HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-05-22; City Council; 10645; State Ballot Propositions 108 111 116 Transportation FundingGIT OF CARLSBAD — AGEND BILL
AR* to &H5
MTG 5/22/90
DPPT RESEARCH
TITLE:STATE BALLOT
riT5/-\n/^CTrPT/^MC 1 AO 111 AKTT^ 1 1 £rRUrUol 1 1UN a lUo, 111 AN1J lib
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PACKAGE
OEPT. HD. Jtf
r.iTY AmV//)
CITY MGR.J^M
Zo
oo
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council adopt Resolution °}0 'iff supporting passage of Propositions 111, 108 and 116.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
In July of 1989 the Governor signed into law five bills which accomplish the most
sweeping transportation planning and financing changes in decades. This package is
designed to alter the way transportation is managed through the state and will generate
an additional $18.5 billion over the next ten years.
The attached SANDAG report reviews the legislation in some detail. Highlights of the
program are as follows:
New Revenues:
A total of $18.5 billion will be
raised over the next 10 years from
the following sources:
• 9 Cent-Per-Gallon Fuel Tax
Increase (5 cents on August
1, 1990; additional 1 cent
January 1, 1991, 1992,
1993 and 1994)
• 55% Truck Weight Fee
Increase
• Rail Transit Bonds ($1
billion bond in 1990
(Proposition 108);
additional $1 billion bond
measures will be placed on
1992 and 1994 ballots)
New Expenditures:
(In billion dollars)
3.5 Complete already-authorized
projects.
3.0 Maintenance and repair of local
streets and roads.
3.0 (Prop. 108 and future bonds) Build
and expand intercity, commuter
and urban rail transit.
3.0 Construct projects specifically
designed to reduce congestion on
existing routes.
2.0 Matching funds for city and county
priority transportation projects.
1.25 Improve interregional roads outside
urban areas.
1.0 Peak-hour reduction projects, such
as vanpools.
1.0 Highway repair, maintenance and
safety.
0.5 Transit expansion, operation and
maintenance.
0.25 Environmental enhancements and
soundwall retrofitting.
$18.5 billion
Specifically, new revenues will be used to:
Earthquake-safe freeways, bridges and streets — Every major earthquake uncovers new
ways of reinforcing our existing transportation system to prevent future tragedies. We
have the know-how and technology, but lack the funds to undertake the seismic
retrofitting necessary to improve the safety of all our bridges and overpasses.
Page Two of AB#
Complete already authorized but unfunded projects — There is currently a $3.5 billion
shortfall in the state transportation improvement program. Hundreds of already-authorized
freeway widening, interchange improvement, general safety reinforcements, transit and
other projects have been halted for lack of funds. Proposition 111 will enable these
projects to proceed.
Fix potholes and increase maintenance of local streets and roads — A full two-thirds of our
main roads are in fair to very poor condition and in need of resurfacing or reconstruction,
according to The Road Information Program (TRIP).
Reduce peak-hour traffic by expanding van, carpool and staggered work hour programs —
The best way to decrease traffic congestion is to reduce the number of vehicles using the
system. More programs and incentives are needed to encourage the private sector to
promote carpool and flextime to get folks off the highways during peak hours.
Build and expand rail transit systems - While $3.5 billion is earmarked exclusively for
transit projects, another $5 billion in congestion relief and matching funds will be available
for local governments to use on rail projects as well. Together, Propositions 111 and 108
will provide the funds needed to expand existing light rail, commuter and intercity lines
and start new services where they are needed.
Improve traffic flow — In some cases, getting cars moving faster is simply a matter of
making relatively small investments to improve the existing system. Wider use of
synchronized signal on major thoroughfares, re-directing traffic with highway alert signs
and ramp meters to control freeway flow are just a few of the ways we can make the most
of what we've akeady got.
Improvements to and maintenance of state highways — Built decades ago, California's
impressive highway system now suffers from overuse, everyday wear and lack of adequate
funding. As a result of inflation, increased fuel efficiency and skyrocketing construction
and material costs, we are actually spending less on our highways today than we were
decades ago. Proposition 111 will provide the funds necessary to ensure the endurance
and safety of our world renowned highways.
Congestion Management Program:
A fundamental objective of the transportation package is to promote a coordinated regional
approach to reduce congestion and to ensure new transportation funds are properly used
on projects that will have the maximum impact on congestion relief.i
To receive the new revenues provided for local congestion relief and other improvements,
a transportation commission (or appropriate regional agency) in every urban county must
work with air quality management and other relevant local government agencies to prepare
a congestion management plan.
The plan must outline a program for reducing traffic and address important land use, air
quality and other issues. The Congestion Management Program will also encourage
coordination with the private sector to promote van pools, staggered work hours and other
peak-hour traffic relief programs.
Page Three of AB#
Legislation mandates that if Proposition 111 passes, each Regional Transportation
Commission (SANDAG) must develop a Congestion Management Program designed to
insure that a level of service standard of "E" is met on all significant regional highways and
arterials. If levels below "E" currently exist, these must not decrease further. This in effect
establishes a statewide growth management standard.
To meet the standards established, the Congestion Management Program will encourage
alternative transportation modes, trip reductions through travel demand programs and
programs to assess local agency land use decisions
Local Impacts
Attached is a list of San Diego County projects which will be facilitated if Propositions 111,
108 and 116 pass. In the City of Carlsbad annual subventions of $371,000 are estimated
to enhance current gas tax revenues. The State and Local Partnership funds could fund
up to one-half the cost of constructing such regionally significant arterials as:
Rancho Santa Fe Road
Palomar Airport Road
Olivenhain Road
The Leucadia/Olivenhain Rd. Connection to 1-5.
