t vs S 3 CL. t) an t, CL co 2 .2 f ' U) m o , � a C i5 n9 LU E uj 5� C06 0 � s�s ( sC a 2 . C CL 'Z3 ;s en tts 65€ce3 U 0 sa..2, E M .:-Rv ,G m z CLt ; 0 a� , c C `� 0 t r- cr Ga ecs c� caUlrs 44 �? m , {0 E U —j E c� .. ........ . $_ 0 0 CD zz > ® m cn ea "0 z _ CD CL m CD r i 3 —E C m 4 r, � J w 0 Q o o �n > a ; C 0 E C- 0 s z a� 3 n m et 'CL 0 W 0 I" n CD �' b ' 0 a � 0 3 CD, 'D eg CA 0 8 < E CL g' > ca us CO C') o� aCD 0 tn U v, C c7 O sr m Q Q CDQ3 < o o 0 0 c 0 5D SA Ka, fA 't't Q CD C, r+ m 3) 0 o -^ o N w CONTRA COST, TRAKSPORTATION AUTHORITY Taua.ry 15,2-003 COMMISSIONERS; Sup rvisor Mark Do Saul:crier,Chair Donald P.Fiskas Contra Costa County Boa•d of Supervisors Mair 242 13isso Marie,#110 Julres Compord, A 94520 WCO-Chak- RE: The Authority's Int.mded Process for Exiension of the Measure C Transportation Sales Tax AmAbelson gPpn ( Dear.Sppe sor De b,Meta' p lso , y • . .,.• ..„ : . 4ft Ab Ms s you know,the Authority bas initiatedthe proce s for extension of the Measure C transportation salei tax. It is our desire To achieve the support of all local jurisdictions for a list of proposed M94a Alog"s expq'nditures for the exter sion that will garner the necessary support of the electorate at the i0m 0013 Novmber 20034 general t:lectidn. redenilOi r At ids December 18,2002 meeting,the;Authority expressed its intent to follow the process outlined Brad tete in its underlying statute , Section 180et sage of the Plablic ltilities Made Section I 8021 speckically authorizes th,;.Authority,by a.two-thirds vote of our Board,to place on the ballot F�tsttcisf' ext4sionirenewal of the{oval sales tax, Under the law,the Authority efavisibtss developing r t mebdments to the ex€stistg expenditure plat that would utilize the revenue's from the extension ba on an extensive,op�m and public process, paborfr,mcaemy In v6ting 9-02 to pursue tl ds course of action,the Authority did so on the basis that an extension. xe uti+ r`r t r (1) wilds on the significmt success the authority has shoed in implerne-nt#ng the existing Measure;(2),should have a strung appeal to voters as a.continuation of an existing tax; (3)avoids debate over potentially divisive issues such as changing membership on the Board, institutional stru' re,etc'„and(4)e€�'ails a straightforward process that allows full focus cyst the projects and proirarns to be funded w%th new revenues. The process also readily allows the Authority to fully consider the renewal in€l a context of its overall Countywide Transportation Flan.for Contra Costa,and integrate the s lditional revenues within the contem of available federal and state transportation fonds it Fr,igraras as the Congestion Management agency.for-Contra Costa: Of coarse,the Authority will continue our"bottornssD process to stsli�it irtpctt an recarrmendalions from a broad range of locally based sources,including,but not limited to.the eg;onai'Transportat on Aanning Committees (RTPC:s); the newly-formed Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee( AC);the Blas Transit Coordinating Corranittee(BTCC);the Technical Codrdinating Cornn ittee (TCC,comprised of local agency stathe Citizens Advisory $Ut4 0/$sLIs 81L+43 Ave. Cor4 tree(CAC); and sit local: staffs;the At the end of the process,we hopeto have a - program all local jurisdic dons will support by resolution of your Board. PleatsanF##3t.E Ch 54923 s "Under the applicable law,th .hoard of Supervisors would call for an election for she purpose of voting on the PHOW: sales ELx. The election would be called and conducted in the same manner as provided by law for the conduct 9r51407.0121 of a special election,by the ccs.tnty. The Board of Supervisors'duty ander the circumstances would be Hn4tcd FAX: to ord4ring use special elecdo:can the sales tax ordinance,without altaation— 22 4 G€2 2 Culwz njssione;s John Gioia t.rd Federal Glover wore not present at the mce6ng- ht(la;iJ .c�%�.rtat g Sapervisor lie aaulnier Tanua4 10,2003 Page 2lof 2 4 Iter actively, if the Autlaf:rity determined to follow a process of creating a new expenditure plan, t e new expenditure plats would have to be approved by a majority of the cities and towns having a majority of the populatior, in the incorporated area of Contra Costa, and by the Board of Supervisors,before the tat:could be placed on the ballot. Starting the process from scratch would potentially raise consideration of a,new institutional framework, and would weaken the linkage to the authority's overall Cc,untywide Transportation Plan_ placing a new sales tax measure and a now Pacpendkure plan on i':re ballot,rather than a simple extension of the current tax,might also lead to additional confusi,to an the part of the voters. The Authority concluded that starting over, without acknowledging 0-.benefits of the existing institutional structure,would make corsensuse buil4ing more difficult, t aider the existing structure that has been developed,the Regional Tranportation Planning Committees,the County,and local jurisdictions have worked well togc,,4 cr, and there is no a parent reason to change ties:stiuctUre. Starring the process from scratch would deprive the Author ty of the iiiherent advantages,doted alcove,associated with a Straightforward extension .and would-seriously complicate.,discussioras.,,ab-out extension of the tai, I We look.forward to work-ng with you as we proceed towards extension of the Measure C trari.;`portation sales tax,acid believe,that we can achieve abroad consensus to continue our co€l dive progress on Contra Costa's tmnsportation system. If you have any questIions regarding the renewal process, pleal.e contact tris;at 925.778.