In developing transportation related legislative issues and proposals to bring forward for consideration by TWIC, staff receives input from the Board of Supervisors (BOS), references the County's adopted Legislative Platforms, coordinates with our legislative advocates, partner agencies and organizations, and consults with the Committee itself.
Recommendations are summarized in the Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s) section at the end of this report. Specific recommendations, if provided, are underlined in the report below. This report includes three sections, 1) LOCAL, 2) STATE, and 3) FEDERAL.
1) LOCAL
Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP)
Background: The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) is in the process of developing a Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) to potentially be put to a vote in November 2016. A TEP is a statutorily required component of a transportation sales tax. This is a standing TWIC item for the foreseeable future.
TEP Update
There is no written report on the TEP this month. Staff has submitted a report May 10th Board of Supervisors (BOS) meeting which can be viewed here:
http://64.166.146.245/docs/2016/BOS/20160510_755/765_05-10-16_1535_AGENDApacket.pdf#page=51
At the time of the May 12 TWIC agenda posting, the Authority had just completed their May 10 Special TEP meeting. The materials distributed at that meeting are included in the May 10th BOS report found at the link above.
Also attached for the Committees information is the following:
- 4-29-16 Letter from the BOS to CCTA regarding the TEP
- 4-12-16 Letter from the BOS to CCTA regarding the rotation of the Chair and Vice Chair.
RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSS any local issues of interest to the County and take ACTION as appropriate.
2) STATE
Legislative Report
The legislative report from the County's legislative advocate, Mark Watts, is attached (May TWIC report).
Mr. Watts will be present at the May meeting to discuss state legislation, the status of state transportation revenues, Iron Horse corridor status and other items of interest to the Committee.
School Facilities
For the Committees consideration, information regarding the 2016 California Public Education Facilities Bond Initiative is below and attached. This information is being provided in that over the past 3-4 years the County has been attempting to engage the State in reforming school siting practices. One primary mechanism by which the County has approached this issue is through the legislature and their (unsuccessful) efforts to renew school facility bond authority.
Absent the legislature's success in moving a bill forward, a voter approved initiative was successful and will be on the November 2016 Ballot. The 2016 bond initiative has no language relative to reform or improvement of school siting practices and will compromise the County's ability to advocate for this type of reform at the state. While the Governor opposes the bill ("I am against the developers' $9 billion bond,...It's a blunderbuss effort that promotes sprawl and squanders money...") the bond does have support as seen in the attached overview (California Public Education Facilities Bond Initiative (2016) - Ballotpedia).
Summary language from the Secretary of State:
School Bonds. Funding for K-12 School and Community College Facilities. Initiative Statutory Amendment. Authorizes $9 billion in general obligation bonds: $3 billion for new construction and $3 billion for modernization of K-12 public school facilities; $1 billion for charter schools and vocational education facilities; and $2 billion for California Community Colleges facilities. Bars amendment to existing authority to levy developer fees to fund school facilities, until new construction bond proceeds are spent or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier. Bars amendment to existing State Allocation Board process for allocating school construction funding, as to these bonds. Appropriates money from the General Fund to pay off bonds. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: State General Fund costs of $17.6 billion to pay off principal ($9 billion) and interest ($8.6 billion) on bonds over a period of 35 years. Annual payments would average $500 million. Annual payments would be relatively low in the initial and final few years and somewhat higher in the intervening years. (15-0005.)
RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSS any state issues of interest to the County and take ACTION as appropriate.
3) FEDERAL
No written report in May.
RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSS any federal issues of interest to the County and take ACTION as appropriate. |