Cannon Road
College Boulevard
La Costa Avenue
Conclusion
Proposition 111 will exempt highway tax revenues from the Gann limit, allowing
implementation of the adopted revenue increases.
Proposition 108 allows the sale of $3.0 billion general obligation bonds for passenger rail
funding.
Proposition 116 is a $1.99 bilh'on general obligation rail transportation bond targeted to
support special regional rail projects. Proposition 116 is an initiative measure that will
supplement Proposition 108.
These two propositions will significantly change how transportation and growth are
managed throughout the state and begin to seriously address a growing transportation
crisis.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Proposition 111 will increase gas tax subvention to the City by $371,000 annually and
provide $30 to $40 million to assist in development of regionally significant arterials and
Transportation Management Program costs.
Page Four of AB#
EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution No.^^ll^L supporting Propositions 111, 108 and 116.
2. List of San Diego County Projects.
3. April 29, 1990 SANDAG Staff Report.
4. July 28, 1989 SANDAG Staff Report.
RESOLUTION NO. 90-154
1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
2 SUPPORTING PROPOSITIONS 111, 108 AND 116
JUNE 5. 1990 BALLOT MEASURES
3
4 WHEREAS, Proposition 111: The Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act
5
of 1990, and Proposition 108: The Passenger Rail and Clean Air Bond Act of 1990, were prepared
6
as part of the "1989 State Transportation Funding and Reform Legislation;" and
7
WHEREAS, Proposition 116: The Rail Transportation Bond Act, would provide $1.99
8
billion to improve and expand intercity, commuter, and light rail transit throughout California; and
9
WHEREAS, Proposition 111, 108, and 116 represent a comprehensive transportation
_.. funding package that will provide increased state transportation funding to help meet the existing
•10 an<^ growing transportation needs of the state and the San Diego region; and
WHEREAS, Propositions 111, 108 and 116 also provide for state transportation funding to
14 allow the timely implementation of the TransNet transportation sales tax projects;
15 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Calsbad supports Proposition 111,
108 and 116 that will appear on the June 5, 1990 primary election.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council held
18 on the 2 2nd day of May . 1990 by the following vote, to wit:
19 AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Pettine, Mamaux and Larson
20
NOES: None
21
ABSENT: None
22
CLAUDE A.1EWIS, Mayor
23 ATTEST:
24
25
26 AfcfiTHA L KAUTtfNK£#NZ, City Clerk
(SEAL) KAREN R. KUNDTZ, Assistant City Clerk
27
28
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Project Completion Delayed Indefinitely Unless Prop. 111 Passes (1988 STIP):
Route Description of Project
Various Construct Traffic Operations Center and expand freeway metering program.
1-5,1-8,1-15, SR94&
I-80S Construct eight auxiliary lane and truck lane projects.
I-5/1-605/SR56 Widen I-5 in the Sorrento Valley/North City West area and construct I-5/SR56
Interchange.
15 In Southeast San Diego, upgrade freeway to Interstate standards.
15 40th Street in Mid-City San Diego Area, right-of-way funding and Unit 1
construction for 8 lane freeway.
76 From I-5 to Frontier Drive in Oceanside, construct 4 lane bypass expressway.
73 From 1-5 in Oceanside to 1-15 in Escondido, widen freeway to 6 lanes. Federal
demonstration projects.
Priority Highway Projects Eligible For Prop. 111 Funds:
Route Description of Project
52, 76. 78 &
125 Provide state/federal funding contribution to TransNet local sales tax highway widening
and other projects.
I-5/1-805/SR56 Widen I-5 in Sorrento Valley/North City West area
5 Extend planned bus-and-car-pod lanes from Del Mar Heights Road to Manchester Avenue.
15 40th Street in Mid-City San Diego area. Complete construction of 8 lane freeway.
15 Extend bus-and-car-pod lanes from North City Parkway (Route 56) to Escondido.
56 In North City San Diego area. Construct/upgrade future Route 56 connecting TransNet
funded Route 56 construction projects in the North City West and Penasquitos East areas.
(Includes local funding).
94/125 Widen freeways and upgrade interchange in the La Mesa area.
163 In Kearney Mesa area. Widen freeway to 8 lanes and revise Clairemont Mesa Boulevard
interchange.
905 On Otay Mesa, construct freeway from I-805 to west of Otay Mesa International Border
crossing. (Urban area).
Priority Rail Transit Projects Eligible For Props. 111 & 108 Funds:
Old Town LRT trolley extension. (San Diego Centre City to Old Town area).
Santee LRT trolley extension. (Ei Cajon to Santee).
Downtown San Oiego - Oceanside Commuter Rail.
Mission Valley West LRT trolley extension. (Old Town area to Jack Murphy Stadium area).
Mid Coast LRT trolley extension. (Old Town area to North University City area).
Mission Valley East LRT trolley extension. (Jack Murphy Stadium area to La Mesa area).
North Coast LRT trolley extension. (North University City area to North City West area).
Los Angeles - San Oiego Commuter Rail Corridor
Improvements include: Time reduction improvements between Old Town and San Oiego;
updrading signals, siding and tracks; 9 time savings projects for faster train service; and
additional rolling stock.
Interregional Projects Eligible For Prop. 111 Funds:
Route Description of Project
905
Urban Limit to Mexican Border Construct 4 lane Expressway on new alignment. 3.2 miles
S«n Diego Association of Governmen ATTACHMENT 2
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
April 27, 1990 AGENDA REPORT No.: d ~" 3
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE:
3. JUNE 5, 1990 BALLOT MEASURES;
PROPOSITIONS 111, 108. AND 116
Introduction
There will be three state transportation funding ballot measures on the June 5, 1990 pri-
mary election. Two of the measures, Propositions 111 and 108, were prepared as part of the
"1989 Transportation Funding and Reform Legislation" that was signed by the Governor in
July, 1989. Approval of Propositions 111 and 108 and two subsequent $1 billion rail transit
bond measures in 1992 and 1994 will provide an estimated $18.5 billion of increased state
transportation revenues during the next 10 years. The third ballot measure which was
developed through the initiative process is Proposition 116. Proposition 116 is a $1.99
billion general obligation rail transportation bond measure that would fund intercity,
commuter, and light rail transit statewide.
