Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 195-05c) Re-issue by the VTA Board of Directors of a revised draft VTA Long-Term Capital Investment Program reflecting the above changes and then consideration of a suitable sales tax measure proposal sufficient to fund its implementation. 3. Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the VTA Board of Directors summarizing the Council's action on the above recommendations. Adopt a resolution of support for SB 680-The Santa Claia County Traffic Relief Bill (Attachment A). 4. Adopt a resolution of support for SB 680 -The Santa Clara County Traffic Relief Bill (Attachment A). BACKGROUND The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board of Directors has requested comment and input on its draft 30-year Long-Term Capital Investment Program (Attachment E) and associated proposed Y2 cent Santa Clara County sales tax increase. The proposed VT A Long-Term Capital Investment Program comprises a comprehensive and countywide public transit improvement plan to the year 2030. All comment and input received will be considered by the Board at its April 22, 2005 workshop. In November 2000, voters in Santa Clara County approved a Y2-cent sales tax to implement a comprehensive program of public transit, highway, and bicycle/pedestrian improvements countywide. The more notable and expensive project in this program was the extension of Bay Area Rapid Transit Authority (BART) service from Fremont to San Jose and Santa Clara. Public transit projects of particular importance to Palo Alto in the 2000 Measure A, Y2-cent transportation sales tax program include the following: 1. Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center 2. Commuter rail service parallel to the Dumbarton Bridge 3. Bus Rapid Transit Corridors (including Line 22 along EI Camino Real) 4. Caltrain service upgrades 5. Caltrain electrification The regional economic downturn and associated fall in sales tax revenues since passage of the Measure A transportation sales tax in November 2000, along with VTA's inability to obtain sufficient additional grant resources for the BART extension project, means that the Measure A transit program is not fully funded. The VTA Long-Term Capital Investment Program contains proposed allocations and a timeline for funding all Measure A transit projects. Implementation of the full-proposed VTA Long~ Term Capital Investment Program as proposed by the VTA Board will require passage of an additional Y2-cent countywide transportation sales tax. As proposed by the VTA Board, this sales tax measure would go before Santa Clara County voters in November 2006. Three-quarters of the proposed sales tax proceeds would be allocated to VTA for implementation of the transit projects listed in the Long-Term Capital Investment Program and one-fourth would be subvented to the municipalities and the County of Santa Clara for pavement management and other transportation-related purposes. CMR: 195:05 Page 2 of6 DISCUSSION VTA Long-Term Capital Investment Program and Proposed Y2-cent Sales Tax Increase Palo Alto has expressed a numbers of concerns about the viability ofVTA's proposed long-term transit capital program. On March 15,2004, the Palo Alto City Council endorsed a letter (Attachment B) to the VTA Board Chairman that called for a re-examination of the entire program in light of the changes in VTA's financial and the region's economic outlook since passage of Measure A in November 2000. The letter called upon the VTA Board to develop cost-eff~ctiveness criteria (e.g. "cost/rider vs. increasing ridership regardless of cost") and to weigh "reasonable assurance of funding" more heavily in prioritizing transit capital projects. In this communication, the Palo Alto Council called for funding of its five priorities: • Bus Rapid Transit (including Line 22 along EICamino Real) • Caltrain Service Upgrades • Dumbarton Rail Service • Cal train Electricification • Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center Council noted in its letter that these projects responded to the Valley Transportation Plan Santa Clara County travel forecasts showing the largest travel growth occurring in the northwest portion of Santa Clara County. On July 26, 2004, MayorBeecham wrote a letter to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors expressing the opposition of the Palo Alto City Council to a proposed 1I4-cent countywide sales tax increase then being considered by the Board of Supervisors. Mayor Beecham noted that the proposal would have no direct benefit to the City, and did not take into account either local needs such as those of the Palo Alto Unified School District or regional transportation needs, such as those of the VT A. In its August 30,2004 response to the report by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury, based on its inquiry into VT A Board