€161,of Bob McCleary of our staff at 925. .56.4724. Sinceely, a i -j bld af',Freitas y Chairperson e a , cc. Authority members t5 t {Ff i i 1 t p �y k A f 9 s 11 I C:ttdiy �Ct�?ne ttsitY✓i'9x€L£rSL3-�i'C•Exg€'is.�CorccmS2f1fa31i� s�waE e ft i.OATIOS LTR-Rnnawal Ian 15-doe 4 TOTAL P.03 WAIS Document Retrieval Page I of 2 EXHIBIT G CKLIFORNIA CODES PILMLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTION 180200-180207 180200. The; Legislature, by the enactment of this division, intends that the additional funds provided governmental agencies by this chapter shall supplement existing local revenues being used for public transportation purposes and that local governments maintain their existing commitment of local funds for transportation purposes. The Legislature further intends that transportation authorities utilize 'spay-as--you-go,, financing as the preferred method of funding transportation improvements and operation's authorized by Section 1802025, and that }gond financing be utilized as an alternative method of funding, where the scope of the planned expenditures makes :spay-aa-you.-oto" financing unfeasible. 180201. A retail transactions and use tax ordinance applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of a county may be .imposed by the authority in, accordance with this chapter and Part 1.6 (commencing with section 7251) of Division Z of the Revenue and Taxation Code, if the tax ordinance is adopted by a two-thirds vote of the authority and imposition of the tax is subsequently approved by a majority of the electors voting on the measure at a special election called for that purpose by the board of supervisors, at the request, of the authority, and a county transportation expenditure plan is adopted pursuant to Section 130206. A retail transactions and use tax approved by the electors shall remain in effect for not longer than. 20 years, or any lesser period of time specified in the tax. ordinance. The tax may be continued in effect, or reimposed., by a tax ordinance adopted by a two-thirds vote of the authority and the reimposition of the tax is approved by a majority of the electors. 1.90202 . The authority, in the ordinance, shall state the nature of the tax to be imposed, shall provide the tax rate or the maximum tax rate, shall specify the period during which the tax will be imposed, and shall specify the purposes for which the revenue derived from the tax will be used. The tax rate may be in 1/.4 percent increments and shall not exceed a maximum tax rate of 1 percent. The proposition shah include an appropriations limit for that entity pursuant to Section 4 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution. 180203. (a) The county shall conduct the special election called by the board of supervisors pursuant to Section 180201. If the measure is approved, the authority shall. reimburse the county for :its cost: in conducting the special election. (b) The special election shall be called and conducted in the ;carne manner as provided by law for the conduct of special elections by a county. (c) The sample ballot to he mailed to the voters, pursuant to htt:):/iva-�Arr.leginfo.ea.gov/chi-biidwaisgate? AISdo,-,ID�82040628922+0+0+0&WAI a... 12/113/2002 WAIS Docummit Retri.-val Page 2 of section 13303 of the Flections Code, shah be the full proposition, as set forth in the ordinance calling the election, and the voter information handbook shahl include the entire adopted county transportation expenditure plan. 180204. (a) Any transactions and use tax ordinance adopted pursuant to this chapter shall be operative on the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 120 days after adoption of the ordinance. (b) Prior to the operative date of the ordinance, the authority shall contract with the State toard of Equalization to perform all functions incidental to the administration and operation of the ordinance. 1313205. The revenues from the taxes imposed pursuant to this chapter may be allocated by the authority for the construction and improvement of state highways, the construction, maintenance, improvement, and operation. of local streets, roads, and highways, and the construction, improvement, and operation of public transit systems. For purposes of this section, "public transit systems" includes paratrans.it services. 180206. (a) A county transportation expenditure plan shall be prepared for the expenditure of the revenues expected to be derived from the tax, imposed pursuant to this chapter, together with other federal, state, and local funds expected to be available for transportation improvements, for the period during which the tax is to be imposed. (b) A county transportation expenditure plan shall not be adopted until it has receivers the approval of the .board of supervisors and of the city councils representing both a majority of the cities in the county and a majority of the population residing in the incorporated areas of the county. (c) The plan shall be adopted prior to the call of the election provided for in Section 180201- 180207. (a) The authority may annually review and propose amendments to the county transportation expenditure plan adopted pursuant to Section 1.80206 to provide for the use of additional federal, state, and local funds, to account for unexpected revenues, or to take into consideration unforeseen circumstances. (b) The authority shall notify the board of supervisors and the city council of each city in the county and provide thea with a copy of the proposed amendments. (c) The proposed amendments shall become effective 45 days after notice is given. http://www.legiiifo-ca.goy/egg-biii/waisgate?WAI:Sdo-,ID=82040628922.4-0-4-o-i-O&W.AJSa... 12/13/2002 EXHIBIT D Office of the