Staff has reviewed all three ballot measures and their effects on transportation projects and
programs in the San Diego region as discussed in this report. The measures are needed to
provide state transportation funding to help meet the existing and growing transportation
needs of the state and the San Diego region. The three Propositions also provide for state
and federal funding to allow the timely implementation of the TransNet transportation sales
tax projects. On April 13, 1990, the Executive Committee reviewed the three ballot mea-
sures and it was their
RECOMMENDATION
that the Board of Directors support Propositions 111, 108, and 116.
Discussion
Following is a summary of the 1989 Transportation Funding and Reform Legislation, Propo-
sitions 111, 108, and 116, and the current state transportation revenue program.
1989 TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AND REFORM LEGISLATION - The 1989 State Trans-
portation Funding and Reform Legislation enacted in July 1989 consisted of a package of six
legislative bills. The bills provide for an increase in state transportation revenues of $18.5
billion during the next 10 years derived from a 5-9 cent increase in the state motor vehicle
fuel tax, increased truck weight fees, and three $1 billion rail bond measures. The in-
creased revenues are subject to voter approval of Propositions 111 and 108 on the June 1990
statewide ballot. The $18.5 billion of increased state revenues are earmarked for eleven
transportation programs.
PROPOSITION 111: THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF AND SPENDING LIMITATION
ACT - Proposition 111 (SCA 1) updates the state and local government spending limit for-
mula and excludes any increased fuel tax and truck weight fees from the spending limit.
Voter approval of Proposition 111 would allow expenditure of the 5-9 cent per gallon fuel
tax increase and 54% higher truck weight fees already approved in the 1989 transportation
funding package. The higher fuel tax and truck weight fees comprise $15.5 billion of the
$18.5 billion 10 year funding program. Proposition 111 also would tie annual adjustments in
the state and local government spending limit to California's per capita personal income
rather than the U.S. Consumer Price Index now used for annual adjustments. Majority vote
approval of Proposition 111 is necessary for the $1 billion of rail bonds in Proposition 108 to
be issued.
Following are some specific San Diego region transportation impacts assuming Proposition
111 receives voter approval:
• The San Diego region projects included in the current State Transportation Improve-
ment Program (1988 STIP) will be funded on or about their original construction sched-
ule. Attachment A lists the major remaining STIP projects that would be funded
through Proposition 111.
• SANDAG may submit new candidate projects to the CTC for funding. Priority projects
for funding include completion of the Route 15 (40th Street) project, the I-5/I-805/
SR56 major widening project, and state-federal fund contribution to the TransNet
highway projects.
• The 18 cities and the County will receive an estimated $230 million in increased street
and road gas tax subventions during the next 10 years. This is about a -1-42% increase
from the existing subventions. Attachment B lists the estimated fuel tax subventions
by jurisdiction.
• The legislature is expected to appropriate $250 million for the first year of the State-
Local Transportation Partnership Program. Seventy-eight projects from the San Diego
region with an estimated cost of $403.1 million were submitted for the initial FY91
partnership program. These projects could receive up to $49.5 million of state funds
based on a 12.271% state funding share.
• CALTRANS would have sufficient revenues to continue the state funded highway
safety and rehabilitation program and the traffic system management plan.
• State Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) program funding for approved MTDB light rail
trolley projects would be increased by $6,597,467 in FY1990-91 from $902,533 to
$7,500,000.
PROPOSITION 108: THE PASSENGER RAIL AND CLEAN AIR BOND ACT - Proposition
108 is the first of three $1 billion general obligation rail transit bond measures to be placed
on the June 1990, November 1992, and November 1994 ballots. Proposition 108 is an inte-
gral part of the 1989 transportation funding package but as a bond measure it must appear
on the ballot separate from Proposition 111. Proposition 108 will not take effect unless both
Propositions 108 and 111 receive majority voter approval. The rail bonds will be used to
fund up to 50% of the cost of certain intercity, commuter, and urban rail projects through-
out the state. The eligible rail corridors include all of the TransNet trolley and commuter
rail corridors.
Following are some specific San Diego region transportation impacts assuming Propositions
108 and 111 receive voter approval:
• The $1 billion of rail bond funding from Proposition 108 could provide up to $650 mil-
lion for commuter and urban rail projects in Southern California. It is possible that up
to $100-150 million could be available for trolley and commuter rail projects from the
San Diego region.
• Of the total $3 billion of rail bond funds at least 15% or $450 million must be expended
for intercity rail projects. The intercity LOSSAN rail corridor projects would be major
candidates for these statewide funds. CALTRANS develops the intercity rail candidate
projects.
• If the two proposed $1 billion rail bond measures receive voter approval in 1992 and
1994, an additional $1.7 billion could be available statewide for commuter and urban
rail projects. SANDAG's County minimum fair share of these funds is about $120
million.
PROPOSITION 116; THE RAIL TRANSPORTATION BOND ACT - Proposition 116 was
developed as an initiative measure sponsored by the Sacramento based Planning and Conser-
vation League (PCL) Foundation. Proposition 116 is a $1.99 billion general obligation rail
transportation bond measure that would fund intercity, commuter, and light rail transit
statewide. Proposition 116 specifies how the $1.99 billion of rail bond funds would be
allocated. Local rail transit projects will require 50% matching funds. Although Propo-
sition 116 was not prepared as part of the 1989 transportation funding package it is con-
sidered to be compatible with the legislative program. If Propositions 111, 108, and 116 all
receive voter approval in June it is assumed that the $1.99 billion of rail bonds authorized
by Proposition 116 will replace the proposed $1 billion rail bond measures in 1992 and 1994.
