Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01281986 - 2.5 To BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator l wtra January 23 , 1986 Costa DATE; CO * SUBJECT: Board Policy on Suggested Amendments to SB 878 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(-S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: Consider the attached concerns and suggested amendments to SB 878, as amended January 8, 1986, authorizing the creation of a Transportation Authority in Contra Costa County, and determine what position the Board wishes to take in regard to SB 878. BACKGROUND: SB 878 by Senator Boatwright has been amended to resolve concerns expressed by several of the agencies concerned with transportation planning in the Bay Area. In reviewing the most recent version of the bill as it was amended on January 8, staff have identified several concerns with the current language and have prepared proposed amendments which are designed to clarify the intent of the bill and resolve these remaining concerns. On January 7, the Board of Supervisors endorsed SB 878, but reserved the right to raise concerns about the specific language. The attached document details these concerns, the reason for these concerns, and suggests amendments to SB 878 to resolve these concerns. The other agencies concerned with SB 878 need to know what the Board' s specific concerns are so we can attempt to resolve them and reach a consensus on any further amendments to SB 878 . We are, therefore, suggesting that the Board consider the attached concerns and suggested amendments and then determine what position the Board wishes to take regarding the need for further amendments to SB 878. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE; L 'L,T'c, X_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE X APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): dkeZ,,hA%_11' �&, y�%`�4_, V V X ACTION OF BOARD ON anuary ' APPROVED AS RECOMMENDEDX OTHER The Board reviewed and expressed agreement with the suggested amendments . On motion of Supervisor Schroder , seconded by Supervisor Torlakson, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the suggested amendments are APPROVED -in concept , VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT --- AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: County Administrator ATTESTED January 28 , 1986 Community Development Director —— Senator Daniel Boatwright PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF D. J. Smith & Associates (Sacramento) SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY �' ' ,P�lB ,DEPUTY M382/7-83 • SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO SB 878 1. Page 5, lines 31-34 as follows : "Only an agency with responsibility and authority for a project may propose a project. The sponsoring agency shall agree to the financial plan for its projects or project. " These two sentences essentially give certain existing agencies , such as BART and Caltrans , total control over what the sales tax funds can be used for on their systems. The new agency is not even free to "propose" alternative options . In other words , if the BART Board did not approve of extension of the BART system in a given BART county with a sales tax, but felt one in another county came first, the sales tax agency would be powerless to act to initiate an alternative dialogue. More probably, this wording is meant to preclude a San Ramon light rail project from being seriously considered unless it has been approved by BART. BART, incidentally, is the only agency having existing "authority" to operate rail in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties . It is very difficult to imagine the BART Board agreeing to any project on the San Ramon right-of-way until all other extensions on their existing lines are completed. If the intent is to preclude this agency from having "operating authority" or for it to be an "objective" reviewer of sales tax expenditures and not a sponsor itself , more appropriate language may be : "Whatever agency imposes and administers any sales taxes pursuant to this division shall not be an operator of public transit and shall not be a sponsoring agency, unless sub- sequently authorized by the legislature. " This language would replace page 5 , lines 31-34, beginning with "Only" and ending with "project. " 2. Page 4, lines 24-27 as follows : " 131009 . ' Sponsoring agency ' means a governmental agency which has the respon- sibility and authority to implement the project or projects proposed in subdivision (a) of Section 131022. " This section should be changed to conform with the suggested new language above and to allow other than operating agencies from being able to sponsor projects . As an example, in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties , it may be ap- propriate for the County governments or a consortium of lo- cal governments to sponsor a new transit project in the In- terstate 680 Corridor. Another potential problem with this definition would be a 1000 locally financed project on the state highway system. Under this definition, Caltrans would have to sponsor the project even though it would be locally financed. This may be a problem for Caltrans because it cannot propose projects that are not approved by the California Transportation Commission. The following language is suggested to deal with this issue : "131009 . ' Sponsoring agency ' means a governmental agency existing at the time of enactment of this division which has transportation responsibilities within the same county in which the sales tax revenue has been approved pursuant to this division." 