Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04192005 - SD2 SD.2 04/19/05 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on April 19,2005 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Gioia, Piepho,DeSaulnier, Glover and Uilkema NOES: None AB SENT: None ABSTAIN: None 'CONTINUED to undetermined date to consider supporting, with amendment, Senate Bill 658 by Senator Kuehl, the Bay and Coastal Motor vehicle Mitigation Program for funding storm water quality and mitigating environmental impacts of motor vehicles, and authorizing the Chair, Board of Supervisors, to execute a letter of support, as reviewed by the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee, Countywide. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ONDATE SHOWN. ATTESTED ahn w en,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator Y XTty TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: TRANSPORTATION, WATER AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE DATE: APRIL 19, 2005 SUBJECT: SUPPORT, WITH AMENDMENT, SB 658 (KUEHL) THE BAY AND COASTAL MOTOR VEHICLE MITIGATION PROGRAM,AND AUTHORIZE THE BOARD CHAIR TO EXECUTE A LETTER OF SUPPORT SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. Recommended Action: SUPPORT, with amendment, Senate Bill 658 by Senator Kuehl,the Bay and Coastal Motor Vehicle Mitigation Program, and AUTHORIZE the Chair, Board of Supervisors, to execute the attached letter of support as recommended by the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee. II. Financial Impact: It is anticipated that Senate Bill 658 will result in approximately$1,620,000 per year as drafted($2,200,000 if amended) sent directly to Contra Costa County. An additional $3,780,000 in funds as drafted ($3,200,000 if amended)that would be available each year for the County and other eligible entities to apply for through a grant program, if the County elects to participate in the SB 658 program. SIGNATURE: Mary Pliepho Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE: Federal Glover RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS UNANIMOUS(ABSENT I by certify that this is a true and correct copy AYES: NOES: of an a 'on taken and entered on the minutes of ABSENT: ABSTAIN: the Board Supervisors on the date shown. RMA:lz G:1GrpData\Admin\Mitch1bo120051BO SB 658.doc Orig.Div: Public Works(Admin Svcs) ATTESTED: Contact: Mitch Avalon(313-2203) John Sweeten, Clerk oft Board of Supervisors c: J.HeetenCounty AdministratorS. ffman,CAO and County Administrator M.Shiu,Public Works Director 7Deputy G.Connaughton,Flood Control D.Freitas,Clean Water Program T.Dalziel,Clean Water Program S.Goetz,Community Development J.Kopchik,Community Development By I SUBJECT: SUPPORT, WITH AMENDMENT, SB 658 (KUEHL) THE BAY AND COASTAL MOTOR VEHICLE MITIGATION PROGRAM,AND AUTHORIZE THE BOARD CHAIR TO EXECUTE A LETTER OF SUPPORT DATE: APRIL 19,,2005 PAGE 2 111. Reasons for Recommendations and Backtuound: Background The overall objective of the Clean Water Act is to improve water quality. When the act went into effect in 1972, State and Federal focused their attention on point-source pollution. This was pollution from stationary, fixed sources such as industrial plants and wastewater treatment plants. For the most part these pollution sources are under control. About 10 years ago agencies began to turn their attention from point source pollution and focus on non-point source pollution.The State Water Resources Control Board and its regional boards are responsible for administering this pollution prevention program,and they issued Contra Costa County our first NPDES permit in 1993. This permit required the County and Cities to implement actions towards the goal of improving water quality. The County and Cities are co-permittees under the NPDES permit and the Contra Costa Clean Water Program administers the joint program activities. In 1993,the County and cities adopted a parcel assessment to fund the Program costs. Each jurisdiction approved the parcel assessment with a range of values. The parcel assessment for Contra Costa County,for example,was approved with a range of$16.20 to$30 per parcel.In the beginning,each jurisdiction started out at the bottom of the range.Each year the program costs have increased and the jurisdictions have slowly increased their parcel assessment.Today,the County is at the maximum rate and the cities are all at or near their maximum rate. On February 19, 2003 the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) amended Contra Costa County's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to include new development and redevelopment standards. These new requirements will significantly increase our clean water program costs. We will have to look for new funding sources. Senate Bill 658 is a way to add new funding to improve water quality. Senate Bill 658 One of the largest source of non-point pollution is motor vehicles.Senate Bill 658 sets up a$6 charge per vehicle registration or registration renewal to be put into an account administered by the Coastal Conservancy. Five percent of the funds are set aside to cover administrative costs of the Conservancy. All nine counties in the Bay Area and eleven other coastal counties would be eligible to participate in the program. The program would only be established if five or more counties elect to participate. The vehicle registration fee would be set up in each county only if requested by their County Board of Supervisors. The registration fee would sunset after 12 years. Projects and programs eligible to receive grant funding from funds administered by the Coastal Conservancy would include creek restoration, bank stabilization and erosion reduction,wetland and watershed revegetation, restoration and enhancement, and acquisition of waterway and watershed land. Projects and programs must demonstrate the ability to improve water quality and mitigate the impact of motor vehicles on the environment to receive grant funds. Examples would include the purchase of the Pacheco Marsh property,developing classroom curriculum for teachers on water quality,creek restoration components of the Grayson Creek/Murderers Creek or Lower Walnut Creek Channel project, any program currently conducted by the County or cities through our NPDES program, restoration of the Marsh Creek Reservoir expansion, purchase of property for the Knightsen Wetlands Biofilter, Creek bank restoration at the Appian Way Library, restoration of wetlands near McAvoy harbor, etc. SUBJECT: SUPPORT, WITH AMENDMENT, SB 658 (KUEHL) THE BAY AND COASTAL MOTOR VEHICLE MITIGATION PROGRAM,AND AUTHORIZE THE BOARD CHAIR TO EXECUTE A