Structure and Financial Management, the City of Palo Alto called on the VTA Board to "make no fl,lrther financial commitment to the BART extension to San Jose unless and until there is a more realistic accounting of future capital costs as well as future operating subsidies." In Palo Alto's January 27,2005 response to the Silicon Valley Manufacturer Group's call for replacement of Palo Alto's member ofVTA'sPolicy Advisory Committee (PAC) for joining with several other PAC members in "trying to divert money from the BART extension," Mayor Burch noted that "the ways, means and tiining of the BART extension to San Jose are fair subjects for civic debate in Santa Clara County." The BART extension project represents the largest expenditure line item in the proposed VTA Long-Term Capital Investment Program, consuming 28% of the total anticipated expenditures. Of special significance, however, is that this project is projected to represent approximately 60% of the program funding during the years from 2005 through 2015. This "front-loading" of the BART extension project results in deferral of a number of other important projects. CMR: 195:05 Page 4 of6 Expenditure Framework for SB 680 (Simitian) Attachment B Santa Clara County Traffic Relief Bill This Traffic Relief bill will benefit commuters throughout Santa Clara County by funding a number of important transportation improvements in all 15 cities and towns and the county. The criteria used to select projects will include geographic equity, congestion relief, cost-effectiveness and identified county priority. Revenue generated by a $5 vehicle registration fee would be split in the following manner after DMV's administrative fee (estimated at approximately 1%) is deducted. Assuming the vehicle registration fee runs eight years and generates $56 million, the funds would break down in the following manner: • $560,000 to DMV (approx. 1% oftotal revenues) • $4 million for Caltrain capacity improvements. These funds could be used for Santa Clara County's share of the cost of purchasing additional Baby Bullet train cars, or making station or parking improvements. All improvements must meet the nexus test and serve Santa Clara County. • $4 million for litter removal and landscape restoration ($500,000 per year). This money can be used on highways or county expressways. Any unused funds would revert to the competitive pool (#2) described below. J The remaining $47-4 million would be divided into thirds: 1. $15.8 million for Tier 1A county expressway improvements. 2. $15.8 million for street & road operational and ITS improvements -- competitive pool. These funds would be available to cities/towns and the county for use on priority operational projects including small scale congestion relief projects, matching grants for larger projects, and signal timing/ coordination projects. 3. $15.8 million-Direct subvention. These funds would be distributed to cities/towns/ countY on a pro rata basis based on vehicle registrations and be available for the same uses outlined in the above two categories. -L. 311612005 ~'4SiliCOn \ 'Valley Manufacturing Group~ SB 680 (Simitian) Attachment C Santa Clara County Traffic Relief Legislation State Senator Joe Simitian is carrying a bill, sponsored by SVMG, that would fund a number of modestly- priced, high priority traffic congestion relief proj ects throughout the county. Senators Elaine Alquist and Liz Figueroa have joined Senator Simitian as principal co-authors on the bill and Assemblymembers Ira Ruskin, Joe Coto, Rebecca Cohn, Sally Lieber, John Laird, Alberto Torrico and Simon Salinas are serving as principal co-authors. The bill is modeled on AB 1546, a bill Senator Simitian carried for the City/County Associations of Governments of San Mateo County last session that.was signed by the Governor. AB 1546 authorized C/CAG to impose an annual fee of up to $4 per vehicle registered in San Mateo County to pay for congestion management projects (ramp metering, shuttles, road reconstruction, etc.) as well as storm water pollution prevention activities (street sweeping, storm inlet cleaning, auto repair shop inspections, etc.). The fee will sunset in 2009. SB 680 bill would impose a $5 annual surcharge on vehicles registered in Santa Clara County and would primarily fund congestion management projects. The fee would sunset in 2014. Based on 1.4 million registered cars (the number registered in 2004 in Santa Clara County), a $5 registration surcharge would generate approximately $7 million/year or $56 million over eight years (2006-2014). SB 680 will provide the funds to move a number of top priority traffic relief proj eCts forward in Santa Clara County. But perhaps more importantly, it offers Santa Clara County private and public sector leaders the opportunity to work together, as we have so effectively in the past, to address our common challenges. The