Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-09; City Council; 17543; Transnet Extension OrdinanceCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL TITLE: DRAFT TRANSNET EXTENSION ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE PLAN RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive staff report providing a status update of the effort by SANDAG to extend the TransNet sales tax. ITEM EXPLANATION: The City of Carlsbad is responsible for the construction, operation and maintenance of all public roadways in the City, with the exception of Interstate 5 and State Highway 78. The construction and modification of the necessary transportation improvements are funded either by private development or as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program. The costs for operating and maintaining the City’s network of roadways is included in the Public Works Maintenance and Operations Department’s annual operating budget. Revenue for roadway improvements comes from many sources, including federal, state, regional and local funds. One of the primary funding sources for transportation improvements is obtained from the TransNet sales tax program. The program was approved by San Diego County voters in 1987 and established a half-cent sales tax to finance important transportation projects in the region. The funding was required to be distributed in equal thirds among highway, transit, and local road projects. The local roads 113 is distributed among the incorporated cities and the county based on a formula that factor in population and miles of maintained roadway. Carlsbad’s share of the TransNet revenue for the current fiscal year is estimated to be approximately $2.2 million. The TransNet sales tax was authorized for 20 years and is due to expire in March of 2008. The loss of this revenue source will have a significant financial impact to Carlsbad and all transportation agencies within San Diego County. In order to prevent this funding shortage from occurring, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has been working with local agencies to develop a strategy to extend the TransNet sales tax. The new (or extended) tax would remain at the same rate of one-half cent and would be in place for 30 years, beginning at the end of the current TransNet program. A draft ordinance has been prepared and the first reading will be considered by SANDAG’s Board at their April 9, 2004 meeting. Although the current program lasts until 2008, SANDAG is proposing to place a proposition on the November 2004 ballot to coincide with the larger voter turnout that accompanies presidential elections. The proposition would require a 2/3 vote of the citizens to become effective. If the proposition did not garner the support necessary, SANDAG would still have an opportunity to place the item on future ballots before the current authorization expires. In addition to extending the term of the transportation tax, SANDAG is proposing to significantly change the way in which the revenues are allocated. Whereas, in the current system, local governments receive 33% of all TransNet sales tax revenues to spend on local roads, the new system would reduce the local governments discretionary allocation to lo%, a nearly 70% reduction. Depending on the final format of the ordinance, local agencies may be eligible for an additional 8% share of the tax revenue, although these funds would need to be spent on specific projects and may be awarded on a competitive basis. The impact to Carlsbad could result in a loss of over $1.4 million annually. With this proposed reallocation, funds would be diverted from local roads to state highway and transit congestion relief projects. Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. 17 r 543 In order to minimize the financial impacts to local agencies, SANDAG is proposing to “backfill” the local agencies reduced TransNet revenues with Proposition 42 funds. Proposition 42 was approved by the voters in 2002 and requires that revenue received from taxes on motor fuel be spent on transportation projects. Previously, these revenues were placed in the State’s General Fund and used on programs such as health care, education and the prison system. Although Prop 42 is in place, local agencies have not yet begun to see the associated revenue. With the passage of Prop 42, the Governor’s office developed a Transportation Congestion Relief Program that identified projects around the State that would receive the revenue for the first 5 years. Starting in FY 08/09, however, cities and counties will receive 40% of the fuel tax revenues, with the remainder going to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the State Public Transit Account. It is important to note that the Prop 42 revenues would begin at approximately the same time the current TransNet sales tax ends. SANDAG projects that these revenues will offset the loss the local agencies would experience from the reallocation of the TransNet funds, in essence making them “whole” financially. There are concerns that provisions of Prop 42 would allow the fuel tax revenues to be returned to the State General Fund under certain conditions. To allay that fear, SANDAG has proposed to establish a Proposition 42 Revenue Protection Fund that would augment the local agencies revenues in the event that fuel tax revenues are once again diverted to the State’s General Fund. To fund the Revenue Protection Fund, SANDAG proposes to reduce funding or eliminate projects from congestion relief projects. The amount of money proposed to be placed in the Revenue Protection Fund