LETTER OF SUPPORT DATE: APRIL 19,2005 PAGE 3 Some of the key elements in Senate Bill 658 include the following: ■ A new sub-account would be set up in the Coastal Conservancy program called the Coastal Environment Motor Vehicle Mitigation Account specifically to receive and disburse the fees collected in the County. ■ The Board of Supervisors approves participation in the program to establish the $6 registration fee in Contra Costa County. ■ At least five counties of the 20 counties must elect to participate in the program for the program to be established. ■ Funds can be used for NPDES projects and programs. ■ The expenditure of fees in each county must be proportional to the fees collected (over a two-year period). ■ An audit must be conducted every two years to evaluate the effectiveness of the money spent, level of matching funds obtained, and the distribution of funds by county. Potential Issues with SB 658 Senate Bill 658 is the third generation of a bill originally introduced by Assemblymember Nation in 2001. The last version of Assemblymember Nation's bill, AB 204, proposed essentially the same program as SB 658 but only pertained to counties within the San Francisco Bay Area. There are some differences between AB 204 and SB 658, which could present the following potential issues: • Cities Excluded:AB 204 required resolutions by the County Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population to determine where the local funds would be deposited. SB 658 directs the local funds(30%of the revenue collected)directly to the County. There is no provision for input or cost sharing with the cities, even though the vehicle registration fees collected will include residents living in the cities. The expectation with AB 204 was that the revenue directed to the County would go to the Contra Costa Clean Water Program to mitigate the impacts of motor vehicles on stormwater quality. • State Budget Negotiations: The Board supported AB 204 and its predecessor for several years,but did not send a letter of support last year. The Transportation, Water&Infrastructure Committee, last year, felt it premature to support a bill dealing with the vehicle license fee when negotiations were being conducted with the State on the budget crisis. The Committee felt the County may be in a weaker negotiating position if we had committed to support an increase in vehicle license registration. • Proposed Traffic Safety Program: The Public Works Department has been working to develop a funding measure for its Traffic Safety Program. Attached is an outline of the proposed program. The contemplated source of revenue would be a $2 addition to the vehicle license registration fee and a surcharge on vehicle fines and forfeitures. The Traffic Safety Program is not ready for this legislative session but could be ready for the 2006 legislative session if the County,the cities and other interested parties support the program. Supporting SB 658 may make it more difficult to propose a somewhat similar legislation next year for a vehicle license fee increase. The local funding that would be generated by SB 658 could be included in a Traffic Safety Program Vehicle License Fee. This approach is similar to what was passed last year in San Mateo County and is being proposed this year in Alameda County. These County sponsored legislative bills provide a $4.addition to vehicle license fees, $2 towards transportation, and $2 towards stormwater quality. SUBJECT: SUPPORT, WITH AMENDMENT, SB 658 (KUEHL) THE BAY AND COASTAL MOTOR VEHICLE MITIGATION PROGRAM,AND AUTHORIZE THE BOARD CHAIR TO EXECUTE A LETTER OF SUPPORT DATE: APRIL 19,, 2005 PAGE 4 Proposed Amendment With AB 204, the Bay Area counties had negotiated 40% of the revenue collected would be returned to the counties. SB 65 8,as drafted,directs only 30%of the funds collected to the counties. As noted above,the bulk of the revenue will come from registration fees in cities,yet the cities have no say in how the local funding share is spent. This creates a divisive issue. Staff recommends that any letter of support to Senator Kuehl for AB 658 include the following amendments: • Increase the County share from 30%to 40%. • Include city participation in deciding where the local funding will be spent or direct it to the Contra Costa Clean Water Program. Summar Senate Bill 658 provides a new and much needed source of funding for improving water quality in Contra Costa County. Senate Bill 658 also links the cost of pollution clean up with the leading source of pollution,the motor vehicle, and directs a portion of fees collected directly to our Clean Water Program where work to reduce pollution is most effectively being carried out. While this will be a much needed funding boost for our Clean Water Program, it will not solve the funding needs anticipated to comply with the new regulations. Additional funding will ultimately be needed through mechanisms such as a ballot vote for an assessment increase or that proposed by ACA 13. Staff is recommending two amendments if the Board chooses to support this bill., V. Consequences of Neizative Action: Board support of Senate Bill 658 would not be sent to the legislature. 4 The Board of Supervisors Contra John Sweeten Clerk of the Board Costaand County Administration Building County Administrator 651 Pine Street,Room 106County (925)335-1900 . . Martinez,California 94553-4068 John Gioia,District I Gayle B.Uilkema,District I1 Millie Greenberg,District III Mark DeSaulnier,District IV Federal D.Glover, District V �osrA`co-tirt'�`L. April 19,2005 Senator Kuehl State Capitol, Room 5108 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Senator Kuehl: The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors supports Senate Bill 658 (SB 658), providing the bill is amended as follows: • Increase the portion of funding to the County from 30%to 40%. • Include city participation in deciding where the local funding would be spent, or alternatively indicate for Contra Costa County the local funding would be directed to the County to be transferred to the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (an entity representing the County and the cities). These two changes would be consistent with AB 204, a similar bill the Bay Area counties worked together on for the past several years. When the Clean Water Act was adopted in 1972, agencies focused on point-source pollution. Much of the pollution at that time came from wastewater treatment plants. Many of these plants were upgraded with federal funding through grant programs. Today, the remaining pollution comes primarily from non- point sources. Non-point source pollution