funding categories, criteria for selecting projects within those categories, and percentages of funding for each category described below have been developed in consultation with transportation professionals in every jurisdiction of the county. The projects would advance projects county leaders have previously identified as top priorities through VTP 2030 and the Caltrain long range expenditure plan. The selection criteria for projects funded by this bill would include geographic equity, congestion relief, cost-effectiveness and identified county priority. Expenditure Framework • $4 million for Caltrain capacity improvements. These funds could be used for Santa Clara County's share of the cost of purchasing additional Baby Bullet train cars, or making station or parking improvements. All improvements must serve Santa Clara County. • $4 million for litter removal and landscape restoration ($500,000 per year). This money can be used on highways or county expressways. Any unused funds would revert to competitive pool (#2) described below. The remaining (approximately) $47 million would be divided into thirds: 1. $16 million for Tier 1A county expressway improvements in the County Expressway Plan. 2. $16 million for competitive pool for cities/towns and county for road operational and ITS improvements (such as small scale congestion relief projects, signal timing/coordination and ramp metering, and funding matches for larger projects) 3. $16 million distributed to cities/towns/county on a pro rata basis. Jurisdictions may use these funds for the same types of projects outlined in the above two categories. Local public officials who have endorsed this bill concept to date: • Chair and member Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, Liz Kniss • Santa Clara County Supervisor Don Gage • VTA Board Chair and Los Gatos Councilmember Joe Pirzynski • VTA Board Vice Chair and San Jose Vice Mayor Cindy Chavez • San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group 3116/05 SB 680 Frequently Asked Questions Why did you decide to pursue this bill? Attachment D As you well know, Silicon Valley transportation needs far outstrip available funds. The diversion of Proposition 42 dollars to the state's General Fund over the last two years has compounded the problem. We are committed; as are many others, to increasing protections for Proposition 42 funds to ensure that they are spent for transportation purposes as the voters directed. But it will be some time before that improvement will be felt on the ground. In the meanwhile, local jurisdictions must continue to meet the local transportation needs of their citizens. SB 680 is modeled after a bill that the San Mateo County City jCouncil Association of governments together with then-Assemblymember Joe Simitian were able to successful move through the legislature and get signed into law. By working together, San Mateo County's jurisdictions will be able to apply those funds to some projects that are of high priority to the jurisdictions in that county. BY,working collaboratively, Santa Clara County can accomplish the same objective. SB 680 will enable us to secure a modest amount of locally-controlled transportation funds that can help us move some critical congestion relief projects forward. The unanimous support of every jurisdiction in the county will be instrumental in making this bill a reality. Why this revenue source? Is a vehicle registration fee the same as the vehicle license fee the Governor rolled back in 2004? No. A vehicle registration fee is a flat annual fee imposed.on registered motor vehicles. SB 680 proposes $5 per vehicle. The vehicle license fee (VLF) is an annual tax on the ownership of motor vehicles. The fee is based on a percentage of a vehicle's estimated value. According to the LAO, the estimated average VLF Paid on automobiles in 2000-01 was $66, after the fee was reduced from two percent of a vehicle's current estimated value to 0.65 percent. At it's height, the average fee was $204. What was the timelineJoutreach process for this bill? • In November 2004, after San Mateo County succeeded in winning passage of AB 1546, the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group (SVMG) reached out to Senator Joe Simitian to see if he might be willing to carry a similar bill for Santa Clara County. The Senator said he was inclined to do so if all jurisdictions in the county were to support such an endeavor. This was key to the passage of San Mateo County's measure. The Senator asked SVMG to reach out to several county leaders, including the Chair and Vice Chair of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Chair of the County Board of Supervisors, and several state legislators for their initial reaction to such an initiative. Their response was unanimously supportive. • December 2004, Carl Guardino, SVMG's CEO, contacted