would only protect the local agencies revenue for approximately 10 years, leaving the agencies unprotected for the remaining 20 years of the proposed TransNet sales tax extension. SANDAG is continuing to work on several options for the reallocation of TransNet funds. The SANDAG Ad Hoc Working Group on TransNet will meet on March 5, 2004 to finalize the Expenditure Plan allocations. The special meeting on March 5, 2004 will be to discuss the County of San Diego proposal that transit and local streetdroads each receive 28.3% of the sales tax revenue. The final expenditure plan recommendation will be presented to the full SANDAG Board of Directors on March 12, 2004. If approved by the Board, the draft Ordinance and Draft Expenditure Plan will be released for public comment. The major differences in the options is the amount of local monies that must be spent on regional arterial roadways and livable community incentives (bicycle/pedestrian facilities and Smart Growth) and whether or not these funds are allocated directly to the local agencies or if they are available on a competitive basis. After receiving public comment, SANDAG staff will present their Board with an ordinance containing the appropriate provisions for the first reading of the Ordinance scheduled for April 9, 2004. The second reading of the Ordinance would occur at the SANDAG Board of Directors meeting on May 14, 2004. This ordinance will be the basis for the proposition that will be placed on the November ballot. None of the financial changes discussed above would change the method of financial distribution in the current TransNet program. If approved by the voters, the new allocation would begin where the old program leaves off in 2008. One other item that SANDAG proposes to incorporate into the proposition would be a fee/tax charged to the development community for regional transportation facilities. SANDAG staff is still defining what will qualify as a regional facility. Preliminary indications are that a per dwelling unit fee/tax would be charged to local developers. There are many details that still need to be worked out, such as what burden the commercial/industriaI developers will share; what consideration will be given to developers of affordable housing; what credits may be given to developers for local arterial roadway obligations; and who will collect the fee/tax. SANDAG is discussing this proposal with the Building Industry Association to gather their support. In general, SANDAG is starting early to ensure that the half-cent sales tax transportation revenue does not expire in 2008. They realize that obtaining a 213 vote of the people will be difficult and are trying to develop a proposition that will have the widest possible appeal and still not increase the current tax rate. 2 Page 3 of Agenda Bill No. l7 543 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This item is for informational purposes or,,j. FISCAL IMPACT: 40 environmental review is required. Receiving this report has no fiscal impact. The results of the vote on the TransNet sales tax extension could have a significant financial impact on the City’s future transportation program. EXHIBITS: 1. February 27, 2004 SANDAG Board of Directors Report on the Draft TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan. DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Glenn Pruim, Engineering, (760) 602-2407, gprui8ci.carlsbad.ca.us 3 BT 27, TI Introduction SANDAG's Ad Hoc Working Group on TransNet approved the "Initial Draft TransNet Extension Expenditure Plan and Key Ordinance Provisions" report for presentation to the SANDAG Board of Directors at the January 9, 2004 Policy Board meeting. The initial draft Expenditure Plan was further discussed at the Board Retreat on January 30, 2004. Based on the comments received to date on the Initial Draft Expenditure Plan, a draft of the Ordinance for the ballot measure, incorporating a summary of the Expenditure Plan, has been developed, as included as Attachment 1 to this report. The enabling legislation (SB 361, Statutes of 1985) that gives SANDAG, serving as the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, the authority to place a sales tax measure on the ballot requires that a retail transactions and use tax ordinance be adopted by the Commission. The ordinance must include the tax rate being imposed, the purposes for which the funds will be used, and the term during which the tax will be imposed. The ordinance also must contain an expenditure plan including the allocation of revenues for the purposes authorized by law. The expenditure plan language included in the attached draft Ordinance document is a summary version of the Initial Draft Expenditure Plan report, as revised in response to comments received on the draft plan and direction provided by the Working Group. The Expenditure Plan will become a companion document to the Ordinance, incorporated by reference in the Ordinance. Discussion Summary of Major Ordinance Provisions The attached Ordinance is based on the "Initial Draft TansNet Extension Expenditure Plan and Key Ordinance Provisions" report and has been developed to respond to comments that have been received to date on that report. A variety of comments have been received on the projects and programs contained in that report. In general, the focus of the comments has been on increased funding levels for the specific projects or programs of interest to the group or individual ma king the comment. There have been relatively few comments received related to new projects or programs not included in the Initial Draft Expenditure