Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01042005 - C37 TO: _ Board of Supervisors Contra FROM: Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee " . Costa (Supervisor Millie Greenberg, Chair) " DATE: December 13, 2044County �` �` SUBJECT: Letter to the San Joa uin ValleX Rail Cornmitteeregarding a pr9p9sedjolnt awes a enc SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS AUTHORIZE the Chair to sign a letter to the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee regarding the creation of a proposed joint powers agency, as recommended by the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The County has been asked for its input on the concept of creating a new multi-county joint powers agency to take over the operation of the San Joaquin intercity rail service from Caltrans,which currently provides the service. The Board of Supervisors on September 30 referred the item to the Transportation,Water and Infrastructure Committee for review and possible comment. The San Joaquin rail service links the Central Valley with Centra Costa and Alameda Counties, starting in Bakersfield with numerous stops on its way to the Bay Area. Within Contra Costa County, the line stops at Antioch, Martinez and Richmond with four round- trips per day. Caltrans plans to acid a fifth round trip in 2045, and a sixth daily trip at some unspecified point in the future. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES RECOMMENDATION of COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER * }. z. -�• 'mak �. SIGNATURES Supervisor Millie GreenbergASu erviso 'Ga le B. Ullkema ACTION OF BOARD ON :���` ` t: "" APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED N4 OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE ..UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: John Greltzer (9251335-1201) cc: Community Development Department (CDD) ATTESTED € zv�r `{ tv =% Public Works Department JOHN SWE "EN, LERK OF Ad Hoc Intercity Rail Advisory Committee (via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR By DEPUTY GATransportationlTWiCtBoard Orderst20041san joaquln jpa item jan_11_2005.doc Letter to the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee December 13, 2004 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued) The San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee provides input and policy advice to Caltrans from the counties located along the route. The Committee recently asked all of the counties to comment on a proposal to create a new joint powers agency that would take over operation of the service from Caltrans. Contra Costa County is represented on the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee by Supervisor Uilkema, with Supervisor Gioia as the alternate, and by Mr. Howard Abelson of El Cerrito. The proposal for a JPA is modeled after the JPA that was created in the mid-1990s for the Capitol Corridor train service,which runs between Sacramento and the Bay Area with stops in Martinez and Richmond. The Capitol Corridor JPA took over that service from Caltrans and has successfully expanded the service from three daily round trips up to 12,with plans to go to 16 round trips in a few years. A JPA is able to lobby for funding and service expansion, and engage in marketing and promotions, in ways that a state department like Caltrans is not permitted to do. The County's Ad Hoc Intercity Rail Advisory Committee (Al RAC)discussed the concept of a JPA at its October 30 meeting, and raised some issues and concerns with the proposal. These concerns were forwarded to the Transportation,Water and Infrastructure Committee on December 13. Exhibit A is a draft letter and attachment for signature by the Chair of the Board, as recommended by the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee based on its December 13 discussions. In addition to providing comments on the JPA proposal, the draft letter also suggests that the San Joaquin service should be improved and expanded with additional service during the morning and afternoon commute hours. Exhibit B is the letter the County received from the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee that describes the JPA concept and asks the County for input. Exhibit C is the enabling legislation that permits the creation of a JPA for the San Joaquin intercity rail service. The legislation,which was approved several years ago,does not allow for any representation for Contra Costa County or Alameda County on the JPA Board,which is one of the concerns raised in the draft letter for signature by the Board Chair. EXHIBIT A The Board of Supervisors Contra John Sweeten County Administration Building '` r� Clerk of the Board 651 Pine Street,Room 106 Costa and Martinez,California 94553-1293 County County Administrator Jahn Gleis,1st District (925)335-1900 Gayle B.UlIkerna,2nd District Millie Greenberg,3rd District Mark lJeSaufnier,4th District r:.