Proposition 116 will take effect with majority voter approval and is not dependent on
passage of either Propositions 111 or 108.
Following are some specific San Diego region transportation impacts assuming Proposition
116 receives voter approval:
• $57 million will be allocated to the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board
(MTDB) for rail projects,
$20 million will be allocated to the North County Transit District (NCTD) for rail
projects,
• $202 million will be allocated to the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency for intercity and
commuter rail projects of which $45 million is earmarked for expenditure in San Diego
County,
• San Diego region projects may compete for the following statewide funding programs:
a. $100 million rail car procurement program,
b. $20 million for bicycle commuter facilities,
c. $20 million for ferry transportation.
CURRENT STATE TRANSPORTATION REVENUE PROGRAM - At the March Board meet-
ing staff was requested to evaluate the state transportation program and its effects on the
San Diego region if Propositions 111 and 108 do not pass in June. Assuming only current
revenues, the state highway and transit capital programs are facing a critical short- and
long-term problem. Current annual expenditures necessary to operate, maintain and admin-
ister the state highway system and to match available federal construction funds exceed
annual revenues from fuel taxes and weight fees by over $300 million. By July 1990, over
$600 million of state highway projects that have been designed and are ready to go to
construction will have been withheld because they exceed available federal funds and state
construction funds are not available. Without additional revenue well over $1 billion state-
wide in construction projects will have to be held back next year. Furthermore some $75
million of transit projects scheduled for funding with gas tax revenues in FY1990-91 will
remain unfunded. Current state revenues cannot sustain a state funded construction pro-
gram without cutbacks in maintenance and operations, the potential loss of some federal
construction funds, and/or a reduction in CALTRANS' support for locally funded projects
including the TransNet highway program.
Following are some specific San Diego region transportation impacts assuming Proposition
111 does not receive voter approval:
• No new construction projects except safety and earthquake restoration/retrofit will be
advertised for construction before April 1991. Two of the Route 78 widening projects
(1-5 to College Avenue and Melrose Drive to San Marcos Boulevard) will not be adver-
tised for construction later this year as scheduled, unless TransNet funds are used to
keep the projects on schedule. Various ramp metering, auxiliary lane, and highway
landscape planting projects in various parts of the region will be significantly delayed.
• The major remaining 1988 STIP projects in the San Diego region will be delayed by up
to five or more years as identified on Attachment A unless other funds are identified.
• Completion of the major Route 15 (40th Street) and I-5/I-805/SR56 freeway projects
could be extended well beyond the year 2000.
• There will be little or no state/federal funds contribution available for the TransNet
highway projects until FY98 or later. The construction of those TransNet highway
projects that assume state/federal fund contribution will be delayed beyond the Board's
current construction schedule.
• No new state funded engineering contracts will be awarded and existing contracts will
be cancelled. This will likely affect the Route 76 Oceanside Bypass project now being
designed through a private engineering contract.
• If Proposition 111 fails, it is likely that the State-Local Transportation Partnership
Program for FY91 will not be funded. This would represent a potential loss of up to
$49.5 million of state funds to qualifying San Diego region projects.
FY1990-91 State Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) funding for MTDB light rail trolley
projects will be reduced by $6,597,467, or 88 percent.
tENNETH E. SWZER
Executive Director
Attachments
ATTACHMENT A
1988 STIP PROJECTS - SAN DIEGO REGION
ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
ASSUMING VOTER APPROVAL OF PROPOSITION 111
1988 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP) PROJECTS:
The following major projects would all be funded with the passage of Proposition
111 on or about the construction schedule shown. If Proposition 111 is not approved
some 1988 STIP projects could be delayed by up to five or more years. The
estimated potential delay is shown for each project.
1. I-5/I-805/SR56. Widen 1-5 in the Sorrento Valley/North City West area and
construct I-5/SR56 interchange. Stage 1 construction. 3.5 miles.
Cost: $67.7 million (Construction in FY93).
Possible delay if Proposition 111 fails: 2-4 years.
2. Route 15 in the Southeast San Diego area (Oceanview Blvd. to Route 94).
Upgrade freeway to Interstate standards. 1.6 miles.
Cost: $11.7 million (Construction in FY92).
Possible delay if Proposition 111 fails: 2 years.
3. Route 15 (40th Street) in Mid-City San Diego area. Right-of-way funding and
Unit 1 construction for 8 lane freeway. 2.1 miles.
Cost: $34.8 million (Construction in FY93).
Possible delay if Proposition 111 fails: 2 years.
4. Route 76 from 1-5 to Frontier Drive in Oceanside. Construct 4 lane bypass
expressway. 2.9 miles.
Cost: $27.0 million (Construction in FY92).
Possible delay if Proposition 111 fails: 3-5 years.
5. Route 78 from 1-5 in Oceanside to San Marcos Boulevard. Widen freeway to 6
lanes (3 construction projects). Federal demonstration program. 12.1 miles.
Cost: $20.8 million (Construction in FY91).
Possible delay if Proposition 111 fails: 1-3 years.
6. 1-5, 1-8, 1-15, SR94, and 1-805. Construct five auxiliary lane and truck lane
projects.
Cost: $28.5 million (Construction in FY91-93).
Possible delay if Proposition 111 fails: 1-3 years.
ATTACHMENT B
ESTIMATED LOCAL STREET & ROAD FUEL TAX SUBVENTION REVENUES
FY1991-2000 TEN-YEAR TOTAL
In Thousands of Dollars ($000/s)
Jurisdiction
Carlsbad
Chula Vista
Coronado
Del Mar
El Cajon
Encinitas
Escondido
Imperial Beach
La Mesa
Lemon Grove
National City
Oceanside
Poway
San Diego City
San Marcos
Santee
Solana Beach
Vista
Subtotal: 18 Cities
San Diego County (Uninc.)