Plan. Attachment 2 provides a summary of the revised Expenditure Plan, including a Proposition 42 guarantee mechanism, as well 7 as an updated set of tables listing the specific highway and transit Congestion Relief projects. Several optional approaches to the Proposition 42 guarantee were reviewed by the Working Group in evaluating the trade- offs needed to provide additional financial resources for the local street and road portion of the program. The following are the major considerations reflected in the Ordinance based on comments received to date, some of the outstanding issues that need to be addressed, and optional approaches for the Board to consider: Congestion Relief Projects - A few comments have been received regarding adding new projects to the Initial Draft Expenditure Plan project list. There have been general comments about the need for more funding for highway projects and more funding for transit projects, as well as less funding for transit. Efforts have been made to refine the cost estimates for all of the projects on the Congestion Relief project list. The operating funding needs for the transit projects on the Congestion Relief project list have been reduced reflecting higher assumed fare revenue on these routes, consistent with the adopted Regional Transit Vision. In order to generate the revenue needed to guarantee the Proposition 42 "Backfill" concept discussed below, two BRT routes have been eliminated and some of the highway project limits have been reduced. Attachment 2 includes a revised set of tables reflecting the cost estimates for each of the major Congestion Relief projects. Updated maps will be provided at the Board meeting. These cost estimates also have been revised to deduct the habitat-related environmental mitigation costs of these projects that are to be funded as part of the separate Transportation Environmental Mitigation Program. The set aside for financing costs has been included in the overall budget for the Congestion Relief program category, along with the Proposition 42 Revenue Protection Fund. 2. Local Street and Road Formula Proaram - Several comments have been received about the proposed reduced level of TransNet funding for this program as compared to the current TransNet program. Concerns have been expressed about the uncertainty of alternative funding from Proposition 42 and the impacts to the local street and road programs if those funds do not materialize as projected. A) Proposition 42 "Backfill" Guarantee - In response to these concerns, the draft Ordinance contains provisions for a guaranteed funding level under TransNet should the estimated revenues from Proposition 42 beginning in Fiscal Year 2009 not be available. The "backfill" mechanism would increase the funding provided for local programs from 18% up to the 33% equivalent level provided for in the current TransNet program by shifting funding as needed on an annual basis from the Congestion Relief project category to the local street and road program should the sum of the TransNet funds and Proposition 42 funds in a given year fall below the equivalent 33% TransNet share level for each jurisdiction. As discussed above, the Congestion Relief project costs have been reduced to establish a $500 million Proposition 42 Revenue Protection Fund to guarantee the funding backfill for approximately ten years of potential Proposition 42 suspensions. If these funds are not required for the backfill, the Board would have the opportunity at the 10- year review to consider allocating funds to new Congestion Relief projects. . Option to the Proposition 42 Backfill - Another option discussed by the Working Group was to drop the entire Proposition 42 backfill concept and simply add SANDAG Board of Directors February 27,2004 - Agenda Item 11 (ACCEPT FOR DISTRIBUTION) 8 the $500 million the Proposition 42 Revenue Protection Fund into the funding for the Local Street and Road formula program. B) Increase Street and Road Share to 33% - Some concerns have been expressed by local agencies that the Proposition 42 backfill is not sufficient and that nothing short of the same 33% share of the total TransNet revenues provided in the current measure will be acceptable. The initial draft Expenditure Plan was based on the voter opinion research conducted during 2003 which clearly indicated that focusing a major share of the TransNet funding on major corridor congestion relief projects was the key to achieving the necessary two-thirds vote threshold. A total of $500 million has already been deducted from the Congestion Relief projects included in the initial draft Expenditure Plan to establish the Proposition 42 Revenue Protection Fund described above. To bring the total Local Program share up to 33%, approximately another $1 billion in TransNet funds would need to be shifted from other projects and programs in the Expenditure Plan. Because of the 50/50 match assumptions for the Congestion Relief projects, to free up $1 billion in TransNet funds from the Congestion Relief projects, a total of $2 billion in construction costs would need to be reduced from the projects identified in Attachment 2. The following are two optional ways of adjusting the proposed Expenditure Plan to shift more funding into local programs. . Option: Shifting Highway Improvements to Local Programs - As mentioned above, a total of $2 billion in highway improvements - or about one- third of the total highway project list, would have to be eliminated to raise the local street and road share to 33%. In considering how to approach cuts of that magnitude, an attempt was