� fr Federal D.Glover,5th District 7q January 11, 2005 The Honorable Connie Conway Board of Supervisors County of Tulare 2800 West Burrel Avenue Visalia CA 93291-4582 Dear Supervisor Conway: The Board of Supervisors today authorized me to send you this letter in response to your proposal for a new joint powers agency to take over the operation of the San Joaquin intercity rail service from Caltrans. The proposal was outlined in your letter of August 13, 2004 to then-Chair Federal Glover. Our Board of Supervisors does not endorse the concept of creating a joint powers agency for several reasons, which are outlined in the attached list of issues. However, we are interested in reviewing any additional information you may develop on the JPA concept in the future. Please continue to keep Contra Costa County informed of any new developments with this proposal. In addition to the attached comments on the JPA concept, Contra Costa County believes the San Joaquin service should be expanded, particularly with some service scheduled during morning and afternoon commute times. Timing at stations such as Martinez, Richmond, Emeryville and Oakland should be coordinated with intermodal transfers at those locations. We are advised that more equipment would enable Caltrans to make some of these improvements and we hope this can be accomplished. Perhaps Caltrans and the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee could consider setting up a pilot run of commute- hour services between Stockton, Contra Costa and Alameda Counties for a period of a few months in the spring or summer to determine the feasibility of such services. If you have questions about this letter, please contact me at your convenience. You also may contact John Greitzer of the Community Development Department at(925) 335-1201 for further information if needed. Sincerely, Gayle B. Uilkema Chair Board of Supervisors GBUIJG c: D. Briggs J. Greitzer,CDD S.Kowalewski,PWD Members,Contra Costa County Ad Hoc intercity Rail Advisory Committee G:\T'ransportation\Shells\Board letter san Joaquin jpa jan_11_05.doc Contra Costa County issues and concerns with the joint powers agency proposal for the San Joaquin intercity rail service 1) Liability isn't adequately addressed. There must not be any possible liability for Contra Costa County in such a joint powers agency. While the letter and proposal indicate there won't be any liability, no details are provided. Contra Costa County needs assurance on this point, which can only be provided by additional detail. In particular, it would be helpful to know the details on who will carry liability should such a JPA be created, and whether that entity has the resources to carry that liability. 2) San Joaquin service has improved. Contra Costa County's Ad Hoc Intercity Rail Advisory Committee advises us that the success of the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority seems to have made Caltrans a better train operator, in terms of its responsiveness to problems that occur and its commitment to improving the service. Therefore a San Joaquin JPA may not be necessary. 3) JPA,proposal lacks representation for Contra Costa County. The composition of the proposed JPA needs to be evaluated in light of two issues. One issue is whether the JPA should consist of counties, as the legislation allows, or county transportation commissions and transit districts, as is the case with the existing Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority. The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Board consists of two representatives each from the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, Sacramento Regional Transit District, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Solano Transportation Authority, and the Yolo County Transportation District. The second issue on composition is that the enabling legislation for a JPA doesn't include any representation for Contra Costa or Alameda Counties. This seems inappropriate given that Contra Costa County has the most stations of any county along the route (three, whereas the other counties only have one or two stations; when the planned Hercules station comes on line we will have four stations). Legislation would be needed to allow representation for Contra Costa County and Alameda County on a JPA board. 4) Financial risk isn't adequately covered. The financial risk needs to be analyzed in more detail. The proposal says financial risk and exposure are "minimal" because the operation would be self--funding, and should it cease to be self-funding, the agreement would provide for returning the operation to Caltrans. However, it cannot be assumed that Caltrans will be able or willing to resume the operation in the future, particularly if there is a funding problem with the service. 5) Costs must be better identified. Contra Costa County cannot endorse any concept without knowing how much it would cost the County. The proposal doesn't yet have a definitive cost estimate for this. A general estimate is given of the start-up costs but a more detailed estimate is needed. It also would be helpful for us to have information on the estimated ongoing costs of operating the service. PIN- EXHIBIT B y ter- REPR,eseutrNG CO-UNr1ra ALONG THE R.oure 0), THiE! SAN .fo�autnrs 04 SEP - 7 PM 1 r 4 All 0 0. REE az•, t'a � 1f1�tt Y�pN•a t•q, The Honorable Connie Conway Board of Supervisors SEP 0 2 REC`0 County of Tulare 2800 West Burrel Avenue CLEAK Rn,`r;7 ; Visalia., CA 93291-4582 August 13, 2004 The Honorable Federal Glover, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Glover: Subject: Joint Powers-Authority, As authorized by Senate Bill 457, the counties along the route of the San Joaquin trains, extending from San Francisco and Sacramento on the north to Los Angeles on the south, can enter into a Joint Powers Authority to oversee the operation of these trains. This is similar to the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority, already in operation., and the Los Angeleg/San Diego (LOSSAN)corridor, which is considering such a move. Financing would continue under the Division of Rail at Caltrans. Such a move can