is more complex, more difficult to recognize and more expensive to clean up than point-source pollution. Clean up of non-point source pollution has fallen on the,cities and counties, and unfortunately there is no corresponding federal grant program as there was for point-source pollution. Cities and counties in the Bay Area have established clean water programs to address the water quality issues and permit requirements from the Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Many cities and counties view their clean water program as yet another unfunded mandate by the State and Federal government. Contra Costa County is a"self help" county in that we have added a tax for transportation improvements and each parcel pays an annual clean water assessment. Our clean water assessment is at its.maximum rate and cannot be raised without a Proposition 218 vote. New permit requirements imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board two years ago will increase our clean water program costs significantly. SB 65 8, if amended, will provide an important source of funding directly to Senator Kuehl April 4, 2005 Page 2 our Contra Costa Clean Water Program, in addition to providing funding on a countywide basis that the County, cities, and other entities can apply for through the Coastal Conservancy. Passage of this legislation will authorize a program in the Bay Area and coastal counties to fund projects that mitigate the adverse impacts of motor vehicles and related infrastructure on our natural environment, especially water quality, wetlands, riparian areas, watersheds and associated habitats. The most pervasive water quality problems today come from non-point source pollution, and runoff from streets and roads is the largest source of the trouble. We support SB 658, with amendment,-and appreciate your interest and efforts in helping to mitigate the pollution caused by motor vehicles. If you have any questions, please contact Mitch Avalon at (925) 313-2203. Sincerely, Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema Chair, Board of Supervisors MMS:RMA:lz G:1GrpData\Admin\Mitch120051Senator Kuehl ltr.doc c: J.Sweeten,County Administrator S.Hoffman,County Administrator's Office M.Shiu,Chief Engineer,Flood Control District M.Avalon,Deputy Chief Engineer,Flood Control District G.Connaughton,Assistant Chief Engineer,Flood Control District D.Freitas,Clean Water Program J.Kopchik,Community Development John Woodbury,Bay Area Open Space Council 246 John Street,Oakland,CA 94611 Contra Costa Clean Water Program Management Committee Bay Area and Coastal County Engineers City/County Engineers SB 658 (Kuehl) Bay and Coastal Motor Vehicle Mitigation Program The Problem The increase in motor vehicles and their related infrastructure in California's coastal and San Francisco Bay Area counties is outstripping the ability of state and local governments to address the effects on the environment. Counties on the coast of California and the SF Bay Area contain 77%of the state's population. In the US, the number of miles driven annually over the past 20 years has increased at four times the rate of population growth,with a corresponding increase in infrastructure—roads, parking lots, and other impervious surfaces; culverts, bridges, and other structures at stream crossings, abutments, rip rap, and other means of bank stabilization. These all result in a variety of effects on environmental values: habitat fragmentation; pollution of streams and water courses; loss of coastal beaches due to changes in sediment flow patterns; interference with public access to and along the coast, coastal rivers, and upland areas; health impacts to people, fish and wildlife; and increased potential for conversion of lands from valuable agriculture, floodplain, habitat, and watersheds to other uses. The Bill SB 658 makes available a coordinated local funding option for addressing a range of environmental problems resulting from motor vehicles and their associated infrastructure in coastal and bay counties. SB 658 authorizes the Coastal Environment Motor Vehicle Mitigation Program, administered by both the state and participating counties,which would enable counties to opt into a dedicated funding source,to support appropriate projects. • Coastal and SF Bay Area counties. The 20 counties adjacent to the coast and San Francisco Bay would be eligible to participate in county-wide projects. • Opt in. The fee would be collected only in counties where the Board of Supervisors votes to participate in the program.. • Fee. The fund would derive revenues from a motor vehicle registration fee of up to$6 per year. • Proportionate benefit and audit. The benefits of.projects funded by the program for each county would be required to be in proportion to the funds derived from each county, and a biannual audit is required. • State-Local Partnership. 30% of the funds would be administered by participating counties; 70% of the funds would be administered by the State Coastal Conservancy, which has existing authority for these purposes. • Mitilzate Transportation Impacts Only. Funds could only be used for projects that reduce,prevent and remediate the adverse environmental impacts of motor vehicles and their associated infrastructure. • Proiects and Priorities. Projects could include those that protect or restore habitat, protect water quality, address sediment management and beaches,public access, or preventing pollution,with priority given to those projects that provide long-term protection and restoration of,or long term reduction in the level of effects on natural resources impacted by motor vehicles and related infrastructure. • Funding. If all 20 counties opt in at$6 per registration, approximately$112 million would be raised. • Sunset. The program would be established in 2006,but it would take approximately two years for project funding to be available.The program sunsets in 2020,making the funding source available for 12 years. AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 29,2005 SENATE BILL No. 658 Introduced by Senator Kuehl February 22,2005 to eoutts-tal . An act to amend Section 31012 of, and to add and repeal Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 31500) of Division 21 of, the Public Resources Code, and to add and repeal Section 9250.20 of the Vehicle Code, relating to coastal resources, and making an appropriation therefor. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 658, as amended, Kuehl. Coastal guts Environment Motor Vehicle Mitigation Program. Existing law establishes the State Coastal Conservancy with prescribed powers and responsibilities for implementing a program of agricultural land protection, area restoration, and resource enhancement within the coastal zone, as defined. Under existing law, the conservancy is authorized to provide grants to local public agencies and nonprofit organizations. Existing law authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles, if requested by a county air pollution control district, air quality management district, or unified regional air pollution control district to collect specified fees upon the registration or renewal of registration of any motor vehicle registered in the district, except as provided, to be used for the reduction of air pollution from motor vehicles, as specified. This bill would establish the Coastal Environment Motor Vehicle 98 SB 658 2 Mitigation Program, which, until January 1, 2020, would authorize the conservancy to request that the Department of Motor Vehicles collect a fee of up to $6, upon the registration or renewal of registration of every motor vehicle registered in an eligible county that elects to participate in the program, as provided. The bill would create the Coastal Environment Motor Vehicle Mitigation Account in the Coastal Trust Fund,for the purpose of receiving and disbursing funds derived from those fees collected by the Department of Motor Vehicles. The bill would provide that funds in the account shall be continuously appropriated, without regard to fiscal year, to the conservancy for the purposes of the program. The bill would authorize the conservancy, and the counties to which a specified percentage of the fee revenues would be transferred, to expend the moneys in the account for specified purposes related to the implementation and funding of projects and grants intended to prevent, reduce, remediate, or mitigate the adverse environmental effects of motor vehicles and their associated facilities and infrastructure, as provided. The bill would prohibit the expenditure of money in the account in any county that does not elect to participate in the program. The bill would also require the conservancy and each county that participates in the program, as applicable, to, at least once every 2 years, jointly undertake an audit of projects and grants expended in that county or for which that county is responsible, and that are funded, in whole, or in part, by moneys from the account. Vote: majority. Appropriation: ryes. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 Q9rT1l1 1 0 1 :R aad pa *A -&'LP rli.L1iP n P—aaarX. "thoo.Lott .,.. . 3 4 5 ' 6 . . 7 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the S following: 9 (a) The California coast and the San Francisco Bay comprise 10 an extraordinary and environmentally precious area that faces 11 unique environmental challenges as a direct result of population 98 —3— SB 658 1 growth and the attendant rise in the number of motor vehicles 2 and their related facilities and infrastructure. 3 (b) Nearly 20 million motor vehicles are currently registered 4 in the counties adjacent to the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco 5 Bay, and an extensive network of streets, highways, bridges, and 6 associated infrastructure has been constructed to accommodate 7 these vehicles. 8 (c) Motor vehicles and their associated facilities and 9 infrastructure, including, but not limited to, highways, streets, 10 roads, and parking lots, contribute to a variety of adverse 11 consequences to the coastal, bay, and ocean environment of 12 California, which affects significant state resources, including, 13 but not limited to, river, bay, and ocean water quality, wetlands, 14 fish and wildlife habitat, coastal beaches, and the health of 15 humans,fish, and wildlife. 16 (d) A fee not exceeding six dollars ($6) should be imposed 17 upon the registration or registration renewal of every motor 18 vehicle registered in a county that elects to participate in the 19 program established pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with 20 Section 31 S00) of Division 21 of the Public Resources Code. The 21 imposition of this fee is fair and reasonable in relation to the 22 adverse environmental impacts imposed by motor vehicles and 23 their associated facilities and infrastructure, given that the cost 24 of remedying these environmental impacts is significantly greater 25 than the amount of revenues that would be raised by that fee, and 26 substantial revenues from nonmotor vehicle fees and taxes, the 27 sale and issuance of state bonds, the imposition of civil penalties 28 for violations of specified statutes, and private donations are also 29 being expended pursuant to other provisions for these purposes. 30 (e) A fee imposed upon the registration or registration 31 renewal of every motor vehicle registered in an eligible county 32 participating in the program established pursuant to Chapter 10 33 (commencing with Section 31 S00) of Division 21 of the Public 34 Resources Code would be used to remedy the environmental 35 impacts caused by motor vehicles and their associated facilities 36 and infrastructure, and would not result in the imposition of a tax 37 within the meaning of Article XIII A of the California 38 Constitution because the amount and nature of the fee would 39 have a fair and reasonable relationship to those environmental 40 impacts, and there is a sufficient nexus between the imposition of 98 SB 658 —4— 1 the fee and the use of revenues from the fee to support the 2 prevention, reduction, remediation, and mitigation of the adverse 3 water quality and other environmental impacts caused by motor 4 vehicles. 5 SEC. 2. Section 31012 of the Public Resources Code is 6 amended to read: 7 31012. (a) The Coastal Trust Fund is hereby established in 8 the State Treasury, to receive and disburse funds paid to the 9 conservancy in trust, subject to the right of recovery to fulfill the 10 purposes of the trust, as provided in this section. 11 (b) (1) There is in the Coastal Trust Fund the San Francisco 12 Bay Area Conservancy Program Account, which shall be 13 expended solely for the purposes of Chapter 4.5 (commencing 14 with Section 31160). 15 (2) The conservancy shall deposit in the San Francisco Bay 16 Area Conservancy Program Account all funds received by the 17 conservancy for the purposes of the San Francisco Bay Area 18 Conservancy Program established under Chapter 4.5 19 (commencing with Section 31160), from sources other than the 20 state or federal government and not provided for in subdivision 21 (a) of Section 31164. These funds include,but are not limited to, 22 private donations, fees, penalties, and local government 23 contributions. 