County Counsel Contra Costa County 851 Pine Street, 9th Floor Phone: (925)335-1800 'Martinez, CA 94553 Fax: (925)646.1978 Date: January 23, 2003 To: Board of Supervisors From: Silvano B. Marchesi, County Counsel By: David F. Scheidt, Deputy County Counsel Re: procedure for Reauthorizing Measure C (Transportation Sales Tax Measure) Summa To reauthorize Measure C, the half--cent transportation sales fax approved by county voters in 1998, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, must prepare a new transportation expenditure plan and have_it 6pproved by the Beard of Supervisors and a majority of the city councils, as required by public utilities Cede Section 189206. The annual amendment procedure in Section 180207, which only requires approval by the CCTA board, does not appear to be adequate for reauthorization of Measure C. If requested by the OCTA, the Board of Supervisors generally is required to call a special election and cannot refuse to do so. However, if the OCTA does not comply with the requirements of Section 189208 or the California Environmental Quality Act,3 that could provide a justification for the Board to refuse to call an election until the CCTA complies with the lair. CEQA applies to the preparation and approval of the expenditure plan, as well as to the ballot measure to reauthorize Measure C. Asleadagency, the OCTA is required to comply with CEQA. The County's responsibility under CEQA is limited to that of a responsible agency. IThe Contra Costa Transportation Authority is referred to as the"CCTA." 2AII statutes cited in this opinion are in the Public Utilities Code unless indicated otherwise. 3The California Environmental Quality Act is referrers to as"CE.QA." Board of Supervisors January 23, 2003 lea e 2 Questions Presented This office has been asked to respond to the following questions about Measure C, the half-cent transportation sales tax measure approved by Contra Costa County voters in 1988: (1) What is the legal procedure to reauthorize Measure C? (2) What discretion does the Board of Supervisors have in considering a request from the CCTA for a special election to reauthorize Measure C? Would this action be administrative or could the Board potentially deny the request? (3) Is the CCTA and/or the Board of Supervisors required to comply with CEQA? Baokaround In 1988, Contra Costa County voters approved Measure C, which levies a half- cent sales tax for transportation projectsin Contra Costa County. The measure was approved for twenty years and is scheduled to expire in 2009. Before the measure was put on the ballot in 1988, the OCTA prepared a transportations expenditure plan listing the various projects and estimated costs for which the tax revenues would be used. The CCTA then submitted the plan to the County and the cities for approval„ as required by Section 180206,which provides: "(a) A county transportation expenditure plan shall be prepared for the expenditure of the revenues expected to be derived from the tax imposed pursuant to this chapter, together with other federal, state, and local funds expected to be available for transportation improvements, for the period daring which the tax is to be imposed. "(b)A county transportation expenditure plan shall not be adopted until it has received the approval of the board of supervisors and of the city councils representing both a majority of the cities in the county and a majority of the population residing in the incorporated areas of the county. "(c) The plan shall be adopted prior to the call of the election provided for in Section 180201." After the plan was approved by the Board of Supervisors and city councils representing both a majority of the cities and a majority of the incorporated population, the CCTA board approved the plan and asked the Board of Supervisors to place the Board of Supervisors January 28, 2003 measure can the ballot for voter approval. This is the procedure described in Sections 180201 and 180206. With Measure C scheduled to expire in April 2009, the GCTA has begun early worts to reauthorize the measure for an additional 20-year period, hoping to put a measure on the November 2004 ballot. However, instead of using the Section 180208 procedure for approval of the new expenditure plan, the OCTA board has voted to use the procedure described in Section 180207, which provides: "(a) The authority may annually review and propose amendments>to the county transportation expenditure plan adopted pursuant to Section 180200 to provide for the use of additional federal, state, and local funds, to account for unexpected revenues, or to take into consideration unforeseen circumstances. "(b) The authority shall notify the board of supervisors and the city council of each city in the county and provide them with a copy of the proposed amendments. "(c) The proposed amendments shall become effective 45 days after notice is given." The Section 180207 procedure has been used occasionally during the life of Measure C to make adjustments to the maintenance of effort and growth management program requirements listed in the transportation expenditure plan. Unlike the Section 180208 procedure used to initially develop the plan, the Section '180207'.procedure sloes not require approval by the Board of Supervisors and a majority of the pity councils. It requires only a two-thirds' vote of the OCTA board. Thus, if the OCTA uses the Section 180207 procedure to reauthorize Measure C, the Board of Supervi Board of Supervisors January 28, 2008 Pa-e expenditure plan. Our conclusion is lased on the plain language of the statutes, which is accorded great weight under the rules of statutory construction.4 The