increase direct decisions on the operation and marketing of our trains. Enclosed is a statement outlining these details. We are interested in your interest in what we feel is an improvement to the ever-increasing use of the San Joaquin trains and better involvement by our counties. If you wish,we can schedule an appearance at a convenient date of your meeting. Thank you. Sine ely Tulare County Supervisor Connie nway, Chair San Joaquin Valley Rail Comm' ee Enclosure is UIN �s ter! REPAEsENr$N0 CouNries ALONO THE ROUrLr OF TH& SAN JOACUTAIS A. Ala AIL co JOINT POWERS-AUTHORITY-STATEMENT The San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee (SJVRC) has committed itself to giving serious consideration to the formation of a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to assume management of the corridor provided by Caltrans, Division of Rail. JPAs are common among providers of transportation and the SJVRC observes the Capitol Corridor-Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA)as a model of how the structure can be successfully applied to Amtrak corridors. In the consideration of a JPA, the SJVRC implies no criticism of the work done by Caltrans, Division of Rail. To the contrary, the SJVRC applauds the diligent stewardship Caltrans, Division of Rail has exhibited in its partnership with Amtrak and its overall management of the corridor. However, an advantage of working under the aegis of a JPA is the opportunity to better communicate with elected representatives, nationally, state, and local. SJVRC, operating as a JPA would have the ability to tabby, promote, and publicly campaign for expansion and improvement of the service. These are activities that Caltrans, Division of Rail, and Amtrak are unable to legally perform. Caltrans, Division of Rail will continue to fund the corridor through the proposed JPA and a continued good relationship is expected much as is presently in effect with the CCJPA. Executive and staff management of the JPA is to be selected by the SJVRC JPA Board. One central understanding the SJVRC has reached concerns the issue of financial exposure and risk. The SJVRC has researched these paints and has concluded that both financial exposure and risk are minimal. The operation would be self-funding, and should it cease to be self-funding, the agreement to assume management from Caltrans provides for the return of operations to Caltrans This does not mean that there would be no costs associated with the formation and startup of the JPA. The largest of these costs are associated with the preparation of a detailed Business Plan, as prescriber)by the enabling legislation. While these casts would otherwise be considerable,it is felt that most of the legal and preparatory work done by the CCJPA would be almost wholly transportable, leaving only a small portion to be covered. These costs might be on the order of $100,000, although no detailed cost projection has been performed to date. Additionally, there is an organizational issue to be dealt with before proceeding. Currently the SJVRC affords tow representative members from each of the 10 counties it serves, as prescribed by the legislation creating the SJVRC. The existing enabling legislation permitting a JPA for the San Joaquin Corridor, however, calls for only on representative from the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa and Los Angeles. This matter, which is not considered a stumbling black, will nonetheless have to be addressed legislatively in order to proceed. EXHIBIT C Following is the enabling legislation that allows for the creation of a joint powers agency to operate the San Joaquin intercity rail service. CALIFORNIA.CODES GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 14074-14074.8 14074. As used in this article, the following terms have the following meanings: (a) "Board" means the governing board of the San Joaquin Corridor Joint Powers Agency established pursuant to Section 14074.2. (b) "San Joaquin Corridor" or "corridor" means the Los Angeles-Bakersfield-Fresno- Stockton-Sacramento-Oakland rail corridor. 14074.2. (a) The San Joaquin Corridor Joint Powers Agency may be established by agreement of the represented agencies for the purpose of assuming responsibility for intercity passenger rail services in the San Joaquin Corridor. (b)The board shall be composed of the following 19 members: (1) One member from the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Board, if that board is in existence. (2) One member from the County of Sacramento, appointed by the board of supervisors of that county. (3) One member from the County of Los Angeles, appointed by the board of supervisors of that county. (4) Two members each from the Counties of Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare, appointed by the board of supervisors of the respective county. Each county shall appoint one member who is an elected official and one who is a private citizen. 14074.0. This article shall be applicable only if the entities that would be represented on the board enter into a joint exercise of powers agreement to form the agency, and elect to become a party to an interagency transfer agreement pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 14070). 14074.8. The Steering Committee of the Caltrans Rail Task Force may confer with the secretary to coordinate intercity passenger rail service for the San Joaquin Corridor, including assisting in the development of an appropriate management structure for the San Joaquin Corridor as an element of a coordinated statewide intercity rail system. The Berard of Supervisors Contra John Sweeten County Administration Buliding Clark o4 the Board 651 fine Street,Room 10'6 Costa and Martinez,California 94553-1293 �_ O��� County Administrator John Gluta,1st District Gayle 13.