TOTAL: San Diego Region
Existing
Fuel Tax
$8,352
$17,988
$3,702
$837
$12,412
$12,761
$13,054
$3,799
$7,880
$3,429
$8,323
$15,175
$7,707
$151,796
$3,584
$8,970
$3,674
$7,735
$291,177
$254,315
$545,492
Prop, ill
Increase
$3,711
$7,831
$1,533
$325
$5,333
$5,385
$5,880
$1,614
$3,303
$1,426
$3,492
$6,799
$3,229
$66,723
$1,658
$3,768
$1,521
$3,555
$127,087
$102,740
$229,827
TOTAL
$12,063
$25,819
$5,235
$1,162
$17,745
$18,147
$18,935
$5,413
$11,183
$4,854
$11,815
$21,974
$10,936
$218,519
$5,241
$12,738
$5,195
$11,289
$418,264
$357,055
$775,319
NOTES: 1. Existing fuel tax revenue estimates (Sections 2104, 2106,
and 2107) are based on the actual fuel tax received by
each jurisdiction in FY1987-88 factored by the estimated
Statewide fuel tax revenues for FY1991-2000.
2. Proposition 111/SCA 1 increased fuel tax revenue
estimates (Section 2105) for cities are based on the
1989-90 State Controller's estimate of relative population
for each incorporated city. The Proposition 111 estimated
fuel tax subventions for the County of San Diego have been
calculated by averaging the two allowable allocation
formulas in Section 2105(a).
3. Statewide estimate of fuel tax revenues for FY1991-2001
are from the 1990 STIP Fund Estimate approved by CTC on
February 15, 1990.
SANDAG\BT\4-9-90
San Diego Association of Governments
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
July 28, 1989 AGENDA REPORT No.:R-60
STATE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PACKAGE
Introduction
On July 10, 1989, the Governor signed a package of five bills which resulted from an
extended negotiating process between the Governor and the legislative leadership over
transportation funding proposals and proposals to reform the state Gann Expenditure
Limitation. The provisions of the legislative package constitute a major transportation
funding proposal and a significant reform of the overall state transportation program-
ming (STIP/RTIP) process. Many of the provisions have taken effect with the Governor's
signature, while the major provisions relating to the revenue increases are subject to the
passage of an amendment to the state Gann limit to be placed on the June 5, 1990 ballot.
The legislative package includes SB 300 (Kopp/Roberti), AB 471 (Katz/Brown), AB 973
(Costa), AB 680 (Baker/Ferguson), and AB 2218 (Ferguson/Johnson/Pringle). The pro-
posed Gann limit amendment is contained in SCA 1 (Garamendi).
In addition to developing and financing a long-term, comprehensive transportation pro-
gram, the transportation package also recognizes the linkages between transportation,
land use, and the environment. The transportation package would provide $18.5 billion in
new revenues over the next ten years and establishes a funding plan specifying the pro-
grams to be funded with the new revenues, as summarized below. The new programs
created, the new programming process established, and other major provisions are
summarized in the discussion section, with reference made to the individual bill in which
the provision is contained.
New Revenues ($ Billions)10-Year Funding Plan ($ Billions)
Gas tax increase
Truck weight fees
Rail bond proceeds
Increased sales taxes
STIP Funding Shortfall
Intercity/Commuter/Urban Rail
Interregional Road System
Traffic System Management
Flexible Congestion Relief
City/County Subventions
State-Local Partnerships
Retrofit Sound walls
Environmental Enhancements
Transit Operations/Capital
Highway Maintenance/Rehab.
Discussion
New Revenues - The transportation package includes revenue increases in four major
areas as summarized below. Each of these revenue increases is subject to voter approval
of an amendment to the Gann limit (SCA 1) in June 1990.
• State gas taxes (SB 300) and diesel fuel taxes (AB 471) would increase by $.05 per
gallon on August 1, 1990, with additional increases of $.01 per gallon effective
January 1 of 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994.
• Commercial truck weight fees would increase by 40% on August 1, 1990, and by an
additional 10% on January 1, 1995 (AB 471).
• A $1 billion mass transit guideway general obligation bond measure will be placed on
the June 1990 ballot. Additional $1 billion bond measures will be placed on the
November 1992 and 1994 ballots which will not be subject to the passage of an
amendment to the Gann limit (AB 973).
• Additional sales tax revenues generated from the increased gas taxes are to be
transferred to the Transportation Planning and Development (TP&D) Account for
transit operating and capital purposes (SB 300).
New Programs - SB 300 includes legislative intent to establish a 10-year funding plan for
the expenditure of the $18.5 billion generated by the new revenues from July 1, 1990 to
June 30, 2000. With the exception of the Congestion Management Program, these new
programs are now in effect. The major new program categories are:
• $3.5 billion to fund the current estimated shortfall in the adopted 1988 State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). AB 471 specifies the projects eligible
under this category.
• $3.0 billion for mass transit guideways on specified rail corridors including intercity
rail, commuter rail, and urban rail corridors (AB 471/AB 973). At least 15% ($450
million) of these funds must be allocated for intercity rail projects on an equitable
basis according to corridor population. Allocations for urban and commuter rail
projects are limited to 50% of the non-federal share of the project cost. The funds
are available for capital construction and rolling stock. The funds for this program
would most likely, but not necessarily, come from the rail bond measure.
CALTRANS is required to develop guidelines for implementing these rail programs
by July 1, 1990, to be adopted by the California Transportation Commission (CTC)
by September 1, 1990.