24 (c) (1) There is in the Coastal Trust Fund the Coastal Program 25 Account. Funds in the Coastal Program Account shall be 26 expended solely for their specified trust purposes. 27 (2) Upon approval of the Department of Finance, the 28 conservancy shall deposit in the Coastal Program Account all 29 funds paid to the conservancy in trust for purposes of this 30 division, except those funds identified in paragraph (2) of 31 subdivision (b)., and those funds deposited in the Coastal 32 Environment Motor Vehicle Mitigation Account pursuant to 33 Section 31500. The funds that shall be deposited in the Coastal 34 Program Account, upon that approval, include, but are not 35 limited to, funds that are paid to the conservancy in trust for 36 purposes of mitigation, for settlement of litigation, instead of 37 other conditions of coastal development permits or other 38 regulatory entitlements, or for other trust purposes consistent 39 with this division and specified by the terms of a gift or contract. 40 Funds in the Coastal Program Account shall be separately 98 —5— SB 658 1 accounted for according to their source and trust purpose. Funds 2 may not be deposited in the Coastal Program Account without 3 the Department of Finance's approval. 4 (d) Interest that accrues on funds in the Coastal Trust Fund 5 shall be retained in the Coastal Trust Fund and available for 6 expenditure by the conservancy for the trust purposes. 7 (e) The conservancy shall maintain separate accountings of 8 funds within the Coastal Trust Fund, pursuant to its fiduciary 9 duties, for the purpose of separating deposits and interest on 10 those deposits,according to their trust purposes. 11 (f) Notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government Code, 12 all funds in the Coastal Trust Fund are continuously 13 appropriated, without regard to fiscal year,to the conservancy to 14 fulfill the trust purposes for which the payments of funds were 15 made. 16 (g) The conservancy shall provide an annual accounting to the 17 Department of Finance of the conservancy's expenditures from, 18 and other activities related to,the Coastal Trust Fund. 19 SEC. 3. Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 31500) is 20 added to Division 21 of the Public Resources Code, to read: 21 22 CHAPTER IO. COASTAL ENVIRONMENT MOTOR VEHICLE 23 MITIGATION PROGRAM 24 25 31500. (a) (1) The Coastal Environment Motor Vehicle 26 Mitigation Account is hereby created in the Coastal Trust Fund 27 established pursuant to Section 31012, for the purpose of 28 receiving and disbursing funds derived from fees collected by the 29 Department ofMotor Vehicles pursuant to Section 9250.20 of the 30 Vehicle Code. Notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government 31 Code, funds in this account are continuously appropriated, 32 without regard to fiscal year, to the conservancy,for expenditure 33 for the purposes specified in Section 31510. Funds shall not be 34 expended from this account for an activity that would require a 35 legal commitment of state funds on or after January 1, 2020. All 36 reimbursements,proceeds of sale, or other money received by the 37 conservancy as a result of expenditures from this account shall 38 be redeposited in this account. 39 (2) The conservancy shall annually transfer, to each county 40 that has elected to participate in the program pursuant to 98 SB 658 —6— 1 subdivision (c), 30 percent of the balance of the funds collected 2 from fees imposed pursuant to Section 9250.20 of the Vehicle 3 Code that are deposited into that account that are generated by 4 that participating county. These counties may use these revenues 5 for the purposes, and subject to the conditions, described in 6 Section 31510. 7 (b) The conservancy is not required to undertake any activities 8 pursuant to this chapter until the time that funds generated 9 through this program are deposited in the account. 10 (c) The conservancy may request that the Department of 11 Motor Vehicles collect a fee of up to six dollars ($6) upon the 12 registration or renewal of registration of every motor vehicle 13 registered in each eligible county that elects to participate in the 14 program established by this chapter. Pursuant to the procedures 15 set forth in Section 9250.20 of the Vehicle Code, the Department 16 of Motor Vehicles may begin collection only after five or more 17 eligible counties elect to participate. Eligible counties include 18 those counties that are, in whole or in part, within the 19 jurisdiction of the conservancy, including the Counties of 20 Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Humboldt, Los Angeles, 21 Marin, Mendocino, Monterey, Napa, Orange, San Diego, San 22 Francisco, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa 23 Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, and Ventura. A county may 24 elect to participate in the program upon the adoption of a 25 resolution by a majority vote of the membership of its board of 26 supervisors. If the amount of fees collected by the Department of 27 Motor Vehicles exceeds the reasonable cost of fulling the 28 purposes of this section as determined by the conservancy or any 29 participating county pursuant to an audit conducted in 30 accordance with Section 31530, the conservancy shall request a 31 reduced fee level to be collected by the Department of Motor 32 Vehicles in the subsequent fiscal year. 33 31510. (a) The funds deposited in the Coastal Environment 34 Motor Vehicle Mitigation Account may only be used only for the 35 purpose of administering and funding projects and grants that 36 prevent, reduce, remediate, or mitigate the adverse 37 environmental effects of motor vehicles and their associated 38 facilities and infrastructure, consistent with Section 2 of Article 39 XIX of the California Constitution. The requirements of Section 40 31520 shall apply to all funds expended pursuant to this chapter. 98 —7— SB 658 1 (b) Up to 5 percent of the funds deposited into the Coastal 2 Environment Motor Vehicle Mitigation Account may be used to 3 reimburse the conservancy for administrative costs incurred by 4 the conservancy in implementing and administering this chapter. 