all 15 incoming Mayors or Vice Mayors to let them know about the bill. Carl reached 13 of the 15 by phone. Each of those Mayors, Supervisors and VTA leaders was also sent a letter describing the bill and inviting them to join SVMG's Board of Directors at its next quarterly meeting on March 24 to discuss the bill and other issues we might collaborate on. The letter included a one-page fact sheet on the proposed bill. After these steps were taken, SVMG convened a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consisting of City and County Public Works and Transportation staff to develop the structure of the measure. Every jurisdiction was represented at the meeting or contacted between meetings for input on the plan. • January-February 2005, SVMG reached out to Silicon Valley's State Assembly and Senate delegation. Nearly all Senators and the entire Assembly delegation agreed to co-author the bill with Senator Simitian. The list of co-authors includes: .Senators Elaine Alquist and Liz Figueroa as principal co-authors and Assemblymembers Ira Ruskin, Joe Coto, Rebecca Cohn, Sally Lieber, John Laird, Alberto Torrico and Simon Salinas as principal co-authors. • February 2005, after several meetings, the TAC reached consensus on an expenditure plan for SB 680 .. Next step: seeking resolutions of support for the bill from all jurisdictions in the county. The goal is to obtain this by mid-April, before the bill begins to be heard by Senate policy committees. • February 22, 2005 Senator Simitian introduced Senate Bill 680. What was the process you went through to develop this expenditure plan? Who was involved? SVMG reached out to every jurisdiction seeking participation on a technical advisory committee. Members of the VTA's Technical Advisory and CIP committees were specifically invited. The group determined what categories of projects could effectively be addressed with the relatively small amount of money to be generated by this fee . (approximately· $7 million/year) that would also have the biggest impact. The expenditure framework requires the funds to be spent on projects identified as a high priority by the county's jurisdictions through their inclusion in VTP 2030 and the Caltrain improvement plan. Other selection criteria include congestion relief, geographic . equity, and cost-effectiveness. . Can such a relatively small amount of money have any real impact on our needs? SB 680 will not solve Santa Clara County's transportation problems. But by working together we can secure funds that would otherwise not be available to us to address some high priority transportation needs. There are a number of modestly-priced but unfunded projects, such as signal coordination and traffic calming projects that could measurably reduce traffic congestion in the county. Jurisdictions also have the opportunity to pool funds or use them to leverage state and federal funds to advance larger projects. The latter would also provide some relief for local General Funds. Under this expenditure framewor~, would local jurisdictions be able to combine projects or funding between categories to fund larger projects? Yes. The primary goal of this measure is to assist local jurisdictions in completing much needed transportation improvements at a time when limited resources are available. The . measure and the established funding categories are aimed at providing maximum flexibility to fund local improvements. How will you ensure that funds will be equitably distributed to projects throughout the county? Who already supports this bill? Local public officials who have endorsed this bill concept to date: • Chair and member Santa Chira County Board of Supervisors, Liz Kniss • Santa Clara County Supervisor Don Gage • VTA Board Chair and Los Gatos Councilmember Joe Pirzynski • VTA Board Vice Chair and San Jose Vice Mayor Cindy Chavez • San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales When do you plan to meet with other organizations on this bill? SVMG will be speaking to the Legislative Committee of the Santa Clara County Cities Association on February 24, its Executive Committee on :March 2 and its full board on March 10. SVMG is also scheduled to speak to the Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce on March 1. What is the schedule, as of now, when other jurisdictions will be considering this bill? Below is the list of hearings scheduled to date. March 1 Gilroy study session , March 7 San Jose City Council Better Transportation Committee March 10 VTA Technical Advisory Committee . March 14 or 21 San Jose City Council March 15 Cupertino City Council March 16 Saratoga City Council March 16 MorganHill City Council March 21 Campbell City Council March 21 Los Gatos Town Council March 22 County Board of Supervisors March 22 or April 12 (?) Mountain View City Council March 22 Santa Clara City Council April 7 Caltrain JPB