• $1.25 billion for projects on the interregional road system defined by SB 300. These
funds are for projects on the routes specified in the bill which are outside the bound-
aries of urbanized areas over 50,000 population. The projects are to be based upon a
plan to be developed by CALTRANS and submitted to the Legislature by February 1,
1990.
• $1 billion for the Traffic Systems Management Program to fund projects designed to
increase the number of peak period person trips which can be carried on the highway
system without increasing the designed capacity for vehicle trips or adding through
traffic lanes. CALTRANS is required to develop guidelines for this program by
September 1, 1989, to be approved by the CTC by November 1, 1989. Based upon
these guidelines, CALTRANS is to submit to the CTC, by March 1, 1990, and by each
December 1 thereafter, a traffic systems management plan which includes a con-
solidated priority list of projects submitted from local congestion management plans
(see below). The CTC will allocate funds based upon this priority list, with first
priority given to projects in cities and counties that have an approved congestion
management program (AB 471).
$3 billion for the Flexible Congestion Relief Program to fund projects to reduce or
avoid congestion on existing routes by increasing capacity (SB 300). Projects may be
on local streets and roads, state highways, and urban and commuter rail corridors.
The concept is to spend the funds on the most cost-effective project to reduce
congestion in a given corridor. CALTRANS is required to develop guidelines for
implementing this program by July 1, 1990, to be approved by the CTC by September
1, 1990. In allocating funds, the CTC shall give priority to funding projects in cities
and counties that have an adopted congestion management program (see below).
CALTRANS also will be developing financial guidelines for both this program and
the traffic systems management program by March 1, 1991, to be approved by the
CTC by July 1, 1991 (AB 471).
$3 billion for subvention of a share of the increased gas tax revenues to cities and
counties. Of any increase in state gas tax revenues, 11.5% is to be allocated to
cities on a population basis and 11.5% to counties on a new formula blending the
current gas tax allocation formula with a new formula based 75% upon vehicle
registration and 25% upon maintained road mileage. To receive these funds, a city
or county must maintain the same level of general fund expenditures for street and
road purposes as the three-year average of such expenditures for FY'88, FY'89, and
FY'90 (SB 300).
$2 billion for the State-Local Transportation Partnership Program which is the
continuation of the SB 140 program established last year. This program provides up
to a 50% match for locally-funded street and road, highway, and mass transit guide-
way projects which meet specified criteria. The Legislature intends to appropriate
$300 million for this program in FY'91 and $200 million per year thereafter (SB
300).
$150 million to complete all remaining projects on the retrofit soundwall priority
list.
$100 million for the Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Demonstration
Program which provides for grants of up to $5 million to local, state, and federal
agencies and non-profit entities for projects which are directly or indirectly related
to the environmental impacts of modifying existing transportation facilities or
constructing new facilities. Eligible projects include highway landscaping and urban
reforestation to offset the greenhouse effect, acquisition or enhancement of
resource lands, provision of roadside rests and recreational opportunities, and miti-
gation of the impacts of proposed transportation facilities. The CTC will allocate
the grant funds according to recommendations from the Resources Agency (AB 471).
$500 million for transit operations and capital through the existing State Transit
Assistance (STA) program and other programs funded from the TP&D Account. The
STA funds would be apportioned on a revised formula based 50% upon population and
50% upon operator revenues, which shifts a greater share of these revenues to the
Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay areas. STA fund eligibility is extended to Article
4.5 community service systems for the first time and a new eligibility requirement
for STA funds is added which requires that, in order to receive STA funds, an
operator's subsidy per revenue vehicle hour may not increase annually by more than
90% of the regional CPI. A new 50% match requirement also is added for projects
funded through the Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) program (SB 300).
$1 billion for additional funding for state highway maintenance and rehabilitation
costs.
Congestion Management Programs are required to be prepared, subject to the
passage of the Gann limit amendment in June, 1990, for every county that includes
an urbanized area over 50,000 population and shall include every city and county (AB
471). The program is to be developed by the county transportation commission or by
another public agency designated by the county board of supervisors and the city
councils of a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population of the
incorporated area. The program is to be developed in consultation with the regional
transportation planning agency (RTPA), local governments, CALTRANS, APCD, and
regional transportation providers. SANDAG, as both the RTPA and the San Diego
County Regional Transportation Commission, could perform a dual role in the
development of the program. The program shall contain:
the establishment of level of service standards for various land use intensities
no lower than level of service "E" or the current level, whichever is lower;
the establishment of standards for the frequency and routing of public transit
and for the coordination of services provided by separate operators;
a trip reduction and travel demand element promoting alternative transporta-
tion methods;
a program to analyze the impacts of local agency land use decisions on the
regional transportation system, including an estimate of the costs associated
with mitigating the impacts; and
a 7-year capital improvement program to maintain or improve the level of
service and transit performance standards established and to mitigate the
regional transportation impacts identified. The capital program must also
conform to the transportation-related vehicle emissions air quality mitigation
measures.
The RTPA (SANDAG) evaluates the congestion management program for consistency
with the Regional Transportation Plan and, if found consistent, includes the program
in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). Any project found
inconsistent may be excluded from the RTIP. The RTPA also is responsible for
monitoring the implementation of the congestion management program and making
an annual determination of conformance for each city and the county. The adoption
and implementation of a trip reduction and travel demand ordinance by each juris-
diction is a key element of this annual conformance determination. If the RTPA
finds that a local jurisdiction is not in conformance, the finding is reported to the
CTC and the State Controller. If the finding is upheld by the CTC, the State
Controller must withhold the new gas tax apportionments until notified that the
jurisdiction is in conformance. Given-the timing of this new program, the congestion
management program would not be included in the RTIP until the 1992 cycle (the
RTIP due to the CTC by 12/1/91).