#lilkema,2nd District Wille Greenberg,3rd District Mark DeSaufnier,4th District Federal D.Glover,5th District January 11, 2005 The Honorable Connie Conway Board of Supervisors County of Tulare 2800 `Nest Burrel Avenue Visalia CA 93291-4582 Dear Supervisor Conway: The Board of Supervisors has authorized me to send you this letter in response to your proposal for a new joint powers agency to take over the operation of the San Joaquin intercity rail service from Caltrans. The proposal was outlined in your letter of August 13, 2004 to then-Chair Federal Glover, Our Board of Supervisors does not endorse the concept of creating a joint powers agency for several reasons, which are outlined in the attached list of issues, However, we are interested in reviewing any additional information you, may develop on the JPA concept in the future. Please continue to keep Contra Costa County informed of any new developments with this proposal. In addition to the attached comments on the JPA concept, Contra Costa County believes the Sart Joaquin service should be expanded, particularly with some service scheduled during morning and afternoon commute times. Timing at stations such as Martinez, Richmond., Emeryville and Oakland should be coordinated with intermodal transfers at those locations, We are advised that more equipment would enable Caltrans to make some of these improvements and we hope this can be accomplished. Perhaps Caltrans and the San Joaquin galley Rail Committee could consider setting up a pilot rut, of commute- hour services between Stockton, Contra Costa and Alameda Counties for a period of a few months in the spring or summer to determine the feasibility of such services. If you have questions about this letter, please contact me at your convenience. You also may contact John Greitzer of the Community Development Department at(925) 335-1201 for further inforn--ration if needed. Sincerely, Gayle . Uilkema Chair Board of Supet-visors GBU/IU c: D. Briggs J. Creitzer,CDD S. K.o ale-wski,Pwi> Members,Contra Costa County Ad Hoc Intercity Rail Advisory Committee G:\'rransportationlshells\Board letter sac joacain jpa jan_i 1_05,doe Contra Costa County issues and concerns with the,point powers agency proposal for the San Joaquin intercity rail service 1) Liability isn't adequately addressed. There must not be any possible liability for Contra Costa County in such a joint powers agency. While the letter and proposal indicate there won't be any liability, no details are provided. Contra Costa County needs assurance on this point, which can only be provided by additional detail. In particular, it would be helpful to know the details on who will carry liability should such a JPA be created, and whether that entity has the resources to carry that liability. 2) San Joaquin service_ has improved. Contra Costa County's Ad Hoc Intercity Rail Advisory Committee advises us that the success of the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority seems to have made Caltrans a better train operator, in terms of its responsiveness to problenis that occur and its commitment to improving the service. Therefore a San Joaquin JPA may not be necessary. 3) JPA proposal lacks representation for Contra Costa County. The composition of the proposed JPA needs to be evaluated in light of two issues. One issue is whether the JPA should consist of counties, as the legislation allows, or county transportation commissions and transit districts, as is the case with the existing Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority. The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Board consists of two representatives each from the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, Sacramento Regional Transit District, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Solano Transportation Authority, and the 'Volo County Transportation District. The second issue on composition is that the enabling legislation for a ,IPA doesn't include any representation for Contra Costa or Alameda Counties. This seems inappropriate given that Contra Costa County has the most stations of any county along the route (three, whereas the other counties only have one or two stations, when the planned Hercules station comes on line we will have four stations). Legislation would be needed to allow representation for Contra Costa County and Alameda County on a JPA board. 4)Financial risk isn't adequately covered. The financial risk needs to be analyzed in more detail. The proposal says financial risk and exposure are "minimal" because the operation would be self-funding, and should it cease to be self-funding, the agreement would provide for returning the operation to Caltrans. However, it cannot be assumed that Caltrans will be able or willing to resume the operation in the future, particularly if there is a funding problem with the service. 5) Costs must be better identified. Contra Costa County cannot endorse any concept without knowing how much it would cost the County. The proposal doesn't yet have a definitive cost estimate for this. A general estimate is given of the start-up costs but a more detailed estimate is needed. It also would be helpful for us to have information on the estimated ongoing costs of operating the service.