HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04181989 - S.4 Tp" - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Sunne Wright McPeak / ont
CWI�.I
DATE'. Introduced April 11 , 1989 for Action
on April 18 , 1989 @ COJ*
SUBJECT: potential Delays in Funding I680-24 Interchange
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
Refer attached letter to Board of Supervisors Transportation
Committee and the Contra Costa Transportation Commission for
immediate action to oppose delays in I680-2.4 Interchange
improvement project. Further, request the CCTC to direct
its lobbyist to seek the highest priority designation for
this project in STIP funding.
BACKGROUND:
See attached letter.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
S I GNATURE I S I'
ACTION OF BOARD ON APR 1 8 49(Q�Q-89 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
At the request of Supervisor Powers, the Board hereby REQUESTS the review of I-80
in the same context as I-680/24 Interchanne Porject.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
A— 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: Board Transportation Committee ATTESTED APR 18 1_9.8_9_
Contra Costa Transportation Commission via CDD PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Community Development SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
County Administrator
Public Works Director
M382/7-83 BY ,DEPUTY
d.T.(TOM)HAWTHORNE,Chairman STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN
GOVERNOR
JOE DUFFEL,Vice Chairman
WILLIAM T.BAGLEY et";.. '.
MARGIE HANDLEY
STANLEY W.HULETT =m sw RECEIVE O
0
KEN KEVORKIAN ,-
WILLIAM E LEONARD c�iiscvH" MAR 17 1589
JOE LEVY
BRUCE NESTANDE CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION . A0.............
1120 N STREET,P.O.BOX 942873
ROBERTS.NIELSEN,Exec.Director SACRAMENTO 94273-0001
(916)445-1690
March 14, 1989
Supervisor Sunne McPeak
Contra Costa County
2301 Stanwell Drive
Concord, CA 94520,
Dear eak:
This letter follows from the phone conversation you had with our
office yesterday. It explains the current .prognosis for the
projects to rebuild the Route 680/Route 24 freeway interchange in
Contra Costa County. The chances that these improvements can be
funded in a timely way are not that good.
The interchange reconstruction will be done in four stages.
Construction has started recently on the first stage, costing about
$15 million. The remaining three stages are in the five year STIP.
Caltrans expects to deliver completed plans, ready to start
construction, on the second and third stages in about June 1990,
for a combined cost of $100 million. Caltrans expects to deliver
completed plans, ready for construction, for the fourth stage in
about August 1991, to cost about $85 million.
As of about a year ago, Caltrans' project delivery was lagging, and
completed plans were often a year or more late. Recently,
Caltrans' delivery record has picked up, and I am assuming that the
plans for this project will come in as now scheduled.
Assuming Caltrans continues to deliver completed plans on schedule
statewide, available funding is becoming a serious problem.
Caltrans expects to bring in $1200 million in completed projects
for funding during Federal Fiscal Year 89 (FFY 89) . The Commission
has available $600 million in federal funding for these projects,
but the State Highway Account has no state revenues available for
the remaining $600 million worth. The Commission will have voted
all of the federal funds for FFY 89 by April 1989, so the remaining
$600 million in projects that come in between April and September
.1989 must go on the shelf unfunded.
The same situation is due to occur in FFY 90 and FFY 91, with
Caltrans delivering $1200 million worth of completed projects, the
Commission having $600 million in federal funding for each year,
and the remaining $600 million of project delivery going on the
Supervisor Sunne McPeak
March 14, 1989
Page 2
shelf unfunded, for lack of state revenues. Looking at this
another way, all projects from April 1989 forward go on the shelf,
which will total $3000 million between now and September 1991.
During that same time, $1200 million in federal funds will become
available, for FFY 90 and FFY 91, and will be used to fund some of
the shelf projects. The remaining shelf projects, estimated to
total $1800 million, will remain on the shelf indefinitely until
new state revenues are provided to fund them.
The Commission does not yet have a policy to define in which order
projects are to be taken off the shelf for funding. The Commission
expects to set up such a policy in the next two or three months.
Because the Route 680/Route 24 interchange projects are to be
funded with interstate completion funding, a relatively high
priority for use of federal funds, Commission policy may turn out
to be favorable for funding these projects.. However, I don't want
to pretend to outguess Commission policy that has not been set,
especially since the implications of various policy directions have
not yet been thoroughly examined.
Clearly, the second and third stages (in FFY 90) and the fourth
stage (in FFY 91) of the Route 680/Route 24 freeway interchange
will go on the shelf unfunded when Caltrans completes the plans,
and are at risk of staying on the shelf indefinitely. Since
federal funding for the five years 1987-1991 has already been
specified in the 1987 federal Surface Transportation Act, no more
funding from federal sources can be expected. Additional state
revenues, or more local funding for STIP projects, are the only
solutions we can foresee to fund the $1800 million in delivered
projects that will be going on the shelf during the next three
years, and to bail out the state highway program in the long term.
Obviously, any support you can give to legislation that would
provide additional state revenues would be valuable and much
appreciated.
Sincerely,
ROBE S. NIELSEN
E cutive Director
RSN/PH:cv:Dll. 6
9:CV1