Agenda

Return

C.36

To:	Board of Supervisors
From:	Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Comm
Date:	April 21, 2009

Contra

Costa

County

Subject:

Report on Transportation Legislation

APPROVE	OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR	RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE

Action of Board On: 04/21/2009

APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED

OTHER

Clerks Notes:

VOTE OF SUPERVISORS

AYE:

John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Gayle B. Uilkema, District II Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor
Susan A. Bonilla, District IV Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor

Contact:

335-1201

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 on the date shown.
ATTESTED: April 21, 2009
David Twa,

BY:	, Deputy

RECOMMENDATION(S):

ACCEPT report on transportation legislation as recommended by the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee.

FISCAL IMPACT:

NONE. This is a status report on legislation.

BACKGROUND:

This report covers several aspects of transportation-related legislation: 1) the impacts of the recent state budget agreement on the County’s road program; 2) federal economic stimulus funding for County transportation needs; and 3) transportation bills of interest that are pending in the state legislature.

BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)

The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee reviewed this information on March 30 and provides this report to the full Board of Supervisors for information.

Part 1 – State Budget Agreement and its impact on the County’s Road Program

The impact from the State Budget on the County’s Transportation Program was less than anticipated. Early proposals included the State deferring our gas tax revenue as they did last year and also holding back some of the Proposition 42 funds, which are derived from the state sales tax on gasoline. The adopted budget did include gas tax deferrals, but only for three months and it does not touch the Proposition 42 transportation funds. The gas tax deferral creates some cash flow difficulties for us to cover our operations over the next several months. We have also seen a reduction of almost $2 million in funds from gas tax revenue due to people driving less which adds to the revenue problem. This is balanced somewhat by an expected increase in our Proposition 42 funds due to the increase in the sales tax rate. We anticipate $7 million in Proposition 42 funds in FY 09/10.

The Public Works Department also is planning to start construction of the Bethel Island Bridge project this summer. This project is primarily funded with Federal funds but requires a substantial local match which will come from our gas tax revenue. To ensure we can cover our operating costs and provide the needed local match to our federally funded projects, we are considering deferring or reducing our surface treatment program for this year.

Proposition 1B, passed by the voters in November of 2006, provided for the sale of bonds to fund transportation infrastructure projects statewide, with a share of the funds for county and city projects on the local road system. Under the formula, we are allocated a total of $24.5 million. The Board of Supervisors adopted an expenditure plan for these funds to be used on safety projects on several of our County roads.

The Proposition 1B funds are dependent on the sale of bonds by the State and subject to appropriation by the
Legislature. The Public Works Department has received $11.8 million so far and is working on several of the projects on the expenditure list. Recently, the state removed a freeze on these bond revenues which will allow the County to initiate work on suspended projects. The attached memorandum sent to the Board of Supervisors in January discusses the projects affected by the earlier freeze on bond revenue. (see Exhibit A).

Part 2 – Federal Economic Stimulus funds for County Road Projects

The President has signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). This economic recovery legislation includes significant new funding for transportation infrastructure. In anticipation of this legislation, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) have programmed the funds and we are currently working with CCTA, MTC and Caltrans to deliver two proposed projects.

The first is the Vasco Road Overlay project. Vasco Road is in need of a surface treatment, and the cost of such a project is beyond our capability to fund with our road maintenance revenues. CCTA has approved a list of surface treatment projects for ARRA funding that includes $2.15 million for the Vasco Road Overlay.

In addition, the County will receive $10 million of ARRA funds for the Vasco Road Safety Project. CCTA has agreed to front as much as $8 million since the Proposition 1B funds we have allocated are currently frozen by the State. This gives us an $18 million total to construct a project that includes a concrete median barrier on a portion of Vasco Road in the Brushy Creek area. The ARRA funds require a very aggressive schedule for project award and we will be working closely with regulatory agencies and Caltrans to ensure the delivery of the project.

County staff will continue to stay engaged as this develops. Both of our projects have capacity to construct additional phases if additional funding becomes available.

