Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-26; City Council; 16256; Transnet Extension IssuesCITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL AEl# /b ,95b MTG. 6126101 DEPT. ENG TITLE- -* TRANSNET EXTENSION ISSUES RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council review this report and provide direction to Carlsbad’s SANDAG representative. ITEM EXPLANATION: Proposition A, TmnsNet sales tax, was approved by the voters in 1987 with a 53.2% majority. The TraMVet program will expire in 2008, unless extended by a vote of the people. Since 1987, due to a series of Supreme Court decisions and state propositions that have passed, it would be necessary for a two-thirds majority to pass a ballot measure to extend the program. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) staff is developing strategies to address future funding shortfalls if the TransNet sales tax sunsets in 2008. However, decisions by SANDAG’s Transportation Subcommittee has resulted in key meeting dates and decision points for the SANDAG Board of Directors action on this item in July 2001 so that a TransNet extension proposal could be considered for the November 2002 ballot. Should the Board decide to pursue a different date for the public vote, the schedule would be adjusted accordingly. Basically, there are two key decisions that must be made by the SANDAG Board of Directors. They are: 1. What election date should be targeted for the voters to consider the TransNet sales tax extension? 2. What would be the objective or purpose of the ballot measure? The ballot measure could be considered for inclusion on the November 2002 ballot. An early decision by the SANDAG Board of Directors to place the measure on this date will allow the time necessary for a campaign to be conducted. Technically, a final decision to place the measure on the November 2002 ballot could be made by the Board as late as July 2002. The goal is to continue the program without a lapse in sales tax collections. Therefore, a ballot measure would need to be placed on the November 2006 ballot at the latest, unless a special election is called. If the November 2002 election date is not pursued, another option would be for the November 2004 election. There will be a presidential election in 2004 with traditionally high voter turnout. An important milestone for providing future infrastructure needs will be deciding the purpose of the ballot measure. Currently, all monies collected are used for transportation purposes, shared equally among transit, highways and local streets. The ballot could be expanded to emphasize other features such as habitat conservation and open space acquisition, storm water quality projects and programs, and smart growth. However, expanding beyond transportation-related purposes would require an amendment to SANDAG’s enabling legislation. This legislation would need to be approved in the 2001 legislative session so as an urgency vote requirement in 2002 is avoided, should the November 2002 election date be chosen. Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. 1 Ip,sJc3 There are a series of related questions to be resolved regarding the extension of the TramNet sales tax. SANDAG staff prepared a summary of eleven questions attached as Exhibit 1. The City Council may want to discuss these questions, however, the two key decisions are as outlined above. Resolution of the two key decisions will generate the details necessary for implementation of a strategy to pursue, such as addressed in the eleven questions. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Decisions by the City Council at this time is intended to facilitate information collection and recommendations and will not result in any adverse environmental impacts at this stage and, therefore, is categorically exempt under CEQA pursuant to regulations 15262 and 16306. FISCAL IMPACT: No impacts for the Carlsbad SANDAG representative to state Carlsbad’s position to the SANDAG Board of Directors. EXHIBITS: 1. Issues to be resolved regarding the extension of TramNet. 2 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED REGARDING THE EXTENSION OF TransNet 1. Approach: What is the best approach to follow to obtain approval from the voters on an extension of the TransNet program? a. Two-thirds Vote Option: Based on a series of Supreme Court decisions and state propositions that have passed since TransNet (Proposition A) was passed by a 53.2% majority in 1987, a two-thirds majority would now be required to pass a ballot measure to extend the program. Of the 38 transportation sales tax elections that have been held to date, only four have achieved the two-thirds threshold. Both Alameda and Santa Clara counties were successful in passing measures this past November with a two-thirds vote. b. SCA 3 Majority Vote Option: Efforts may continue next legislative session to support a measure similar to last session’s SCA 3 that would provide for consideration of a TransNet extension with a majority vote, or potentially another requirement less than the current two- thirds vote threshold. SANDAG could support such legislation, or potentially the development of an initiative, to reestablish the majority vote option. If such a measure were to be placed before the voters, the timing of a local measure to extend TmnsNet should be closely coordinated with it and be placed on the same ballot. C. “A+B” General Tax/Advisory Vote Option: In 1996, Santa Clara County voters approved what has been referred to as the “A+B” approach which involved an advisory vote containing an expenditure plan for how funds could be expended for transportation