reasons for this conclusion are as follows: (1) Section 180201, which is part of the Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act, authorizestheextension or reimposition of a transportation sales tax measure: "A retail transactions and use tax ordinance applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of a county may be imposed by the authority . . . if the tax ordinance is adopted by a two-thirds vote of the authority and imposition of the tax is subsequently approved by a majority of the electors-voting on the measure at a special election called for that purpose by the board of supervisors, at the request of the authority, and a county transportation expenditure plan is adopted pursuant to Section 180208, "A retail transactions and use tax approved by the electors shall remain in effect for not longer than 20 years, or any lesser period of time specified in the tax ordinance. The tax may be continued in effect, or reimposed, by a tax ordinance adopted by a two-thirds vote of the authority and the reimposition of the tax is approved by a majority of the electors." However, before an election is called under Section 1802031, Section 180206 requires that a transportation expenditure Mara be prepared and that the plan be approved by the Board of Supervisors and a majority of the city councils. Assuming that the reauthorization of measure C would involve an expenditure plan different than the one currently in effect, the plain language of Sections 100201 and 180206 requires that the Section 180206 procedure be followed and that the new expenditure plan be approved by the Board of Supervisors and a majority of city councils. (2) From the language of Section 180207, it appears that section is intended for minor, annual adjustments to an expenditure plan, the basics of which already have been approved by the Board of Supervisors and the majority of city councils (Section 47 witkin, Summary of California Law(9,""ed. 1 988)Constitutional Craw, Section 94, pp. 146-147. sThe majority vote requirement in Section, 180201 has been superseded by Proposition 218(California Constitution, article MID), a constitutional am endrnent approved by state voters in 1996. Under Proposition 218, a two-thirds v ote is required to approv e special taxes, like a transportation sales tax. (California Constitution, article X111A, Section 4;Calif ornia Constitution, article X11113, Section ; Rider v. County of Sen Diego ('1991 1 Cal.4th 1.) Board of Supervisors January 23. 2003 lea e 180206 procedure). In addition, the annual adjustment procedure in Section 180207 is limited to providing "for the use of additional,federal, state, and local funds, to account for unexpected revenues; or to take into consideration unforeseen circumstances." The reauthorization of Measure C does not fit in any of those categories, especially since the revenues that would comae from a reauthorized Measure C are In nor ay unexpected or unforeseen. There is no indication in the language of Section 180207. that it is intended to cover anything more than minor, short-term adjustments to an already-approved expenditure plana (3) When a transportation sans taxis initially adopted, typically for ten to twenty years, the statutory scheme (Sections 180201 and 180206) requires approval by the Board of Supervisors and the majority of city councils, thus ensuring that the expenditure plan has goad county and city support. It is illogical to assert that, when the sales tax is extended or reauthorized for a similarly-long period for a new set of projects, the approval process can be circumvented by an annual, summary procedure (Section 1802€ 7) applicable to minor adjustments and unforeseen circumstances. (4) It is our understanding from the Information we have received that, when the transportation sales tax measures were extended in Madera and Alameda Counties, the transportation authorities in those counties used the Section 180206 procedure to approve new expenditure plans. This supports the conclusion that we have reached from the statutory languageA Board of Supervisors Call of Election to Reauthorize Measure IN C As indicated earlier, Section 180201 authorizes the collection of a retail transactions and use tax(i.e,, sales;tax) if the tax ordinance is adopted by a two-thirds vote of the transportation authority and the tax is subsequently approved by the "electors voting on the measure at a,special elution called for that purpose by the board of supervisors, at the request of the authority." Under Section 180203, the county must conduct the special election called by the board of supervisors pursuant to Section 180201. You have asked whether, if the C TA asks the Board of Supervisors to call an election, the Board of Supervisors would have discretion to deny the request and decline to call an election. We have researched this issue and have not found any case involving a board of supervisors' duty under Section 180201 or a similar statute. The closestauthority we have found' is a 1068 case involving the board' of supervisors of Lake County.6 In that case, the board of supervisors refused to,call a special electiontofill two vacancies on a local hospital district board. In ruling against the 6Hofacker v. Board of Supervisors (1388)204 Cai.App.2d 290e Board of Supervisors January 23, 2003 county, the court of appeal held that the board of supervisors had a mandatory duty to cell the special election, even though the statute in question (Elections Code Section 2505) said that the board of supervisors may cell the election. Otherwise, the court reasoned that the voters would be denied justice and would have no means to force the filling