Staff also has been participating in discussions to position the State Route 4 Bypass for funding from the Federal Stimulus under the Secretary of Transportation's $1.5 billion discretionary program as well as considering applying for an additional phase of the Vasco Road Safety Project. These funds are expected to be programmed next year with construction to be complete by 2011. The State Route 4 Bypass has construction packages ready to go, but with the downturn of development in eastern Contra Costa County, developer fee revenues are not coming in. The current $10 million ARRA funding for the Vasco Road Safety Project will fund only a segment of the entire project and more funds are needed to complete the entire project. The additional stimulus funds could be used to get these projects out to construction soon, providing a benefit to East County communities and commuters as well as providing jobs in the area.

Part 3 – Transportation Bills in the State Legislature of interest to Contra Costa County

Due to the unprecedented length of time it took the legislature to agree on a budget, legislators have introduced fewer transportation bills than usual. There are a few bills that may be of interest to the County as shown in the table in Exhibit B. Four particular bills of interest are described below.

AB 166, introduced by Assemblymember Ted Lieu (D-El Segundo), will make it easier for local jurisdictions to remove abandoned boats from waterways, a problem the County is dealing with in the Delta. The bill is co-sponsored by numerous groups including the California State Sheriff’s Association, California Association of Harbor Masters & Port Captains, San Francisco Baykeeper and the Western Boaters Safety Group. The bill will increase the minimum fine from $500 to $1,000 for abandoning a boat in a public waterway, and allocates these funds to the Abandoned Watercraft Abatement Fund to be used for the removal of such boats.

The Committee asked staff to report back in April on at least one other bill dealing with the same subject on the part of the State Lands Commission, so the Committee could consider all pending legislation on this issue. Staff will bring back a report on April with the additional bill, SB 459 (Wolk, D-Davis). Status: The bill passed the Assembly Transportation Committee and is now in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Our legislative advocate in Sacramento believes this bill likely will be successful due to the organizations supporting it and lack of organized opposition.

AB 744, introduced by Assemblymember Alberto Torrico (D-Fremont), is sponsored by Metropolitan Transportation Commission and would give the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) the ability to create high occupancy / toll lanes, known as “HOT” lanes on Bay Area freeways leading to the seven state-owned bridges in the Bay Area (all but the Golden Gate Bridge). HOT lanes can be used for free by buses, carpools and vanpools, and can also be used by solo drivers for a fee. A HOT lane is being established on a 14-mile segment of I-680 in southern Alameda County, and several have been in operation in southern California for as long as a decade. MTC’s long-range regional transportation plan calls for HOT lanes to be established on freeways throughout the Bay Area including I-80, I-680 and State Route 4 in Contra Costa County.

To date, Contra Costa jurisdictions have not expressed interest or support for HOT lanes. The HOT lane concept remains controversial due to objections by some that the HOT lanes are a “premium” service for wealthier commuters who are more able to pay. Little data has yet been developed on this point, since there are few HOT lanes in existence. A couple of surveys done since 2000 seem to indicate that commuters of all income levels use HOT lanes but higher-income commuters use them more often, for a higher percentage of their trips. Another topic of controversy is who will manage the operation of these lanes and determine how revenues (beyond those needed for operating costs) would be spent. The bill has not yet been heard in committee. It is expected to pass the Legislature relatively easily unless strong opposition appears.

ACA 15, introduced by Assemblymember Juan Arambula (D-Fresno) would ask voters to amend the state constitution by allowing local transportation-related special taxes (such as Measure J) to be approved by voters with a 55-percent majority. State law currently requires a two-thirds majority for special taxes except for school-related taxes which can pass with 55 percent. The California State Association of Counties (CSAC) supports the bill. The bill is scheduled to be heard in committee on April 11.

SCA 3, introduced by Senator Mark Wyland (R-Carlsbad) would ask voters to amend the state constitution by providing complete protection for state transportation funds known as “Proposition 42” funds, which are derived from the state sales tax on gasoline. Voters in 2006 passed a ballot measure that limits the degree to which the state can divert or “raid” Prop 42 funds to use them for covering the budget shortfall instead of transportation purposes. The 2006 measure limits the state to two such diversions within a ten-year period, and one diversion must be completed repaid to transportation before the next diversion can occur. Under Senator Wyland’s bill, no diversion of these funds would ever be permitted under any circumstances. The bill is in the Senate Committee on Revenue and Taxation. It is unlikely the bill will pass out of committee, since the majority party leaders believe the diversion issue was settled with the 2006 protection measure, and they will not be inclined to accept any further ballot-measure constraints on their ability to balance the budget.