5 (c) Funds from the Coastal Environment Motor Vehicle 6 Mitigation Account may not be used to fund anypart of a project 7 or activity required to satisfy a condition imposed by a permit, 8 license, certificate, or other entitlement that is not issued 9 primarily for the purposes described in this chapter. A permit, 10 license, certificate, or entitlement required for a project funded, 11 in whole or in part,from funds in the account, shall be issued by 12 one or more public agencies, and may include, but is not limited 13 to, the mitigation of significant effects on the environment of a 14 project pursuant to an approved environmental impact report or 15 mitigated negative declaration required pursuant to the 16 California Environmental Quality Act(Division 13 (commencing 17 with Section 21000)). Funds from the account may also be used 18 to support public projects or activities that are included in the 19 implementation measures of a county's Municipal Storm Water 20 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit issued 21 by a regional water quality control board. 22 (d) Priority shall be given to those projects and grants that 23 accomplish the purposes of this chapter through the long-term 24 protection and restoration of natural resources and natural 25 systems affected by motor vehicles and their associated facilities 26 and infrastructure, or the long-term reduction in the level of 27 environmental effects generated by motor vehicles and their 28 associated facilities and infrastructure. 29 (e) To the extent feasible, the services of the California 30 Conservation Corps, and the Community Conservation Corps, as 31 defined in Section 14507.5, and of any nonprofit organization 32 that the administering entity of one of the corps determines has 33 the relevant and demonstrated.capacity and expertise, shall be 34 utilized to carry out the purposes of this section. 35 (1) Before making funds available for a grant or project 36 pursuant to this section, the conservancy or a participating 37 county, as appropriate, shall make findings that the expenditure 38 of funds is consistent with the requirements of this chapter. 39 31520. (a) Notwithstanding Section 31006, funds in the 40 Coastal Environment Motor Vehicle Mitigation Account shall be 98 SB 658 —8— 1 expended for countywide projects within those counties that elect 2 to participate in the program pursuant to subdivision (c) of 3 Section 31500. Funds in the Coastal Environment Motor Vehicle 4 Mitigation Account may not be expended in a county that does 5 not elect to participate in the program pursuant to Section 6 31500. No funds in the Coastal Environment Motor Vehicle 7 Mitigation Account may be transferred pursuant to Section 2796 8 of the Fish and Game Code, or used to offset a reduction in any 9 other source of funds for the purposes authorized under this 10 chapter. 11 (b) Funds shall be expended by the conservancy for projects 12 and grants in a manner that, over any two consecutive two-year 13 periods, as determined in accordance with the audit required by 14 Section 31530, is proportional to the revenues collected in each 15 participating county pursuant to Section 9250.20 of the Vehicle 16 Code for vehicles registered in that county. 17 31530. The conservancy and each county that participates in 18 the program shall, at least once every two years, jointly 19 undertake an audit of the program of projects and grants 20 expended in that county or for which that county is responsible 21 that are funded, in whole or in part, by moneys from the Coastal 22 Environment Motor Vehicle Mitigation Account. The audit shall, 23 at a minimum, evaluate the degree to which resources adversely 24 impacted by motor vehicles and motor vehicle-related facilities 25 and infrastructure have been protected, restored, remediated, 26 reduced or rehabilitated, the level of matching funds obtained, 27 and the distribution of funds and projected benefits, by county. 28 The findings of the audit shall be made available to the 29 Legislature, participating counties, other interested agencies, 30 and the public. 31 31531. This chapter shall remain in effect only until January 32 1, 2020, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted 33 statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2020, deletes or extends 34 that date. 35 SEC. 4. Section 9250.20 is added to the Vehicle Code, to 36 read: 37 9250.20. (a) In addition to any fees specified in this code and 38 the Revenue and Taxation Code, upon the adoption of a 39 resolution by any county board of supervisors, and if requested 40 by the State Coastal Conservancy pursuant to Section 31500 of 98 —9— SB 658 1 the Public Resources Code, the department shall collect a fee of 2 up to six dollars ($6), to be paid upon the registration or renewal 3 of registration of every motor vehicle registered to an address 4 within that county, except those expressly exempted from 5 payment of registration fees. The fees, after deduction of the 6 administrative costs incurred by the department in carrying out 7 this section, shall be paid quarterly to the Controller. The 8 department shall begin collecting the fee in each county on the 9 January 1 immediately following the date the department 10 receives the request to do so from the State Coastal Conservancy. 11 The fee shall be included by the department in any fee statement 12 or notice as part of its designation of county or district fees. 13 (b) After deducting for the necessary and reasonable costs 14 incurred by the department pursuant to this section up to 15 one-half cent ($0.005) for every registration transaction, 16 including the department's initial costs incurred to impose and 17 collect the fee in each county, the department shall remit the 18 balance of the revenues received pursuant to this section to the 19 Controller. Except as provided in subdivision (c), the Controller 20 shall deposit those revenues in the Coastal Environment Motor 21 Vehicle Mitigation Account, established pursuant to paragraph 22 (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 31500 of the Public Resources 23 Code. The department shall, upon remittance, Inotify the 24 Controller, the State Coastal Conservancy, and any participating 25 county of the total amount remitted from each participating 26 county. 27 (c) Notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government Code, 28 of the money paid to the Controller there is continuously 29 appropriated to the Controller pursuant to subdivision (b), 30 without regard to fiscal years, the amount necessary to pay for 31 the administrative costs of the Controller in administering this 32 section. 