of special district board vacancies.' Judging from the case just discussed, we believe that the Board of Supervisors probably has a mandatory duty to call aspecial'election'if requested by the CCTA. However, that assumes that the CCTA, has followed the proper legal procedure in preparing the tax measure. If the CCTA has not complied with the proper procedure: for approval of the expenditure plan(i.e., Section 180206) or hes not complied with CEQA, the Board of Supervisors may have justification to refuse to call a special election on grounds that the OCTA has not complied with'legal prerequisites. California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) The CEQA Guidelines and case law provide that the submission of a citizen- sponsored ballot measure to the voters is not a project subject to CEQA. This exemption is based on the principles that a public agency has no discretion over whether a citizen-sponsored measure will be placed on the ballot and that action by the voters is not action by a public agency as defined' by CEQA. On the other hand, a discretionary decision to place an agency-sponsored measure on the ballot is subject to CEQA review." When an agency exercises discretion to approve a project, the project is not exempt even though it may later be submitted to the voters for approval.' We have not been able to locate a case specifically involving the issue of what CEQA compliance is required for a transportation sales tax measure. However, based on the above rules,we conclude that the CCTA, as the lead agency, must comply with CEQA in preparing the new expenditure plan and preparing a measure for placement on the ballot. From the information we have received, it is our understanding that the OCTA recognizes this duty and plans to comply with CEQA. 7204 Cal.App.2d at 294-295. 81 Kostka&Zischke, Practice under the California Environmental Equality Act (Cont.Ed.Bar 154 ed. 2002)Section 5.8, pp. 181.182; 14 Cal. Cads Begs. Section 15378(b)(3); Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre(2GO1)25 CalAth 165; Stein v. City of Santa Monica (19803) 110 Cai.App.3d 458. 91 Kostka&Zischke,Practice under the California Environmental Quality Act, supra, Section 5.8, p. 182; Fullerton Joint Union High School District v. State Board of EdLICaijon (1982)32 Cal.3d 779, People ex ref. Younger v. LAECO (1978)81 Cal,App.3d 464. Board of Supervisors January 23, 2003 Under CEQA, the County at most would be e responsible agency.j Although e responsible agency must independently satisfy itself that CEQA hes been complied, with, e responsible agency generally accepts the lead agency's compliance with CEQA. Under some circumstances, however, the responsible agency can challenge a lead agency's CEQA compliance or can supplement environmental dcc rrlents.rc DFS/ cc: Dennis Barry, Director of Community Development Steve Goetz, Community Development Department Jahn Sweeten, County Administrator °Kerns et a/., Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act(101"'ed. 1999)pp348- 349. EXHIBIT E ATfACH�E T 2 OCTA -.xxI)endlture Plan Committee December 9, 2002 €1 Subject Review of Statutory Language Guiding the Placement of the Extension/Renewal of the Measure C Local Transportation Sales Tax on the Ballot Summary of Issues The process for considering the extension/renewal of the Measure C sales tax is under way in earnest. Accordingly,staff initiated discussions with.the Authority's legal counsel regarding the statutory requirements for placing a measure on the ballot to extend(renew)the Measure Clocal transportation sales tare. At the same time,recent correspondence suggests some confusion J in the public arena regarding Haat process. Based on the review ofNossaman " ! Guthner, the Authority's legal counsel,staff wishes to bring to the attention of the Authority the statutory language that guides continuation/reimposition of the sales tax, and the related steps necessary to place the tax ordinance before the voters. Recommendations Staff-The C recommends that the Authority review the statutory language and its implications, and advise interested parties of its intent to(1)utilize the provisions of Public Utilities Code §180201 to extend the sales tax by a I two-thirds approval of the Authority.Board,and(2)amend the existing ii Expenditure Plan as permitted by its Ordinance 88-€31 to include, contingent upon passage of the sales tax measure,fixe new investments approved through the Expenditure Plan process. Financial Implications Not Applicable. i; Options A. Create a new transportation authority under the provisions of PUC a €� Sections 180€00 et seq., and adopt a new expenditure plana II B. Adopt procedures for approval of new investments that supplement or remise current requirements of Ordinance 88-01. Attachments § 180201 and § 1.80207 of the PUC. t" Changes from The., voted unanirravaxsly to advise interested Parties o3 tie Authority Is Committee i intent to extend the scales tax under {Iic�ra�va�au�es a� 1�t32U1 Background The existing Measure C program has been successful in delivering transportation irnprovernents to Contra Costa. As a result of those successes, and the belief on the part ofthe Authority andmembers of the community that continued local transportation investment frorn the one--half of one percent sales tax is necessary to protect the quality oaf life and a healthy viable economy i n. Contra Costa,' the Authority has initiated a process to extend the sales tax beyond its March 31, 2009 sunset. As a result of Authority direction, staff asked the Authority's legal counsel,Nossaman Guthner Knox and Elliott,to review the statutory requirements for the Authority to