The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 04231996 - D3 _ ° == Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - Costa FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE '�.�^ �� County osrq•c n DATE: April 15, 1996 SUBJECT: APPROVE PAYMENT TO ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S SHARE OF LOCAL MATCH REQUIRED UNDER ALAMEDA' S MEASURE B-86 FOR I-680/I-580 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS A. APPROVE the payment of $135, 900 to the Alameda County Transportation Authority (ACTA) as Contra Costa County' s share of the $10 million local share required under Alameda County' s Measure B-86 for the I-680/I-580 interchange improvement project. B. DECLARE the intent of the Board of Supervisors to continue to work with the cities in the Tri-Valley Area, Alameda County and San Joaquin County to resolve regional transportation problems and to SUPPORT the efforts by the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority to bring the three counties together to discuss regional issues. C. DIRECT the Director of Community Development to advance $135, 900 from the Measure C, Local Street Program funds, to the Alameda County Transportation Authority toward this project. This advance shall be reimbursed by development projects in the southwest county area that are required to provide for regional traffic mitigation as Conditions of Approval of these projects . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVETHER Wef • hSIGNATURE (S) : Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON April 23 , 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: 3 ,4 ,5 and 2 NOES: None ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: 1 (Rogers) MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Public Works (Admin) ATTESTED April 23, 1996 Contact: M. Shiu (313-2251) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF CC: See Distribution on Back THE BOARD OF SUPERVI RS D CO TY INI RATO J: \jbigg\ameasb86.bo LOCAL MATCH CONTRIBUTION FOR I-680/I-580 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. April 15, 1996 PAGE 2 RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) D. DIRECT the Director of Growth Management and Economic Development Agency to include in all future development projects in the southwest County area a condition to participate in the cost sharing of the I-680/I-580 connector project. FISCAL IMPACT No impact to General Funds. The $135, 900 advance from the Measure C-88 Local Street Program may delay a street resurfacing project for two years. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS In 1986, the voters of Alameda County approved Measure B which imposes a '-� cent sales tax on Alameda County to pay for transportation improvement projects in the adopted expenditure plan. One of the projects in the expenditure plan is to improve the I-680/I-580 interchange. This project is estimated to cost $120 million. The expenditure plan specified that jurisdictions in the region should provide $10 million in local match for the project. ACTA requests that in addition to Alameda County and its cities, Contra Costa County, San Ramon and Danville also participate in the sharing of local match funds . Based on the number of trip ends in each jurisdiction in the TVTC area, ACTA further determines that the County' s share is $135, 900 . Contra Costa County' s participation is voluntary. The Board, however, has consistently emphasized the need for cooperation and coordination to solve regional transportation problems . The improvement to the I-680/I-580 interchange will benefit the residents of Contra Costa County and San Joaquin County, as well as residents of Alameda County. Since most of the $120 million cost of the project is financed with Alameda County funds, there is justification for Contra Costa County' s participation in a regional project. As each project is unique, participation by the County in this project should not be viewed as obligating the County to other projects. Each project has to be reviewed based on its merits, its benefit to Contra Costa County' s residents and on potential funding sources . The I-680/I-580 is a major gateway to the Bay Area. Its improvement will benefit San Joaquin County, especially the commute trips between San Joaquin County and destinations in south Alameda and Santa Clara counties . ACTA has agreed to facilitate the inclusion of San Joaquin County in solving the regional transportation problems in the Tri-Valley Area. On April 2, the Board of Supervisors requested the Transportation Committee to reconsider this contribution based on the actions of several Tri-Valley jurisdictions to reject the ACTA proposal (see Exhibits A and B) . ACTA staff has requested that Contra Costa still contribute the amount originally proposed. ACTA will seek additional contributions from Alameda