33 (d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 34 2020, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted 35 statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2020, deletes or extends 36 that date. O 98 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TRAFFIC SAFETY AND TRAFFIC INJURY PREVENTION PROGRAM Imagine that some day, every child in Contra Costa County will have.a safe place to walk and bike to school and to other activities. Emergency room visits from bike and walking related injuries will be far and few between. Senior citizens can take their leisurely stroll on our streets and disabled members of our society will be able to enjoy the street scenes without difficulties. Law enforcement officers, educators and engineers are working side by side with the community to solve their traffic safety problems. In Contra Costa County, during the past few years, while the number of traffic accidents has been declining,the severity of traffic accidents has been on the rise. While studies have shown that the best way to deal with traffic issues is through education and enforcement, funding for comprehensive coordinated traffic safety programs comes primarily from the State Office of Traffic Safety(OTS). The resources provided by the OTS cannot meet the growing demand for traffic safety programs throughout the State. The Highway 4 Safety Program in East Contra Costa County has produced impressive results in reducing the frequency and severity of traffic accidents on the Highway 4 corridor. The West County Traffic Safety Program (Street Smart) is a model for the Three Es (Education, Enforcement, Engineering) to work collaboratively with the community to improve the safety of our streets. The success of this program requires a sustainable source of funding. The enactment of the Safer Route to School program spurred unprecedented interest in providing safe facilities for our children to go to school. While the funding is very limited, the program increases awareness and helps to identify the needs. Unfortunately, in the last three years,only two projects in Contra Costa County have received funding. To achieve our vision of a safe Contra Costa County, we propose to create a Contra Costa County Traffic Safety and Traffic Injury Prevention Program (CCTSP). The program will be funded by a surcharge of traffic fines and forfeitures and a surcharge on the vehicle registration fee. For every dollar surcharge on a moving vehicle violation in Contra Costa County, it will generate approximately $70,000 annually. For every dollar surcharge on vehicle registration fee, it will generate $850,000 annually. We believe the CCTSP is a good investment of Government resources and will in the long term provide saving in many other Government services. For example, by removing barriers for bicycles and pedestrians use, we will encourage these modes of transportation whether they are for commuting or for physical wellness. The program will help improve the air quality of the County and encourage physical wellness. Respiratory illness and obesity are two of the major health concerns in our communities. CCTSP will encourage a coordinated approach to our traffic safety challenges.A team of public health, law enforcement and engineering professionals would be able to use their expertise to complement each other. We believe this holistic approach will be much more effective in implementing a safety program. Contra Costa County is not unlike many regions in the State where many local governments just cannot implement programs beyond the basic mandates. Pooling resources together Countywide will allow the Health Director, in consultation with other interested parties to target specific areas of concern and reach out to traditionally underserved communities. 1 of 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TRAFFIC SAFETY AND TRAFFIC INJURY PREVENTION PROGRAM How much would an effective Traffic Safety Program cost? An effective Traffic Safety Program should include funds for public awareness and injuries prevention program, special enforcement, driver training and safety improvements such as the safer route to school program. We estimate the program will cost about $3 to $4 million per year and will require State legislation to implement. We suggest that the Legislature should consider a $2 surcharge on vehicle registration fee for vehicles registered in Contra Costa County and a $20 surcharge to the administration fee for traffic fines and forfeitures for five years. The Health Director should provide a report to the Legislature at the end of the fourth year of the program on the effectiveness of the program and an assessment of the appropriate program funding. The Legislature shall then decided whether to continue the program at its current funding level,or to increase the funding or to eliminate the program all together if the program is found to be ineffective. To the average family that owns 1.5 cars,this program will cost$3 per year. This is a small price to pay for the health and safety benefits to the residents in the County. The Legislature could also require the Insurance Commissioner to study whether there is any correlation between the Traffic Safety Program and the automobile accident loss history for residents in the County with the purpose of providing a discount on auto insurance rates. The Proposal for talking purposes: • Enacts the Contra Costa.County Traffic Safety and Traffic Injury Prevention Program. • Creates the Contra Costa Traffic Safety Fund in Contra Costa County Auditor-Controller's Office. • Authorize the Board of Supervisors to impose the fee and surcharges specified in the following paragraph, upon request from the majority of the cities representing the majority of the population. Such fee and surcharge will be for a period of five years unless extended by the legislature. a. A $20 surcharge for five years on all moving violations in Contra Costa County. The Court of Contra Costa County shall deposit the surcharge in the Contra Costa Traffic Safety Fund after deducting no more than 1 percent of the receipt for its administration. b. An additional $2 annual the vehicle registration fee in Contra Costa County. The State Controller shall deposit the increased fee in the Contra Costa Traffic Safety Fund after deducting no more than one half of a percent of the receipt for its administration. • Creates a Contra Costa. County Traffic Safety and Traffic Injury Prevention Program (CCTSP) to be funded by the Contra Costa Traffic Safety Fund. • The CCTSP shall be adopted annually by the Board of Supervisors upon concurrence from the Conference of Mayors.. • The Contra Costa County Health Director shall be the administrator of the program. • A committee of eleven shall assist the Health Director to recommend goals for the program and to review and recommend grant funding from applications submitted by Caltrans, CHP, the County and the cities. 