3. Page 5, lines 38-40 as follows : "Estimates of federal, state and local fund- ing shall be based on estimates provided by the staff of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. " This section, in concert with Section 131024. (c) , means that the new sales tax authority could not go beyond these M.T.C. estimates relative to available resources so as to leverage additional federal and state funds . This could give M.T.C. extraordinary authority to bend local sales tax priorities to those of the other eight counties in the region . In other words , a local county would not be free to even project additional funds that, because of its state legis- lator or congressman, it might be able to garner over and above reasonable estimates that are made by M . T .C .. In addition, given the current volatility of state and federal funding , it seems unreasonable to have to live within projections that go beyond a five-year period. This section (and Section 131024. (c) discussed below) also assumes that there really is an exact amount of funds in Sacramento and Washington earmarked for the Bay Area and no one, even those with local match, should go after more. The history of the Guadalupe light rail project is a case study of what an aggressive county can do with some local sales tax funds for local match. There is little doubt that the Santa Clara project did not subtract from the region ' s over- all transit program allotment from Sacramento and Washington , but substantially added to it . It is very doubtful , on the other hand, that anyone would have been able to accurately project the amount finally allocated to that particular light rail project eight or ten years in ad- vance of the allocation. The addition of the Rt. 24/I-680 interchange project into the federal interstate "cost to complete" program is another example of an extraordinary local effort that could not have been projected. An appropriate change may be: "The amount of federal and state funds in- cluded in the county transportation expendi- ture plan shall be consistent with those funds allocated in the five-year Regional Transportation Improvement Program adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. " 4. Page 8, lines 2-5 as follows : "131024. (c) . The County Transportation ex- penditure plan does not adversely affect the current estimates of federal or state funds available to any other county within the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties. " This section is overly rigid given the complexities and un- certainty of the federal and state funds allocation process , especially regarding transit capital projects . This could limit any county with a sales tax in hand from matching federal or state funds . In other words , another county could claim that the federal or state funds to be matched were to go toward their project, even if it did not have a readily available local match. It is also very difficult to see how this section could be implemented in the real world. A more reasonable approach may be to change this section to read: "131024. (c) . The county transportation ex- penditure plan does not adversely affect the current allocations adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the five-year Regional Transportation Improvement Program of federal or state funds available to any other county within the nine San Fran- cisco Bay Area counties. " 5. Page 19, lines 14-17 as follows : "Nothing in this chapter shall convey the right for a County Transportation Authority to assume the functions of a sponsoring agency or to perform the responsibilities of other existing agencies. " This section could lead to endless bureaucratic and politi- cal turf battles . In Contra Costa County, there are twenty- five agencies in existence with some transportation authority. If the intent is that the County agency not have operating and sponsoring authority, the language suggested to resolve the previous concern number one takes care of the problem and, therefore, this sentence should be deleted. 6. Page 23, lines 32-37 as follows : "131304. Any amendment to a county transpor- tation expenditure plan proposed by the County Transportation Authority shall be ap- proved in the same manner as the adopted county transportation expenditure plan was approved pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 131020) . " This section would require eight other counties ' approval at M.T.C. and the approval of every city and the county govern- ment on any amendment to the expenditure plan no matter how insignificant. Perhaps more practical language would be : "Any amendment adding or deleting a project or otherwise of major significance to a county transportation expenditure plan proposed by the County Transportation Authority shall be approved in the same man- ner as the adopted county transportation ex- penditure plan was approved pursuant to Chap- ter 2 (commencing with Section 131020) . " 7. Add two new sections to go in three different Chapters as follows : Page 19, beginning on line 2; Page 24, beginning on line 6; and Page 24, after Section 131402 to read: "One year in advance of the date of the last general election in which a sales tax passed by the voters pursuant to this division is in effect, the (M.T.C. , County Transportation Authority , or designated agency) shall prepare a new draft county transportation ex- penditure plan which shall be approved in the same manner as prescribed in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 131020) . " "If the county transportation expenditure plan is approved as called for in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 131020) , then the county in question shall call an election for either the next primary or general election date, at its option, to allow the voters to vote on whether or not to continue the exist- ing sales tax to fund the new county transportation expenditure plan. The elec- tion and administration of this tax shall be governed by this division. " 8. Ballot Language. Finally, the actual ballot language was deleted by the M.T.C. amendments . It is not clear why this was done . If it is not replaced , are the individual counties free to make up their own ballot language on a county-by-county basis? This item deserves careful analysis since in most cases this language is the first and last time the voter considers the issue.