made to preserve improvements to the highest volume routes experiencing the most severe congestion problems. Under such a scenario, improvements could only be retained for the 1-1 5 corridor, the 1-805 corridor, and the 1-5 corridor, with the exception of any improvements south of SR 54. All other improvements would have to be eliminated. Improvements to Local Programs - To increase local programs to 33% by reducing funding for the transit projects on the Congestion Relief project list, a total of $2 billion in capital project costs would have to be eliminated - or about 75% of the entire transit project list. Alternatively, funding could be taken from the operating component of the Congestion Relief program in order to build a greater share of the proposed transit projects; however, balance would need to be maintained so that sufficient funds would be available to operate the reduced list of transit projects to be constructed. As an example, to revise the transit project list as shown in Attachment 2 to free up $1 billion in TransNet funds, a scenario was developed that focused on preserving and enhancing the investment that has been made in the regional rail network in order to maintain and increase the high ridership levels on such services. Under such a scenario, the proposed capital improvements to the Coaster commuter rail line and the Blue, Orange, and Mid-Coast lines of the Trolley could be retained, . Option: Shifting Transit SANDAG Board of Directors February 27, 2004 -Agenda Item 11 (ACCEPT FOR DISTRIBUTION) 9 6 along with one BRT route such as the proposed Super Loop serving the U.C. San DiegoNniversity Towne Center area or the BRT route serving SDSU and Downtown San Diego along the El Cajon BlvdJPark Blvd. Corridor. A// other proposed BRT improvements and improvements to the Sprinter line would have to be eliminated. Revisions to Local Program Structure - Formula versus Competitive Grants - Based on comments received from the local agencies, the draft Ordinance has been revised to allocate the Regional ArteriaVGrade Separation Program funding on a formula basis rather than as a competitive grant program. Similarly, one-half of the funding from the Livable Communities Program (2% of total annual revenues) would be allocated to each jurisdiction using the local street and road formula rather than allocating these funds through a competitive grant process. The remaining share of the Livable Communities Program (2%) would continue as a regional competitive program as proposed in the initial draft Expenditure Plan. It is important to note that the draft Ordinance requires that the same amount of funds be expended for these purposes as was provided in the initial draft Expenditure Plan. Regardless of the distribution approach, the funds for these programs would have to be spent in a manner consistent with regional criteria to be established for these purposes. . Option to the Distribution of Funds Within the Livable Communities Program - As described above and reflected in the draft Ordinance, the 4% of total funds allocated for the Livable Communities Program 3. would be distributed half by formula and half by competitive grants. Since the Livable Communities Program funds are further subdivided with 50% (or 2% of total annual funding) allocated for the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Neighborhood Safety Program and 50% for the Smart Growth Incentive Program, these two programs also would be allocated half by formula and half by competitive grants the way the Ordinance is currently written. One option would be to allocate all of one program by formula and the all of the other by discretionary grants. This would have no change on the total dollar amount being allocated by formula, but may make the programs easier to administer. The current TransNet program has been allocating the $1 million per year for bicycle projects on a competitive grant basis. Allocating the 2% Bicycle, Pedestrian and Neighborhood Safety Program funds (estimated at about $5 million per year) on a competitive grant basis would maintain the tradition that has been established. Transit Proarams -There have been requests to both increase and decrease the funding provided to transit. Those commenting that the funding level for transit should be increased have been interested in expanding the basic bus and rail system, particularly in the area of in creased I oca I corn mu n ity shuttldcirculator services, and in providing additional services for seniors and persons with disabilities. Those commenting that the transit funding levels should be decreased were primarily interested in seeing the funding shifted to other purposes like highways and local streets and roads. As discussed above, transit costs in the Congestion Relief SANDAG Board of Directors February 27, 2004 -Agenda Item 11 (ACCEPT FOR DISTRIBUTION) 10 7 4. 