HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06161987 - TC.1 TO=,
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Contra
1tra
County Transportation Committee l.�lJJla
Supervisors R. Schroder (Chair) and T. Torlakson
DATE: �I �lll��///
June 16 , 1987
SUBJECT:
Transportation Committee Report & Recommendations for Board Action
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AM JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
Since the Transportation Committee was established, we have met to
discuss the organization of the committee and have requested
Community Development Department, Transportation Planning Division
staff to brief us on transportation matters. Based on our
discussions and on staff reports, we recommend the following actions
to the Board of Supervisors:
1 . Support in concept SB 140 by Senator Deddah, which establishes
the criteria and mechanism by which the State will participate
in funding the state highways and mass transit guideways system.
This bill also establishes the mechanism for bonding which is
proposed in SB 176. Request the author of the bill through our
lobbyist . to revise the four lane lirpitation on state
participation.
2. Support SB 142 by Senator Deddah, which allows counties to
submit to the voters a retail and transactions use tax. This
bill would give the Board an option of using SB 878 process or
this one which provides more flexibility, should a local
financing measure be placed on the ballot in the future.
3 . Support SB 176 which provides for the enactment of the 1987
Transportation Bond Act, which upon approval of the voters,
would authorize the state to issue bonds to finance state
highways and exclusive public mass transit guideways for a total
of $1 . 8 billion in outstanding state debt.
4. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt a proclamation
declaring that May 1987 be County Connection Month. (Board
Action April 28, 1987 to adopt proclamation) .
dp6:CntyTranC.rpt
Orig. Dept. -CDD, T/P
( 4. 24 . 87 ) (rev. 6 . 4. 87)
X
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT. _ YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER _
r
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 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: 4 ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
N q op
CC: ATTESTED JUN 16 1987
CAO PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
CDD
PWD SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382/7-83 BY .. " J" 'DEPUTY
5 . Recommend that a Community Development Department Transportation
Planning Division staff member be appointed to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission' s proposed Regional Highway System
Committee.
6 . Support the Conference of Mayors ' Transportation Partnership
proposal. (Board action scheduled for June 9, 1987) .
7 . The Board of Supervisors should make it a County policy to send
all transportation matters including individual Supervisor' s
requests brought to the Board to the Transportation Committee
for review and recommendation.
8 . Support the East Contra Costa County Road Projects (see
attached) as the ones which the County officially supports in
this area.
9. Recommend that Supervisor Tom Powers represent the County at the
California Transportation Commission on Highway 4 for inclusion
in the State Transportation Improvement Program; add the I-80
High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes (Unit 5) to State TIP; and propose
that the Atlas Road Interchange be a separate project from the
I-80 HOV lanes project (Unit 6) and that the County in
conjunction with the Route 93 JEPA accept the State' s offer of a
55% ( local) -- 45% ( state) split. (Board Action April 28, 1987
to follow recommendation) .
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Items 41 through 5 - no impact.
Item #6, the County may have to provide staff support to the
proposal, as well as potential overhead costs. At this time the
total staff support and overhead costs are unknown.
Item #7 - no impact.
Item #8, most of the projects are funded out of specific area of
benefit programs or by state and federal funds and have no impact on
the County budget. Those projects which are not are being reviewed
by staff for potential funding sources and will be brought back for
further review by the County Transportation Committee.
Item 49, the County will bear a portion of the cost for the
interchange at Atlas Road Interchange.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS/BACKGROUND:
Item 41 - this bill will establish the mechanism to allow bonding of
transportation projects, propose $200 million in funding
for competition by counties, and ties SB 140 to SB 176.
Item #2 - this bill will allow the County greater flexibility, if the
County decides to place another retail and transactions use
tax before the voters.
Item #3 - this bill will allow the State to issue bonds for
transportation projects and sets the limit of bonds that
may be issued.
Item #4 - the County supports actions that contribute to alleviating
the congested traffic situation on the County' s
transportation network.
Item #5 - the County should participate in the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission' s proposed study. The study will
develop criteria for defining a regional highway system, as
well as suggested funding changes, in anticipation of
changes to the federal funding picture in the early 1990 ' s.
2/2
Item #6 - the County needs to continue the dialogue started by the
Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee, since it
appears that proposed state legislation will favor those
self-help counties that have determined their
transportation needs and have implemented a local retail
and transactions use tax.
Item #7 - adoption of this policy by the Board will enable the Board
to more effectively use the available staff resources.
This policy will allow the Transportation Committee to
coordinate work requests and recommend priorities so that
the Board can focus on significant transportation matters
without diluting its effort.
Item #8 - the Board needs to take a unified position on these Road
Projects so that the Board's priorities are known about the
projects in this area of the County.
Item #9 - Supervisor Powers is most familiar with the Route 93/Atlas
Road Interchange proposal. He also stated the County' s
position on Highway 4 and the I-80 High Occupancy vehicle
Lanes project at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Regional Transportation Improvement Program hearing.
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION
Items #1 , 2 , and 3 - the County' s transportation lobbyist will be
instructed to concentrate on other transportation matters.
Item #4 - CCCTA' s promotional effort may be diminished by lack of
Board support.
Item #5 - the Board will not have an opportunity to affect, at an
early stage, the discussion on the criteria and potential
federal funding changes. .
Item 46 - lack of support will mean that the needed forum to discuss
the transportation problems of the County will cease.
Item #7 - Staff effort may not be effectively utilized. for maximum
impact.
Item #8 - guidance on projects in this area will be determined
without input from the Board of Supervisors.
Item #9 - the California Transportation Commission will not be aware
of Contra Costa County' s concerns and needs in making their
decision about the needed transportation projects in the
State.
3/3
Orig.Dept. - CDD, T/P Division
(dp6:CntyTran.rpt)
( 4 . 24 . 87 ) (rev. 6. 4 . 87)
cc: CAO
CDD
PWD