2 of 2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TRAFFIC SAFETY AND TRAFFIC INJURY PREVENTION PROGRAM Committee member may include the following: ✓ The Contra Costa Highway Patrol Commander ✓ City police chiefs ✓ The Public Works Director of the County ✓ City Engineers ✓ Superintendent of schools ✓ California State Automobile Association ✓ County Bicycle Advisory Committee ✓ Parent Teacher Associations ✓ Public Managers Association ✓ Senior Citizens ✓ Disabled community Projects and Programs eligible for funding by the CCTSP: • No more than %for administration. • No more than % for traffic safety awareness or injury prevention programs including neighborhood traffic management programs. • No more than % for additional traffic law enforcement over and beyond what is available currently. • No more than %for driver training program. • No more than for traffic safety improvements: such as safer route to schools, pedestrian and bicycle crossings, dividers,minor road widening and road realignments. • At least % of the funds shall be set aside to be used on high priority projects and programs that surface during the year. The Health Director and the Committee shall determine the use of this fund. The committee shall establish criteria to evaluate grant applications and shall take into consideration the evaluation criteria established for the safer route to school and hazard elimination programs and modify these to fit the unique situation in Contra Costa County. It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage a multi disciplinary approach in solving the traffic safety problem. The committee shall identify performance measures to determine the effectiveness of the program. The Health Director shall prepare a biannual report card on traffic safety and traffic injury prevention in the County and on the effect of this program on traffic safety and traffic injury prevention and make recommendations on the priorities of the CCTSP. MMS:mw:lz(4/5/05) G:\GrpData\,4dmin\SHIiJ\20051CCCTST Prevention Progam.doc 3 of 3 The Board of Supervisors Contra John Sweeten Clerk of the Board Costa and County Administration Building County Administrator 651 Pine Street,Room 106 County (925)335-1900 Martinez,California 94553-4068 John Gioia,District I =•• "L- Gayle B.Uilkema,District Il *" Millie Greenberg,District III =_ Mark DeSaulnier,District IV Federal D.Glover District V A' •'- so s • April 19, 2005 Senator Kuehl State Capitol, Room 5108 Sacramento, CA 95 814 Dear Senator Kuehl: The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors supports Senate Bill 658 (SB 658), providing the bill is amended as follows: • Increase the portion of funding to the County from 30%to 40%. • Include city participation in deciding where the local funding would be spent, or alternatively indicate for Contra Costa County the local funding would be directed to the County to be transferred to the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (an entity representing the County and the cities). These two changes would be consistent with AB 204, a similar bill the Bay Area counties worked together on for the past several years. When the Clean Water Act was adopted in 1972, agencies focused on point-source pollution. Much of the pollution at that time came from wastewater treatment plants. Many of these plants were upgraded- with pgradedwith federal funding through grant programs. Today, the remaining pollution comes primarily from non- point sources. Non-point source pollution is more complex, more difficult to recognize and more expensive to clean up than point-source pollution. Clean up of non-point source pollution has fallen on the cities and counties, and unfortunately there is no corresponding federal grant program as there was for point-source pollution. Cities and counties in the Bay Area have established clean water programs to address the water quality issues and permit requirements from the Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Many cities and counties view their clean water program as yet another unfunded mandate by the State and Federal government. Contra Costa County is a "self help" county in that we have added a tax for transportation improvements and each parcel pays an annual clean water assessment. Our clean water assessment is at its maximum rate and cannot be raised without a Proposition 218 vote. New permit requirements imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board two years ago will increase our clean water program costs significantly. SB 6589 if amended, will provide an important source of funding directly to Senator Kuehl April 4, 2005 Page 2 our Contra Costa Clean Water Program, in addition to providing funding on a countywide basis that the County, cities, and other entities can apply for through the Coastal Conservancy. Passage of this legislation will authorize a program in the Bay Area and coastal counties to fund projects that mitigate the adverse impacts of motor vehicles and related infrastructure on our natural environment, especially water quality, wetlands, riparian areas, watersheds and associated habitats. The most pervasive water quality problems today come from non-point source pollution, and runoff from streets and roads is the largest source of the trouble. We support SB 658, with amendment, and appreciate your interest and efforts in helping to mitigate the pollution caused by motor vehicles. If you have any questions, please contact Mitch Avalon at (925) 313-2203. Sincerely, Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema Chair, Board of Supervisors MMS:RMA:lz G:\GrpData\Admin\1V4itch\2005\Senator Kuehl ltr.doc c: J.Sweeten,County Administrator S.Hoffinan,County Administrator's Office M.Shiu,Chief Engineer,Flood Control District M.Avalon,Deputy Chief Engineer,Flood Control District G.Connaughton,Assistant Chief Engineer,Flood Control District D.Freitas,Clean Water Program J.Kopchik,Community Development John Woodbury,Bay Area Open Space Council 246 John Street,Oakland,CA 94611 Contra Costa Clean Water Program Management Committee Bay Area and Coastal County Engineers City/County Engineers REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) .._.- Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name. f�z• I ;r - Phone: � Address: City: Please note that if you choose to provide your address and phone number, this information will become a public record of the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting. I am speaking for myself or organization. 6�41Z,4- CH CK ONE: i wish to speak on Agenda Item #-Y Date. I p g . 1 MY comments will be: F-1 General ❑ For Against 1 wish to speak on the subject p "77 _ vs ❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider: Please see reverse for Instructions and important information