New Programming Process - The legislative package makes some significant changes to
the five-year RTIP/STIP programming process, including the following:
The STIP is now a 7-year document to be adopted by the CTC every two years. The
next STIP will be adopted by the CTC by August 1, 1990, and by April 1 of each
even-numbered year thereafter.
The Proposed STIP (PSTIP) developed by CALTRANS and the RTIP developed by
SANDAG will become parallel rather than sequential documents. The next PSTIP
and RTIP are due to the CTC on April 1, 1990, and on December 1 of each odd-
numbered year thereafter. The PSTIP is to include projects on the interregional
road system, intercity rail projects, retrofit soundwalls, and recommendations on
state highway projects which should be given a higher priority than projects proposed
in the RTIP (SB 300). The RTIP is to include projects under the flexible congestion
relief program, urban and commuter rail projects, and congestion management
programs (beginning with the RTIP due to the CTC 12/1/91). Other projects may be
included in the RTIP for information purposes as separate listings (AB 471). The
STIP adopted by the CTC will combine the project listings from the PSTIP and
RTIP. The CTC may deviate from the RTIP for several reasons, including cases
where the RTIP conflicts with CALTRANS1 recommendations in the PSTIP and
where there is no adopted congestion management program for a county in which a
project is proposed. CALTRANS is required to develop guidelines for the new
RTIP/STIP process by July 1, 1990, for approval by the CTC by September 1, 1990
(SB 300).
• All of the new revenues in the package are subject to the North-South split and
county minimum provisions of current law, except for highway maintenance and
safety projects, the state-local partnership program, intercity rail projects, traffic
system management projects, and expenditures from the TP&D Account. Any
county minimum deficits from the 1988-1993 period are carried forward to the 1993-
1998 period. After the 1992 STIP, the CTC must meet county minimums (AB 471).
Project cost increases will be limited to 120% of the cost in the 1988 STIP. Projects
with cost increases in excess of 120% will have to compete with other projects for
additional funding (AB 471).
• CALTRANS may perform project development work on projects that are not in-
cluded in the STIP under broadened but specific conditions. The conditions include
CALTRANS having resources available to perform the work and demonstrating that
the early work on the project will result in cost savings and that the project will
take more than seven years to complete (SB 300).
• CALTRANS' costs for project development are limited to 20% of total project costs
over a 3-year period (SB 300).
• The requirements for preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) are
revised to require a biennial update submitted to the CTC by August 1. The action
element of future RTP's must include congestion management programs (AB 471).
Miscellaneous Provisions -
• CALTRANS may allow private entities to construct four demonstration projects - at
least one in Northern California and one in Southern California. The State would
retain ownership of the transportation facilities but the right-of-way and airspace
could be leased to private entities for up to 35 years and the entities would be
authorized to charge tolls for the use of the facilities. The projects would have to
comply with state standards (AB 680).
Project "fast tracking" would be authorized for certain projects under specified
conditions in order to speed up project delivery and hold down costs. Fast track
project candidates would be limited to those projects costing less than $2.5 million,
located within existing right-of-way, having no significant environmental impacts,
and meeting several other requirements. These provisions are subject to the passage
of the Gann limit amendment (AB 2218).
The specific language of the Gann amendment ballot proposal was part of the nego-
tiations between the Governor and the Legislature on the transportation package.
The ballot language of SCA 1 as it will appear on the June 5, 1990, ballot is
attached. A clear reference is made to the measure being both an amendment to
the Gann limit and the method of enacting the gas tax and truck weight fee in-
creases (AB 471).
The provisions of SCA 1 would amend the Gann limit on a comprehensive basis, not
just for transportation purposes. SCA 1 would specifically exclude the new gas tax
revenues, truck weight fees, and the additional increment of sales tax revenues
generated by the transportation package from the calculations of the Gann limit.
SCA 1 includes a number of other provisions modifying the definitions and formulae
used to compute the annual adjustments to the Gann limits for various governmental
entities. Any excess revenues received by the state above the expenditure limit in a
given fiscal year and in the immediately following year would be distributed on the
following basis - 50% to the State School Fund and 50% to be returned through a
revision of tax rates or fee schedules within the next two fiscal years.
•NNETH E. SULZER
Executive Director
Attachment
ATTACHMENT 1
JUNE 5, 1990 - CALIFORNIA DIRECT PRIMARY ELECTION
SENATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 1
(BALLOT LANGUAGE PER AB 471)
"The Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act of 1990"
"This measure would enact a statewide traffic congestion relief program and update
the spending limit on state and local government to better reflect the needs of a
growing California population. It would provide new revenues to be used to reduce
traffic congestion by building state highways, local streets and roads, and public
mass transit facilities. This measure would enact a 55% increase in truck weight
fees and a five cent per gallon increase in the fuel tax on August 1, 1990, and an
additional one cent on January 1 of each of the next four years. This measure
updates the state appropriations limit to allow for new funding for congestion
relief, mass transit, health care, services for the elderly, and other priority state
programs, while still providing an overall limit on state and local spending. This
measure would continue to provide that public education and community colleges
receive at least 40% of the state general fund budget, and would provide that
revenues in excess of the state appropriations limit are allocated equally between
education and taxpayers."
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1990 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM
Local Government Finance:
(a) Oppose any measure that would make local agencies more dependent on
the State for financial stability and policy direction.
(b) Support measures which relieve taxpayers of the burden of paying for
services which could be charged directly to the service use.
(c) Oppose measures which would impose State and Federal mandated costs
for which there is no guarantee of local reimbursement or offsetting
benefits.
(d) Support efforts to reinstate flexibility in the administration of
Article XIII-B (the Gann Initiative).
(e) Oppose any measure that restricts or limits a public entity's ability
to use tax exempt debt for the purchase or construction of public
purpose improvements.