County' s jurisdictions to compensate for the payments allocated to the jurisdictions who have chosen not to participate. The Transportation Committee reaffirms its support of the original proposal to contribute $135, 900 as the County' s local match to I-680/I-580 project. LOCAL MATCH CONTRIBUTION FOR I-680/I-580 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. April 15, 1996 PAGE 3 CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION: It is conceivable that if Contra Costa County does not participate, this project will not go forward. DISTRIBUTION cc: Auditor Controller Community Development GMEDA Alameda County Transportation Authority 1401 Lakeside Dr. , Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612-4305 Town of Danville 510 La Gonda Way Danville, CA 94526-1742 City of San Ramon 2222 Camino Ramon San Ramon, CA 94583 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 1340 Treat Blvd. , Suite 150 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Tri-Valley Transportaion Council Livermore Administration Building 1052 S. Livermore Ave. Livermore, CA 94550-4899 J:\jbigg\ameasb86.bo U3/Lo/yo 1Z.41 -"DIU gas 040V A.1..1.A. EXHIBIT A "D. 3 March 26, 1996 Mr. Richard Ambrose, City Manager Ms. Deborah Acosta, City Manager Alameda City of Dublin City of Pleasanton Cmnty PO Box 2340 PO Box 520 lansportation Dublin, CA 94568 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Authority Ms. Susan Muranishi Mr. Val Alexeeff, Director GMEDA County Administrator Contra Costa County County of Alameda 651 Pine Street No Wing 1221 Oak Street 2nd Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Martinez, CA 94553 1401 Lakeside Drive Suite 600 Subject; 1-5801680 Direct Connector Project--Local Mafich Contributions Qakland,California 94612-4305 Telephone Dear Addressees- 5101893-3347 racsinnire The purpose of this correspondence is to follow-up on my conversation of March 22, 5101893-6489 1996 with each of you and to provide clarification of the Authority's revised approach L-:mail for local match for the 1-5801680 Interchange. AC rr2002@ao1. om I provided a project status update to each of you last Friday. In addition, it is the Authority's intent to also determine your jurisdiction's position regarding these Chaff.mwi th�''r'°m changed conditions. hai supervisor Because of Livermore, Danville and San Ramon's negative response to the MarkGrm vur-chairman Authority's local match proposal, I requested advice from the Authority's legal Mayor,union aty counsel regarding the Authority's recourse if the total local match is not committed r:.dwm,d a CuVbcU and ultimately received.. Legal counsel has advised that the total $10 million must Supervisor be committed in order for the project to be constructed. Additionally, because the wihnachan project cannot be substantially segmented, it must be awarded for construction as Supervisor one unit. Robe3ta Cooper mayor Hayb'a'•d With this legal assessment, ACTA Is asking your jurisdictions to consider Nora Davis contributing at a level greater than the amount presented in the Authority's original Mayor,6a,eryviIIe proposal as your fair-share if all TVTC members participated. On March 22nd,you MUM•Harris were asked to consider providing those funds which are currently left outstanding Mayor Oakland due to Livermore, Danville and San Ramon's refusal to contribute any part of the Ma`y'o King local match. This unfunded amount is$1,680,700. On last Friday the Authority Super""°` asked that you consider splitting this balance equally and adding this amount to each c,ail stems of your local match contributions. This approach would require an additional Supervisor $420,175 from each of your four jurisdictions. Alameda County jurisdictions received Vincent L Harris this proposal with possible interest; however, concern was voiced on the impact of Exxu"nqro= fewer TVTC members refusal to participate and the even greater burden posed on those remaining members. Contra Costa County's response to this revised approach cleady indicated that they would nno consider any involvement beyond the amount originally proposed. ACTA means Action L3,'26i96 t2:48 '0510 893 6489 A.C.T..4. 0003 March 25, 1996 Page Two Based on this input, the Authority would like to present the f68owing revised proposal for local match contributions. 1) Contra Costa County contributes only the original amount proposed, or$135,900. 2) Dubliin,Pleaserdon and Alameda Cournty provide the remaining balance. This amount would be $1,680,700 minus Contra Costa County's $135,900, divided equaUy; plus each jurisdiction's original.share. 3) The Authority will continue to attempt to obtain contributions from lavermore, Danville and San Ramon to reduce the contributions of Alameda County, Dublin &Pleasanton. 