The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 06251996 - D4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEElof '0 "44M Costa DATE: June 17, 1996 County SUBJECT: REPORT ON SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY BILL 2419 (Bowler), TRANSPORTATION - CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS, WITH AMENDMENTS. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt a position of support for Assembly Bill 2419 by Assemblyman Bowler, and request an amendment to require counties and cities to reconsider their designation of congestion management agencies. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Existing law requires the development, adoption and updating of a congestion management program for each urban county. AB 2419, among other things, would make this mandate inapplicable in a county in which a majority of local governments, collectively comprised of the city councils and the county board of supervisors which, in total represent a majority of the population of the county, adopt resolutions electing to be exempt from the congestion management program. In 1991 , the Board of Supervisors and the cities designated the Contra Costa Transportation Authority as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for the county, recognizing the close CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY AD INy°STRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOA MI TEE APPROVE / J _ OTHER SIGNATURE(S): Jeff mi Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON June 25, 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ------- TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact Person, Steven Goetz, 335-1240 ATTESTED June 25, 1996 Orig: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Chair, CCTA (via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Senator Dan Boatwright AND C ADMINIST TO Assemblyman Richard Rainey Assemblyman Bob Campbell Smith & Kempton B SLG:c:\transcom\ab2419.bo Assembly Bill 2419 (Bowler) Transportation - Congestion Management Programs June 17, 1996 Page Two BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) parallels between the congestion management program mandates and the Measure C-1988 growth management program. In 1993, the County and the cities executed a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the Authority to carry out the functions of the CMA. The JPA requires each jurisdiction to contribute to the cost of the CMA based on the amount of Proposition 1 1 1 gas tax funds received by each jurisdiction in relation to the amount received by all the jurisdictions in the county for the fiscal year. The County proposed several alternative CMA funding formulas: existing population, receipt of Measure C return-to-source funds, future growth (see table below for a comparison of alternative formulas). The Mayor's Conference selected the Proposition 1 1 1 allocation formula to determine local contributions to the CMA. The County's share of the local contribution is 49% of the total contributed by all 19 jurisdictions. Representatives of the Mayor's Conference explained that since the CMA requirement was imposed by Proposition 1 1 1 , jurisdictions should contribute to the CMA based on the revenue they receive from Proposition 1 1 1 for local street and road purposes. However, the state formulas for apportioning Proposition 1 1 1 funds are intended to favor counties due to their extensive rural road mileage, not because they are the primary source of road congestion. Removal of the mandate for WAS calls for reevaluation of the provisions of the JPA that implements the statute in Contra Costa. The bill allows local jurisdictions the opportunity to exempt their county from the congestion management program. However, jurisdictions that wish to continue their CMA function would not be prompted to reconsider how they carry-out their activities in light of the law's voluntary nature. The Transportation Committee believes that since the State would be changing the ground rules for congestion management programs if AB 2419 becomes law, local jurisdictions should be given the opportunity to reconsider the measures they have taken to implement the program. The requested amendment would require all counties and cities to reconsider their decisions to establish their CMA and allow implementation of that function to be revised as appropriate. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION Failure to support the bill would allow imposition of the state mandates to continue. Failure to support the request to amend the bill may reduce the likelihood that the JPA that established the Contra Costa CMA would be revised to eliminate local contributions based on Proposition 1 1 1 subventions. Alternative Formulas for Allocation of CMA Budget Deficit to Participating Jurisdictions Proposition 111 Existing Population Measure C 18% Fund 112 Proposition 111 & JABAG Projections 96 Jurisdiction JAllocation Allocatio JAllocation 112 Meas.C Allocation Growth Allocation Antioch 5.2% 11,613 8.5% 18,971 7.6% 17,072 6.4% 14,343 15.1% 33,829 Brentwood 0.8% 1,695 1.3% 2,998 2.0% 4,466 1.4% 3,080 9.6% 21,504 Clayton 0.6% 1,383 1.0% 2,259 1.6% 3,580 1.1% 2,482 1.4% 3,080 Concord 8.2% 18,263 13.0% 28,993 11.5% 25,634 9.8% 21,949 7.6% 16,969 County 49.9% 111,639 19.7% 43,959 20.3% 45,391 35.1% 78,515 20.4% 45,533 Danville 2.5% 5,624 4.1% 9,262 4.5% 10,035 3.5% 7,830 2.8% 6,176 EI Cerrito 1.7% 3,781 2.7% 6,018 2.90/6 6,588 2.3% 5,184 0.3% 688 Hercules 1.4% 3,030 2.2% 4,832 2.4% 5,354 1.9% 4,192 3.2% 7,149 Lafayette 1.7% 3,834 2.7% 6,107 3.3% 7,311 2.5% 5,573 0.5%1 1,020 Martinez 2.5% 5,699 4.1% 9,083 4.1% 9,225 3.3% 7,462 2.3% 5,052 Moraga 1.2% 2,662 1.9% 4,206 2.3% 5,111 1.7% 3,887 0.3% 771 Orinda 1.2% 2,742 2.0%1 4,362 2.9% 6,544 2.1% 4,643 0.2% 471 Pinole 1.3% 2,938 2.1% 4,698 2.4% 5,288 1.8% 4,113 0.7% 1,548 Pittsburg 3.6% 8,148 5.8% 13,065 5.3% 11,914 4.5% 10,031 9.5% 21,297 Pleasant Hill 2.3% 5,140 3.7% 8,165 4.0% 8,960 3.2% 7,050 2.8% 6,253 Richmond 6.60/6 14,849 10.5% 23,557 9.1% 20,413 7.9% 17,631 8.4% 18,708 San Pablo 1.9% 4,233 3.0% 6,734 2.7% 6,072 2.3% 5,153 0.7% 1,475 San Ramon 2.8% 6,361 4.6% 10,358 4.6% 10,337 3.7% 8,349 7.4% 16,663 Walnut Creek 4.5% 10,078 7.2% 16,063 6.4% 14,416 5.5% 12,247 6.9% 15,525 TOTAL 100.0% $ 223,712 100.0% $ 223,712 1 100.0%1 $ 223,712 1 100.0%1 $ 223,712 1 100% $ 223,712 Notes: 1)Proposition 111 allocation based on FY 94/95 funds received by local jurisdictions. 2) 1/2 Proposition 111 & 1/2 Measure C allocation formula recommended by Public Managers Association, but rejected by the Mayor's Conference. 3)ABAG Projections 96 growth allocation formula based on projected growth between 1995 and 2015 for jobs and population combined.