(f) Support efforts which make funds to support public facilities (i.e.
libraries, open space) more available to local municipalities.
(g) Support efforts which would provide greater accountability on the
part of counties for the distribution of funds back to
municipalities, including, but not limited to, fines and forfeitures.
(h) Oppose any change in tax allocations which would negatively affect
local government.
Labor Relations:
(a) Oppose any measure which would impose compulsory and binding
arbitration with respect to public employees.
(b) Oppose any measure which would grant employee benefits that would
be more properly decided at the local bargaining table.
(c) Oppose any efforts which would reduce local control over public
employee disputes, and impose regulations of an outside agency (such
as PERB).
(d) Oppose efforts which make disciplinary proceedings for police
officers similar to criminal proceedings, making it impossible for
employers to prove an administrative violation.
(e) Support legislation which limits the ability of employees to receive
workers' compensation benefits for occupational injuries/illnesses
which result from stress, disciplinary action, or performance
evaluations or consultations.
(f) Oppose legislation which expands or extends any presumptions of
occupational injury or illness.
Tort Reform:
(a) Support measures to reform California's tort system to curtail
unreasonable liability exposure for public agencies and restore the
ability of public agencies to obtain affordable insurance.
Transportation:
(a) Support measures which would increase the ability of local agencies
to finance local transportation facilities.
(b) Support measures to finance local transportation facilities.
(c) Support measures that provide local and regional funding for
transportation demand systems.
(d) Oppose transportation proposals which would adversely effect the
quality of life in North San Diego County by causing traffic
congestion, air pollution or other problems.
(e) Support legislation which encourages the continued evaluation of NAS
Miramar, East Miramar and Otay Mesa as possible sites for an
international airport.
Waterfront:
(a) Oppose any offshore oil leasing or drilling within 20 nautical miles
of the San Diego coast.
(b) Support efforts which provide funding for urban waterfront
restoration and enhancement.
(c) Support efforts which would aid the restoration, preservation and
enhancement of beach front property, including sand, bluffs and
access.
(d) Support measures which would grant cities the authority of land use
regulations over the placement of onshore facilities which service
offshore oil drilling, to avoid the placement of such facilities near
incompatible land uses.
(e) Support legislation which requires the double-hulling of all new oil
tankers and the retrofitting of all existing oil tankers.
6. Water Management:
(a) Support efforts to establish a water management system which assures
protection to agriculture and the water systems of the Delta and
Central Valley regions, as well as guaranteed water delivery to the
San Diego region.
(b) Support measures which increase water supply or improve water quality
within the region.
(c) Support efforts which will encourage the use of drought tolerant
plant material and water conservation techniques.
(d) Support efforts to assist in the production and distribution of
reclaimed water.
7. Environment:
(a) Support efforts for the safe disposal of solid, hazardous and medical
waste.
(b) Support legislation which seeks to protect air quality and the
atmosphere.
(c) Support legislation which encourages speedy action to reduce the
amount of ozone depleting compounds discharged into the atmosphere.
(d) Support legislation which allocates State and/or Federal funds for
the construction of facilities to capture and treat the flow of raw
sewage entering San Diego from Tijuana.
(e) Support efforts, where feasible, which promote the recycling/re-
claiming of natural resources, including water, timber, oil, gas,
minerals and earth metals.
(f) Support measures which would make low-interest loans and/or grants
available to local agencies for programs which would encourage the
recycling/reclaiming of resources.
8. Solid Waste:
(a) Support legislation on regulations that would permit solid waste
facility siting to be approved by the AB 939 Task Force.
(b) Oppose legislation which would reinstate the County Solid Waste
Management Plan as an interim planning document.
9. General Government:
(a) Support legislation which establishes/funds an abandoned vehicle
program, allowing the immediate removal of abandoned vehicles.
(b) Oppose Federal efforts which remove the deduction of all State and
local taxes for Federal income tax purposes.
(c) Support measures which would strengthen cities' ability to reorganize
special districts.
(d) Support legislation which provides funding for public libraries.
(e) Oppose legislation which would impose penalties or limit the
flexibility of local governments in the provision of public
records.
10. Law Enforcement:
(a) Support efforts which strengthen local law enforcement.
(b) Support efforts which strengthen present State or Federal laws to
increase penalties and give local governments the power to restrict
or regulate the sale, manufacture, or use of dangerous drugs,
including, but not limited to, PCP, methamphetamine, and narcotics.
(c) Support measures which would provide a greater share of seized assets
to localities.
(d) Support efforts which discourage and prevent driving under the
influence of drugs or alcohol.
(e) Support efforts which allow local agencies to recover costs, in
accidents involving driving under the influence of drugs and/or
alcohol, from the guilty party.
11. Land Use Planning:
(a) Support efforts to strengthen the legal and fiscal capability of
local agencies to prepare, adopt and implement fiscal plans for
orderly growth, development, beautification and conservation of local
planning areas, including, but not limited to, the regulatory
authority over zoning, subdivisions, annexations, and redevelopment
areas.
(b) Support efforts which are consistent with the doctrine of "home rule"
and the local exercise of police powers, through planning and zoning
processes, over local land use.
12. Housing:
(a) Support efforts to develop Federal and State participation and
financial support for creative programs to provide adequate,
affordable housing (home ownership, and/or rental opportunities) for
the elderly, handicapped, and low-income persons throughout the
community.
13. Child Care:
Support:
(a) Reduction of present regulatory complexities.
(b) Reduction of the burden of insurance costs.
(c) Funding for the construction, renovation and/or maintenance of child
care facilities.
(d) Provision of reasonable tax incentives for employers who offer child
care services.
14. Immigrants
(a) Support legislation which recognizes the unique and difficult
problems associated with recent immigrants to the United States, and
assist local communities in dealing with these problems in such areas
as housing, health services, education and employment.