extend/renew the Measure C transportation sales tax. Accordingly,Nossarnan reviewed the relevant statutes,Public Utilities Code (PUC)Sections 180000 et seq., as well as other-relevant legal background including Ordinance 88-081,the Authority's founding ordinance, ' 1988 Measure C Expenditure Plans,"Statement ofPrfficiples,"#1,p.4, \\Amita\3-epe-exp\2002\leetingsW-December 2002\(3)Extension-Renewal3.doc 4.C.3--1 i CCTA— Expenditure Flan Committee December 9, 2002 P. C § 190201 states,after defining initial conditions for implementati.on.of a local tax under the statute, that. "The tax may be continued in effect,or reimposed,by a tax ordinance adopted by a two-thirds vote of the authority and tine reimposition of the tax is approved by a majority of tine electors."" In conjunction,with extension/renewal of the existing tax, legal counsel concluded that the Authority may amend the existing;Expenditure Plan to account for the new revenues; and Counsel further advised staff' A that technically,such an approach is the only method specifically authorized in the relevant statutes for reauthorization of the existing sales tax within the current institutional framework. Both the statute (§180207)and Ordinance 8--01 (Sections 8)provide procedures to amend the Expenditure Plan,with the Ordinance requirements being;somewhat more stringent than those in the statute. It is generally acknowledged that the current Authority has enjoyed a high degree of success with project and program delivery in its first 13 years. The institutional structure is stable and appears to work reasonably well. Moreover,the current framework of the Expenditure Plan lends itself quite well to amendments,because most of the projects and programs proposed for consideration as part of the renewal would fit within the categories contained in the existing Expenditure Plats, and new categories could be readily created. Therefore,staff believes that the Authority should utilize the provisions of§ 180201 to extend/reimpose the tax, in conjunction with amendments to the existing Expenditure Plain that would take effect upon approval of the extension of the tax.;and should advise interested parties of its intent to do so. This approach Inas the appeal of continuing an already successful program, as the voters wound be asked.to"continue in effect"a tax that Inas brought significant benefits to Contra Costa. As enacted ir, 1987,the provision called for approval of the sales tax ordinance by a"majority of electors." Subsequently,the 1995 Guardino decision of the California Supreme Court hivaliclat'ed majority venter approval of dedicated local trwisportation sates taxes,and required a i-Nvv-;birds voter approval based on Proposiiion 62(1986). 3-2 i 1SA!�itai3-epc n ex{�\2f3C2\MeeEiiigsl7-3`)ecember 2002i(3)Extension-Re��e��si3.doe s `CTA--Expenditure Plait Crrraim ttee December 9,.200.E Relevant Public Utilities Cade Sections 180201. A retail transactions and use tax ordinance applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of a county may be mpnsed by the authority in accordance ,with this chapter and ``3'art 1.6 (commencing with. Section. 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, if the tax ordinance is adapted by a two--thirds vote of the authority and imposition of the tax is subsequently approved by a majority of the electors voting on the Measure at a special election called for that-, purpose by the beard of supervisors, at the recuest of the authority, and a county transportation expenditure plan is adopted pursuant to Section 180206. A retail transactions and use tax approved by the electors shall remain in effect for not longer than 20 years, or any lesser period of time specified in the tax ordinance. she tax may be continued in effect, or reimposed, by a tax ordinance adopted by a two-thirds vote of the authority and the reimposition of the tax is approved by a majority of the electors, 1180207. (a) The authority may annually review and propose amendments to the county transportation expenditure plan adopted pursuant to Section 180206 to provide for the use of additional federal, state, and local funds, to account: for unexpected revenues, or to take into consideration unforeseen circumstances., (b) The authority shall notify the board of supervisors and the city council of each city in the county and provide them with a copy . of the proposed amendments. (c) The proposed amendments shall become effective 45 days after notice is given. i\Anfta13-epe-:xfs12.302\Mcet%ngs17-Deeerrber 20721(3)R.xtensioll-Renewalldoe 4..C.3-3 f MIBI'T E Expenditure Platt Committee December 9, 2002 Page 2 3. Review of Statutory Language Guiding the Placement of the:Extension/Renewal of the Measure C Local Transportation Sales`rax can the Ballot. The process for considering the extension/renewal of the Measure C safes tax is under way in earnest. Accordingly, staff initiated discussions with the Authority's legal counsel regarding the statutory requirements for placing a measure on the ballot to extend(renew) the Measure C local transportation sales tax. ACTION: Commissioner Pierce moved to approve staff's recommendation, second by Commissioner Tatarkaa, The motion passed 5-0. DISC[7SSION: Bob McCleary said that staff sought to clarify the issue and receive direction from the Authority as to its preferred approach to extending the sales tax. lie noted that the organic statutes allow the board to extend the tax by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the board and two-thirds vote of the electorate(based on case law). Stara Taylor, the Authority's legal council was present to answer questions. Commissioner Glover said that the