5. category have been reduced to provide the funding needed to establish a Proposition 42 Revenue Protection Fund for local streets and roads. A similar Proposition 42 "backfill" mechanism has been included in the draft Ordinance for transit operating funding. If the estimated increase in transit operating funding from Proposition 42 to be used for improving the base bus and trolley system does not materialize, then funds would be shifted from the Congestion Relief project category to increase the funding for ongoing transit operations from 13% up to 16%. This backfill mechanism would not be included under the option described above where the funding from the Proposition 42 Revenue Protection Fund would be allocated through the local street and road formula. The distribution of the transit program funding has been further refined in the draft Ordinance based on the recommendations of the Senior Access Task Force. TransDortation Environmental Mitiaation Proaram - Several meetings with resource agencies and other interested groups and organizations have been held regarding this issue. The discussions have focused on the funding level for the environmental mitigation program and several issues related to the implementation of the proposed mitigation program. Based on these discussions, a recommended funding level of $550 million has been included in the Ordinance and a set of Principles have been developed related to the administration of the program, as shown in Attachment 3. These Principles are referenced in the Ordinance. These recommendations for the draft Ordinance will be further discussed at the Board meeting. Included as Attachment 4 is a description of the environmental enhancements proposed for SR 67, SR 76, and the eastern segment of SR 94. Private Developer FundinaAmpact Fees - Discussions related to how best to 6. 7. 8. strengthen the language related to private developer fees are continuing. The basic concept under discussion is to add a requirement that each jurisdiction collect a regional transportation impact fee or equivalent exaction for new residential development in order to be eligible for receipt of TransNet funds for local streets and roads. A fee, or equivalent exaction, in the range of $2,000 per residential dwelling unit is being discussed. If a jurisdiction can demonstrate that fees or exactions are already being collected for regional facilities, then a credit would be allowed. The status of these discussions and any potential recommendations will also be discussed at the meeting. Oversiaht Committee - A provision related to the new Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee has been included in the draft Ordinance. The Ordinance refers to a more detailed Statement of Understanding regarding the Oversight Committee, which is included as Attachment 5. Prioritv for Remainina Projects from the Current TransNet Proaram - In response to concerns raised about the timing of implementation of key projects, particularly those projects which may remain uncompleted from the current TransNet program (SR 52, SR 76, and the Mid-Coast Transit project), language has been added to give priority to those projects. To guarantee that those projects would be able to be implemented as soon as possible, the provision states that sufficient bonding capacity shall be reserved for these projects until they are ready to go. Ordinance Amendment Procedures -the draft Ordinance (Section 16) allows for the Ordinance to be amended by a two- thirds vote of the Board. Several concerns have been raised regarding various provisions that should not be subject to change. The draft Ordinance language was written to provide a measure of SANDAG Board of Directors February 27, 2004 -Agenda Item 11 (ACCEPT FOR DISTRIBUTION) 11 flexibility in recognition of the possibility that circumstances and regional priorities could change between now and 2038. The specific areas that have been discussed for exclusion from these amendment procedures are: . Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) - Concerns have been raised that the ITOC requirement should not be amendable. By adding the phrase "With the exception of Section 11," at the beginning of Section 16, the ITOC requirement could be further safeguarded by requiring a majority vote of the electorate to delete the requirement. Since the details on the ITOC are contained in the separate "Statement of Understanding," there is some flexibility provided to make changes over time to some of the administrative details of the ITOC if needed. . Projects on the Congestion Relief Project List - Concerns have been raised about locking the specific projects identified in the Expenditure Plan. One option that has been discussed to provide additional safeguards in this area is to allow for a two-thirds vote of the Commission, but to add language to the effect that, in order to delete one of the specified Congestion Relief projects, the concurrence of each local jurisdiction directly affected by the project must be obtained. . Distribution of Funds in the Expenditure Plan - Comments also have been received regarding locking in the percentage distribution of funds specified in Section 4. This could be addressed by excluding that section from the amendment provisions similar to the language suggested for the ITOC. The result of such changes to the amendment provisions would be a significant reduction in the Commission's ability to address changes in the region's needs and priorities in the future, but would provide a greater degree of assurance that the projects included in the Expenditure Plan would not be changed. If too many of the Ordinance provisions are "locked in", the concept of the 10-year review process could be called into question. Actual experience on the current TransNet has shown a minimal amount of changes to the Ordinance over the last 16 years. Based on the Board's direction, changes will be made to the draft Ordinance and Expenditure Plan and the related attachments prior to distribution of the material. GARY L. GALLEGOS Executive Director Attachments Key Staff Contact: Craig Scott (619) 699-1926; csc@sandag.org Funds are budgeted in Work Element #11102 SANDAG Board of Directors February 27,2004 -Agenda Item 11 (ACCEPT FOR DISTRIBUTION) 12 Attachment 1 Attachment 1 INITIAL DRAFT TransNet Extension ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE PLAN The San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission ordains as follows: SECTION 1. TITLE: This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the San Diego Transportation Improvement Program Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (Commission Ordinance 04-l), hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance. This Ordinance provides for an extension of the retail transactions and use tax implemented by the initial San Diego Transportation Improvement Program Ordinance (Commission Ordinance 87-1 - Proposition A, 1987) for a thirty year period commencing on April 1, 2008. The Expenditure Plan for this extension is set forth in Sections 2 and 4 herein. SECTION 2. EXPENDITURE PIAN SUMMARY: This ordinance provides for the implementation of the Sari Diego Transportation Improvement Program, which will result in countywide transportation facility and service improvements including highway improvements, rail transit improvements, new bus rapid transit services, local bus service improvements, senior and disabled transportation service improvements, local street and road improvements, bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements, community infrastructure improvements to support smart growth development, and related environmental mitigation and enhancement projects. These needed improvements shall be funded by a one-half of one percent transactions and use tax established for a period not to exceed thirty years. The revenues shall be deposited in a special fund and used solely for the identified improvements. The specific projects and programs to be funded shall be further described in the document titled "TransNet Extension Expenditure Plan Analysis", which is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. Any ancillary proceeds resulting from the implementation of the San Diego Transportation Improvement Program shall be used for transportation improvement projects in the San Diego region. A summary of the major projects and programs, including the major highway and transit improvements depicted on Figure 1, [Note: Figure 1 will be a black and white version of the major capital improvements regionwide] is provided in the following sections. All dollar references in this ordinance are in 2002 dollars. A. Congestion Relief Projects 1. Hiahwav and transit capital proiects: Of the total funds available, an estimated $4,300 million will be used to match an estimated $4,485 million in federal, state, local and other revenues to complete the projects listed below (see Figure 1). The costs shown include the total estimated implementation costs of each project net of habitat-related environmental mitigation costs for those transportation projects which are funded under Section 2(D). Three of the highway projects listed below (SR 67, SR 76, and a portion of SR 94) are described as including environmental enhancements, as further described in the document titled "Environmental Enhancement Criteria for Mitigating Highway 67, 76 and 95 Expansion Projects", which in hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. a. Hiahwav Capital Improvements (including managed lane/high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane additions and general purpose lane additions) - $6,150 million: 1. Interstate 5 South: Add two HOV lanes from 1-8 to SR 905 - $722 million. 13 2. Interstate 5 North: Add four managed lanes from 1-805 to SR 78, including HOV to HOV connectors at the 1-5/1-805 interchange and freeway connectors at the I-5/SR 56 and I-5/SR 78 interchanges - $1,144 million. 3. Interstate 8: Add two general purpose lanes from Second Street to Los Coches Road - $29 million. 4. Interstate 15: Add four managed lanes from SR 78 to Centre City Parkway in Escondido and from SR 56 to SR 163 and add two HOV lanes from SR 163 to SR 94, including HOV to HOV connectors at the I-l5/SR 78 and I-l5/SR 94 interchanges - $882 million. 5. Interstate 805: Add four managed lanes from 1-5 to SR 54 and two reversible HOV lanes from SR 54 to SR 905, including HOV to HOV connectors at the I-805/SR 52 interchange and improvements at the I- 805/SR 54 interchange - $1,371 million. 6. SR 52: Construct four-lane freeway from SR 125 to SR 67, add two general purpose lanes and two reversible managed lanes from 1-15 to SR 125, and add two HOV lanes from 1-805 to 1-15 - 8476 million. 7. SR 67: Expand to a continuous four-lane facility, including environmental enhancements, from Mapleview Street to Dye Road - $218 million. 8. SR 75/SR 282: Provide matching funds for construction purposes only for a tunnel from Glorietta Boulevard to Alameda Boulevard - $25 million. 9. SR 76: Add two general purposes lanes from Melrose Drive to 1-15, including environmental enhancements from Mission Road to 1-15 - $164 million. 10. SR 78: Add two HOV lanes in high priority segments from 1-5 to 1-15 - $405 million. 11. SR 94/SR 125: Add two HOV lanes from 1-5 to 1-8, including freeway connectors at the SR94/SR 125 interchange - $601 million. 12. SR 94: Widen to six lanes from SR 125 to Avocado Boulevard and expand to a continuous four-lane facility from Avocado Boulevard to Steele Canyon Road, including environmental enhancements from Jamacha Road to Steele Canyon Road - $88 million. 13. Border Access Improvements: Provide matching construction funds for access improvements in the international border area - $25 million. b. Bus Rapid Transit (BRn and Rail Transit Capital lmwovements - $2,635 million: 14 1. BRT service from Escondido to Downtown San Diego using the I-15/SR 94 managed/HOV facilities, including new and improved stations and direct access ramps - $359 million. 