4) The Authority will work with TVTC to adopt a formal resolution to reimburse upfront local match contributions through future TVTC fees. Items 1 and 2 are summarized as follows: 'as Dublin $1,926,800 $1,926,800 $2,487,030 Pleasanton 1,563,000 1,563,000 2,123,230 Livermore 703,700 -0- 703,700 0 m Danville 171,600 -0- 171,600 0 M San Ramon 805,400 -0- 805,400 00 Alameda County 241,900 241,900 802,140 Contra Costa County 1$5,900 135,900 135,900 Total $5,548,300 $3,867,600 $1,680,700('' $5,548,300 ('1 RedgMuted between Dub61t.Meesffftn and Atarnede Gounly.S 1,6W 7W3 a S 560.233 RoLmled: OtrW S 5W.23D, Pleasanton i 560,230 and Alameda Ctxoty S 5t.24G. These amounts Cten added to origin,!Local Maim Corti Laftm (3) ALdwi(y vA adwya to mc&W any Rwx r ow*6u&v Som Vmwfl&=cFc ham b mduce butltn an mor 7V M conhibutors The Authority is currently proceeding through environmental certification and final design of the 1-580/680 Direct Connector Project Based on the local match currently received,design and right- of-way acquisition activities can be completed; however, construction advertisement cannot. The revised local match proposal will allow the present schedule to continue with construction starling by Fail of 1997. Dublin, Pleasanton,Alameda County and Contra Costa County are urged to considler this revised local match approach and work through this issue with the Authority. The Authority would seriously Ike to hear from you by the end of this month. Approve Payment to Alameda County Transportation Authority as Contra Costa County's Share of Local Match Required under Alameda 'S Measure B-86 for 1-680/1-580 Interchange Improvement Project April 1, 1996 Page Two II. Financiallmpact: No impact to General Funds. The $135,000 advance from the Measure C-88 Local Street Program may delay a street resurfacing project for two years. III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: In 1986,the voters of Alameda County approved Measure B which imposes a 1/2 cent sales tax on Alameda County to pay for transportation improvement projects in the adopted expenditure plan. One of the projects in the expenditure plan is to improve the 1-680/1-580 interchange. This project is estimated to cost$120 million. The expenditure plan specified that jurisdictions in the region should provide$10 million in local match for the project.ACTA requests that in addition to Alameda County and its cities, Contra Costa County, San Ramon and Danville also participate in the sharing of local match funds. Based on the number of trip ends in each jurisdiction in the TVTC area, ACTA further determines that the County's share is $135,000. Contra Costa County's participation is voluntary. The Board, however, has consistently emphasized the need for cooperation and coordination to solve regional transportation problems. The improvement to the 1-680/1-580 interchange will benefit the residents of Contra Costa County and San Joaquin County, as well as residents of Alameda County. Since most of the$120 million cost of the project is financed with Alameda County funds,there is justification for Contra Costa County's participation in a regional project. As each project is unique, participation by the County in this project should not be viewed as obligating the County to other projects. Each project has to be reviewed based on its merits, its benefit to Contra Costa County's residents and on potential funding sources. The 1-680/1-580 is a major gateway to the Bay Area. Its improvement will benefit San Joaquin County , especially the commute trips between San Joaquin County and destinations in south Alameda and Santa Clara counties. ACTA has agreed to facilitate the inclusion of San Joaquin County in solving the regional transportation problems in the Tri Valley Area. IV. Consequences Of Negative Action: It is conceivable that if Contra Costa County does not participate, this project will not go forward. cc: Auditor Controller Community Development GMEDA Alameda County Transportation Authority 1401 Lakeside Dr.,Suite 600 Oakland,CA 94612-4305 Town of Danville 510 La Gonda Way Danville,CA 94526-1742 City of San Ramon 2222 Camino Ramon San Ramon,CA 94583 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 1340 Treat Blvd,Suite 150 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 TriValley Transportation Council Livermore Administration Building 1052 S.Livermore Ave. Livermore,CA 94550.4699 EXHIBIT BECEIVD + CONTRA COSTA COUNTY April 8, 1996 APR 10 1996 � 3 GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND Alameda Mr. Brian Welch ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Com Town of Danville Transportation 510 La Gonda Way Authority Danville, CA 94526-1722 Subject: 1-580/680 Direct Connector Project— Local Match Contributions Dear Mr. Welch: 1401 Lakeside Drive Suite 600 Oakland,California The purpose of this correspondence is to respond to Mayor Greenberg's March 29, 0akla d,C 1996 letter regarding the subject project. Telephone