presentation was clear; but, it was his understanding that the Board of Supervisors had to approve placing a Measure on the ballot, and asked if that is still Bart of the process. Stan Taylor replied Haat the reauthorization process has two parts: 1) the technical adoption of the Sales Tax Ordinance, which the Authority would do, and then administratively go through the Board.of Supervisors to be placed on the, ballot; and 2) adoption(or revision of)tine expenditure plan. For the original Measure C, the Authority adopted an expenditure plan which was submitted to the jurisdictions in the county and required final approval by a majority of the cities representing a inajority of the population and the Board of Supervisors. He said, with regard to reauthorization, the statute is silent with respect to extending the expenditure plan. Ile added Haat there is a provision in the statute that addresses amending the expenditure plata in consideration of new revenues. That provision would allow adding projects for the extension by amending the existing expenditure plan (rather than creating a new cine). The process for amending the expenditure plana is a little different than [lie process to implement as new expenditure plan. Unless a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population, and the Board of Supervisors collectively, object to the amendments, they would be deenaaed approved 45 days after release(of the revisions), subject to, and effective contingent capon, approval of the extension of the sales tax by the voters. Commissioner Pierce said that she thinks staff's recommendation is much simpler than the process used in 1488. Commissioner Freitas agreed, saying, it is a much more mature process now. Commissioner Pierce suggested forwarding the item to the Authority for action. John Dalrymple asked how the other elements of the Measure (i.e., the composition of the Board and the Growth Management plana) would fit in the process. CAMP D0cnn1e11N\WPFI!ES13-EPC-a~xp Mau Comm\200312-MINUTES Dec 9-92 oc Z;xpendimre Plan Commilzee December 9, 2002 Waage 3 ,Stan Taylor replied, saying reauthorization continues the current Authority structure in Mace and would not change the composition of the Board. regarding the Growth Management Program, Mr.Taylor noted that the GMP is currently part of the expenditure plan, and that it would presumably continue to be part of the expenditure plan. Jeff I-lobson, Transportation &Land Use Coalition, asked for clarification of the PUC section, specifically with regard to the suggestion that the authority will adopt a,new expenditure plata by a two-thirds vote, and then the continuation of the tai would go to the voters with a requirement of 5€%plus I majority. Stan Taylor replied that the public Utilities Code section says a majority of electors. He added that the staff report notes that the Supreme Court invalidated majority voter approval of dedicated local sales taxes, and required a two-thirds voter approval. (Guarding, 1995 .y Chair Freircas summarized the discussion for the record, saying, "The authority requires a two- thirds vote and then it would go to the voters for a two-thirds vote." John Dalrymple asked what the process would be if the Authority adopted a separate, concurrent ordinance for the Growth Management Plan. Commissioner Alegria arrived at 4:20 p.m- Stan Taylor replied that the expenditure plan is submitted to the voters as part of the Sales Tax Ordinance, and the growth management element is part of the expenditure plan—the voters will be voting on the entire package. lie added that the Authority bad not considered the option of a separate Growth Management plan. Commissioner fierce added that there has been some discussion about the amended expenditure Man's composition being quite different from the original. She said that plana may or may not have a growth management element that is significantly different froin the original;potentially, it could alternatively stand alone. These issues will all be decided as the process goes forward. Kathleen Nimr, ;Sierra Club said the original Measure C (1986)failed; the sales tax did not pass until it included the growth management element(1988). She theta asked why the Authority would consider eliminating or changing it? Chair Freitas urged everyone to keep in mind that this is just the beginning of an open process. While questions may be framed and issues maybe identified,it is toga early in the process for people to be concerned that decisions will be made without their input. He added that the Authority wants everyone to participate and hasn't even had time to develop an advisory committee—as the consultants are stir tieing brought tap to speed. 4. A Preliminary"Conceptual"Framework for lvxtension of the Measure C.Sales Tax. Staff requests EPC consider providing a preliminary conceptual framework for the Expenditure Flan as a mechanism to focus initial discussions. C:aAAy Documents;+. IFIL:EM-EPC-Exp Plan Corm V003l2-MI ENUTES Dec 9-32,doe EX11IBIT E AWAGM- T 3 Public Speaker. Fred Lopez Mr.Lopez pointed out that the renewal will be a hard sell for the segment of the population that has not benefited from the original sales tax. The poor,elderly and handicapped population is going to oppose it based on the lack of transit and paratransit services in Contra Costa County, 4.C.3 Review of Statutory Language Guiding the Placement of the Extension/Renewal of the Measure C Local Transportation Sales Tax on the Ballot. The process for considering the I r way.in earnest. Accordingly, staff initiated extension/renewal,of the Measure C sales tax is unde discussions with the Authority's legal counsel