2. BRT service from Escondido to Sorrento Mesa using the managed lane facility on 1-15 - 860 million. 3. BRT service from Otay Mesa to Downtown San Diego using I-805/SR 94 managed/HOV lane facilities, including new stations and direct access ramps - $487 million. 4. BRT service from San Ysidro to Sorrento Mesa using the managed/HOV lane facilities on 1-805/1-15/SR52 including station improvements - $60 million. 5. Blue Line Light Rail Transit improvements including station enhancements, signal upgrades, conversion to low-floor vehicles and grade separations in Chula Vista - $268 million. 6. Mid-Coast Transit Guideway Improvement Project using light rail technology to provide high-level transit service along the 1-5 corridor from the Old Town area to the U.C. San Diego/University Towne Center area, would rely on federal funding. Absent this federal funding, then bus technology may be considered for the high level service planned for this corridor - $660 million. 7. Super Loop providing high quality connections to locations in the greater U. C. San DiegoNniversity Towne Center area, including arterial improvements with bus priority treatments, stations and vehicles - $20 million. 8. North 1-5 Corridor Coaster/BRT service providing high quality north-south transit service improvements by upgrading the Coaster commuter rail tracks and stations, providing BRT service in the El Camino Real corridor, or a combination of the two - $376 million. 9. Orange Line Light Rail Transit improvements including station enhancements, signal upgrades and conversion to low-floor vehicles - $69 million. 10. SR 78 Corridor Sprinter/BRT service providing high-quality east-west transit service improvements by upgrading and extending the Sprinter rail line, providing BRT service along the Palomar Airport Road corridor, or a combination of the two - $197 million. 11. BRT service from San Diego State University to Downtown San Diego along the El Cajon Boulevard/Park Boulevard corridor with arterial improvements with bus priority treatments, stations and vehicles - $79 million. 15 2. Operatina SUDDO~~ for the BRT and Rail Transit Capital Improvements: Of the total funds available, an estimated $720 million will be used to operate the new services to be constructed under Section 2 (A) (1) (b). 3, Financina Costs: An estimated $380 million will be used to offset the estimated financing costs related to bonds issued to accelerate the implementation of the major Congestion Relief projects identified in Section 2(A). 4. Proposition 42 Revenue Protection Fund: An estimated $500 million will be used, as needed, to offset reductions in revenue expected to come from Proposition 42 (Transportation Congestion Improvement Act approved on March 5, 2002) beginning in Fiscal Year 2009 for local street and road and transit operating purposes as provided in Sections 4(C)(4) and 4(D)(4). B. Transit Programs An estimated $1,235 million will be used to provide ongoing support for the reduced-price monthly transit programs for seniors, persons with disabilities and students and for other rail, express bus, local bus, community shuttles and dial-a-ride services, including specialized services for seniors and persons with disabilities, and related capital improvements. C. Local Programs An estimated total of 61,710 million will be allocated to local programs in the following three categories: 1. Local Street and Road Proaram. An estimated $950 million will be allocated on a fair and equitable basis (Section 4(D)(a)) to each city and the County of San Diego (hereinafter referred to as local agencies) to supplement other revenues available for local street and road improvements. Revenues used for local street and raad improvements are limited to direct expenditures for maintenance, rehabilitation and reconstruction of roadways, traffic operations improvements, and construction of new or expanded facilities. These funds also may be used for transit-related purposes including capital improvements needed to accommodate transit services and operating support for local shuttle and circulator routes and other services. 2. Regional Arterials and Grade Separations. An estimated $380 million will be allocated on a fair and equitable basis to local agencies (Section 4(D)(a)) for the implementation of improvements to the Regional Arterial System as identified in the Regional Transportation Plan to provide for congestion relief, improved safety, traffic signal coordination, integration of BRT and other transit services, and related benefits. This funding may also be made available for high-priority rail grade crossing projects in addition to those included in the specific rail transit Congestion Relief Projects identified in Section Z(A)(l)(b). It is intended that these funds be used to match federal, state, local, and private funding to maximize the number of improvements to be implemented. 