Mayor Greenberg's recent letter reiterates Danville's position regarding ACTA's local 510/893-3347 match proposal. While we understand that Danville is willing to participate in the Facsimil510/893-6489 project under a impact fee arrangement, from the Authority's perspective, Danville E-Mail 3- has rejected ACTA's proposal in the manner that it was presented. This does not ACTA2002@aol.com mean that Danville's approach of providing local match through the collection of a regional fee has no merit. However, this approach does not solve the Authority's scheduling problem. Keith Carson Chairman The Mayor has stated that the Authority has created a division between members Supervisor of the Tri-Valley Transportation Council. Clearly, this is not the Authority's intent, nor Mark Green is it our desire. The Authority's objective was to use TVTC's unique approach to Vice-Chairman Mayor,Union City delivery of transportation projects as the basic framework for resolving Measure B's Edward R.Campbell local match requirement. Supervisor Wilma Char, The Authority has been working for nine years on development of not only 1-580/680, Supervisor but several other TVTC sponsored projects as well. In order to hold schedule (and Roberta Cooper ultimately save costs) the Authority proposed that the local match be shared by all Mayor,Hayward TVTC members. The most recent credible data available to us was the existing Tri- Nora Davis Valley Transportation Traffic Model. It was our understanding that this model had Mayor,Efneryville_- the basic support of TVTC member jurisdictions. While that model will be modified Elihu M.Harris by TVTC's new consultant, it.will be an iterative process. For the purposes of a Mayor,Oakland regional fee, the revisions to the model are important and additional.discussions Mary V.King between jurisdictions will undoubtedly be necessary. Unfortunately, the completion Supervisor of this process may not be achievable within the Authority's needed time frame. Gail Steele Supervisor We believe TVTC has a unique opportunity to resolve the region's medium and long- Vincent J.Harris term transportation problems. However, the 1-580/680 Project is not a medium or Executive Director long term goal. Construction is imminent. Only $5.5 million of the $120 million Project cost is needed to start digging and building. - In the spirit of cooperation, ACTA has proposed that the amounts paid for the 1-580/680 Project be credited against the Regional Fee Program. ACTA means Action I •� „ Mr. Brian Welch Page 2 April 8, 1996 ■ Alternately, local match commitments made to ACTA could be superseded by the regional fee structure. No payments would actually be made if the fee program was adopted within the next twelve months. ■ If the fee Program is implemented,MC members would be fully protected. This approach would allow both ACTA and MC to be successful in our common goal: delivery of Tri- Valley Transportation Projects. TVTC continues to have a leadership role in structuring a regional fee for the Tri-Valley, and I am hopeful that Danville will continue to-work with ACTA through this.important issue.of providing local match for 1-5801680. Please contact me if you would like to discuss this item further. Sincerely, Vincent Harris Executive Director copies: Chairperson Keith Carson, ACTA Mayor Mildred Greenberg, Town of Danville Mayor Guy Houston, City of Dublin . Mayor Curt Kinney, City of San Ramon Mayor Cathie Brown, City of Livermore Mayor Ben Tarver, City of Pleasanton Richard Ambrose, Dublin City Manager Deborah Acosta, Pleasanton City Manager Susan Muranishi, Alameda County Administrator Val Alexeeff, Director GMEDA Contra Costa County VJH:taj Mr. Brian Welch Page 2 April 8, 9996 ■ Alternately, local match commitments made to ACTA could be superseded by the regional fee structure. No payments would actually be made if the fee program was adopted within the next twelve months. ■ If the fee Program is implemented,TVTC members would be fully protected. This approach would allow both ACTA and TVTC to be successful in our common goal: delivery of Tri- Valley Transportation Projects. TVTC continues to have a leadership role in structuring a regional fee for the Tri-Valley, and I am hopeful that Danville will continue to work with ACTA through this important issue of providing local match for 1-580/680. Please contact me if you would like to discuss this item further. Sincerely, Vincent Harris Executive Director copies: Chairperson Keith Carson, ACTA Mayor Mildred Greenberg, Town of Danville Mayor Guy Houston, City of Dublin . Mayor Curt Kinney, City of San Ramon Mayor Cathie Brown, City of Livermore Mayor Ben Tarver, City of Pleasanton Richard Ambrose, Dublin City Manager Deborah Acosta, Pleasanton City Manager Susan Muranishi, Alameda County Administrator Val Alexeeff, Director GMEDA Contra Costa County VJH:taj