regarding the statutory requirements for placing a measure on the ballot to extend(renew)the Measure C local transportation sales tax. ACTION: Commissioner Tatzin moved to accept the APC's recommendation (to advise interested parties of the Authority's intent to extend ft sales tax as outlined by staff under the provision of Public Utilities Code Section 180201,whereby the Authority would extend the sales tax by a two-thirds vote of the Authority Board), Second by Commissioner Abelson. The motion passed 9-0. DISCUSSION: Bob McCleary reported that the APC recommended that the Authority""review the statutory language under which it is authorized and the implications regarding reauthorization of Measure C,and approve the proposal as recommended. This is consistent with the intent expressed by the Authority to extend the existing tax. The following options are available: 1)Create a new transportation authority under the provisions of PUC Sections 180000 et seq.,and adopt a new expenditure plan; or 2)Have the Authority extend the sales tax by a two-thirds approval of the Authority Board,and identify new investments as amendments to the existing expenditure plat'.. Commissioner Alegria asked for clarification with regard to conflict of interest, Specifically, she asked if she is required to obtain authorization from the Conference of Mayors to vote on the reauthorization issue? Stan Taylor, Authority Legal Counsel, replied that the answer is no,it is not in the Administrative Code. In response to a question from Commissioner Abelson regarding awareness of this option,he added that since Measure C will be the first renewal of a sales tax under this section of the PUC statute,this issue has never been addressed. ' The statutes have a provision that allows the expenditure plan of a sales tax to be amended(Section 180207)—which is the intent of the Authority. Steve Goetz, Community Development Department, speaking as a county representative, referred to the copy of the section that was included in the staff report. He then quoted from another section, §180206: "The county transportation expenditure plan shall be prepared for the expenditure of revenues expected to be derived from the tax. imposed pursuant to this chapter, together with other federal,state and local funds expected to be available for transportation improvements for the period during which the tax will be imposed. The county transportation expenditure plan shall not be adopted unless it has received the approval of the Board of Super-visors and the city councils representing both the majority of the cities and the majority of the population re&'ding in the county. The plan shall be adopted prior to a called for election as provided for in Section 180201.11 AUTHORYFY MEET]ING,Summary Minutes, e C- 007 Page 10 ........... .......... Mr. Goetz pointed out that the original Measure C was established based on this section. The county believes that using Section 180207 (the amendment process)was not meant to provide for the reauthorization of Measure C,but to revise the existing Measure based on unforeseen circumstances relating to it pler erttation of Measure C. The county does not feel that expiration of a sales tax can be viewed as an unforeseen circumstance. Sara Taylor replied by pointing out that section 180200 talks about the adoption of an expenditure plan,but section 180207 goes on to say, "the authority may annually review and propose amendments to the county transportation expenditure plan adopted pursuant to section 1.80206 to,provide for the use of additional federal, state, and local faarads, to account for unexpected revenues, or take into consideration unforeseen circumstances." Commissioner Alegria asked if the sales tax renewal will require a two-thirds majority vote of the Board? Iain Taylor replied,yes it would. Bob McCleary said he feels that the language in the statute indicates that the.Authority can extend or renew the tax. In that context,the Authority will wand a consensus to go forward. The issue of going through a process similar to the original adoption may create some dynamics that this Board may not be comfortable with. He added that the project and program categories of the original expenditure plan are largely consistent with what the Authority will probably use as a base for the renewal,as they cover the major corridors and programs. Commissioner Nix asked if staff has considered getting a legal Ming on this issue? her. Taylor replied that it has been considered, as has the option of requesting an opinion from the attorney General: Commissioner fierce said that the.authority's intent is to simplify the process. Everyone will be involved in the renewal; this is not meant to exclude the county. This is a less burdensome process than the original. Commissioner Abrams said if this group is unable to reach consensus on an item such as this,then it is going to be very difficult to reach consensus on the entire process. He does not believe this is a critical issue. Commissioner Tcatarka agreed with Cornrnissioner Abrams and urged everyone to keep moving forward 4.C,4 A Pretimi,nary"Background Information"for Extension of the Measure C Sales Tax. The EPC directed staff to circulate the staff report, as edited, to serve as background information for the Expenditure Plan. The information is intended to provide historical perspective and to focus initial discussions,rather than as a framework. ACTION: Commissioner fierce moved to approve the revised Background Information with additional edits per tonight's discussion. Second by Commissioner Tatarka. The motion passed 9-0. AUTHORITY MEETING, Summary Minutes,Me - ,2 Page 11