purposes (Measure A) and a separate measure to author&e a general sales tax increase for the County of Santa Clara general fund (Measure 8). Current law provides for the passage of a general sales tax at a majority vote level, but requires a two-thirds vote for special purpose taxes, such as a sales tax for transportation. Santa Clara achieved a 54% majority on the general sales tax increase and a 77% vote in favor of the advisory measure. This approach was challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court; however, anti-tax groups have maintained that legal circumstances have changed (Proposition 218 which also passed in 1996 on the same ballot) and would challenge any new A+B taxes that may be approved by voters in the future. Marin and Sonoma Counties have both attempted the A+B approach. In each case, the advisory measure passed, but the general sales tax measure failed to reach 50%. 2. Timing: What election date should be targeted? The TrunsNet Program expires on April 1, 2008. To continue the program without a lapse in collections, a ballot measure would need to be placed on the November 2006 ballot at the latest, unless a special election were to be called. The next currently scheduled elections are in March and November 2002 for the primaries and general election for governor and for assembly and selected senate seats statewide, as well as for local elections countywide. The next presidential election in 3 November 2004 provides another option with a traditionally high voter turnout. A more detailed schedule can be developed based on the election date chosen. 3. Length of the Extension: Should the extension be for another 20 years, for 30 years as proposed in July, or a different time period? Should a permanent measure be considered? Los Angeles has two permanent 4/2% transportation measures in place. Several transit districts have separate permanent Y2% sales tax programs. The longer the time period, the greater the bonding capacity created to allow early construction of needed improvements. 4. Sales Tax Rate: Should the Y2% rate be continued or should additional increments be considered? Should a reduced tax imposed for a longer period of time be considered? SANDAG’s enabling legislation allows for up to 1% in Y,% increments. If additional purposes (e.g., habitat, storm water, etc.) are to be considered for inclusion in the extension, perhaps consideration should be given to an increase to 3/% or the full 1%. 5. Purposes: What should be the objective of the ballot measure? Should the revenue continue to be directed to the same transportation purposes, or should the purposes be broadened to include and/or emphasize other transportation-related features including, but not limited to, smart growth, habitat conservation, and water quality projects and programs. Are there additional purposes that should be considered for inclusion in the TrunsNet extension? The expansion of TmnsZVef beyond transportation-related purposes would require an amendment to SANDAG’s enabling legislation. This legislation would need to be approved in the 2001 legislative session to avoid an urgency vote requirement in 2002 should a 2002 election date be chosen. 6. Consideration of More Than One Measure: If the purposes of the measure are to be expanded, is it better to have multiple ballot measures (for example i/2% for transportation and v4% for habitat acquisition/storm water projects) and develop a campaign strategy to support them as a package, or have a single, perhaps larger multi-purpose measure (3/4% or l%)? 7. Allocation of Revenues: Once the basic purposes are identified, how should the funds be allocated among the purposes? The funds could be allocated on a percentage basis similar to the current TrnnsNef Program, on a project-specific basis, on a discretionary basis, or a combination of all three. In addition, allocation procedures would need to be developed within each purpose. 8. Inclusion of Incentive Programs: Should incentive programs be introduced to support the implementation of specific regional plans and programs? For example, should the TransNet program be used as an incentive to benefit local jurisdictions that support the implementation of the regional growth management strategy and smart growth planning efforts? 9. Level of Specificity: How detailed should the ballot measure be? Should an ordinance be developed outlining the basic provisions of the proposal only, as was the case in the July proposal, or should more details and specific projects be identified like the original TransNet Y ballot measure? Should the proposal include an Expenditure Plan similar to what was prepared for the original TmnsNef Program? At that time, opinion surveys indicated that a specific Expenditure Plan was needed to show voters what improvements they would receive if the measure passed. That model has been followed in nearly all of the other county sales tax measures statewide. 10. Citizens Oversight Committee: Should the extension proposal include the estabkhment of an independent citizen oversight committee and, if so, what should its roles and responsibilities include? A few of the other county sales tax measures have included such a committee. 11. Maintenance of Effort Provisions: Should a maintenance of effort (MOE) provision be included for each of the purposes to be included in the extension proposal? The original TmnsNef Ordinance did include a MOE requirement for the continued expenditure of 1ocaI discretionary funds for transportation purposes based on FY85 data. Should the original MOE requirement be revisited and adjusted to include an escalation factor? S