3. Livable Communities Incentive Proarams. An estimated $380 million will be allocated in equal parts to two categories of transportation-related improvements. The Bicycle, Pedestrian and Neighborhood Safety Program will provide funding for bikeway 16 facilities and connectivity improvements, pedestrian and walkable community projects, bicycle and pedestrian safety projects and programs, and traffic calming projects. The Smart Growth Incentive Program will provide funding for a broad array of transportation-related infrastructure improvements that will assist local agencies in better integrating transportation and land use, such as enhancements to streets and public places, funding of infrastructure needed to support development in smart growth opportunity areas consistent with the Regional Comprehensive Plan, and community planning efforts related to smart growth and improved: land usefiransportation coordination. Of the total funding provided for these purposes, fifty percent shall be allocated on a fair and equitable basis to local agencies (Section 4(D)(a)) and fifty percent shall be allocated on a regional competitive grant basis. It is intended that these funds be used to match federal, state, local, and private funding to maximize the number of improvements to be implemented. D. Transportation Project Environmental Mitigation An estimated $550 million will be used to fund habitat-related environmental mitigation activities required in the implementation of the major highway, transit and regional arterial improvements identified in the Regional Transportation Plan. Of this total, up to $25 million also may be used to fund mitigation requirements for local transportation projects. The intent is to establish a program to provide for large-scale acquisition and management of critical habitat areas and to create a reliable approach for funding required mitigation for future transportation improvements thereby reducing future costs and accelerating project delivery. This approach would be implemented by obtaining coverage for transportation projects through existing and proposed multiple species conservation plans. If this approach cannot be fully implemented, then these funds shall be used for environmental mitigation purposes on a project by project basis. Additional detail regarding this program is described in the document titled "TransNet Extension Environmental Mitigation Program Principles", which is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. E. Administration and Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee Up to one percent per year of the total annual revenues available will be used for administrative expenses and up to $250,000 per year will be used for the operation of an Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee. SECTION 3. IMPOSITION OF TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX: In addition to any other taxes authorized by law, there is hereby imposed in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of San Diego, in accordance with the provisions of Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and Division 12.7 of the Public Utilities Code commencing with Code Section 132000, an extension of the existing transactions and use tax at the rate of one-half of one percent (1/2%) commencing April 1, 2008 for a period not to exceed thirty years in addition to any existing or future authorized state or local transactions and use tax. If, during this time period, additional state or federal funds become available which would fund the projects and services contained in the Regional Transportation Plan, then the tax may be reduced by action of the Commission. SECTION 4. EXPENDITURE PLAN PURPOSES: The revenues received by the Commission from this measure, after deduction of required Board of Equalization costs for performing the functions specified in Section 132304(b) of the Public Utilities Code, shall be used to impyove transportation 17 facilities and services countywide as set forth in the Expenditure Plan and in a manner consistent with the long-range Regional Transportation Plan and the short-range, multi-year Regional Transportation improvement Program, and for the administration of the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') commencing with Public Utilities Code Section 132000. The annual revenues shall be allocated as follows: A. Fiw-four and one-half percent for the major highway and transit Congestion Relief projects specified in Section 2(A) (11, including related financing costs specified in Section 2(A)(3) and the Proposition 42 Revenue Protection Fund specified in Section 2(A)(4). B. Seven and six-tenths percent for operation of the specific transit Congestion Relief projects as described in Section 2(A) (2). This funding is for the operation of new or expanded services only and is not available for the operation of services in existence prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. c. Thirteen percent for the transit programs described in Section 2(B). The revenues made available annually for transit purposes shall be allocated and expended pursuant to the fol I ow i n g distribution for mu la and prior it ies: 1. Three percent of the funds made available under Section 4(C) shall be used to support improved transportation services for seniors and disabled persons. These funds shall be used to support specialized paratransit services required by the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 2. Four percent of the funds made available under Section 4(C) shall be used to support a competitive grant program for nonprofit organizations and local agencies. The funds shall be used to provide specialized transportation services for seniors focusing on innovative and cost-effective approaches to providing improved senior transportation, including, but not limited to, shared group services, special shuttle services using volunteer forces, and brokerage of multi-jurisdictional transportation services. 3. From the remaining revenues, there shall be expended such sums as necessary to guarantee in the North San Diego County Transit Development Board and Metropolitan Transit Development Board areas of jurisdiction for the duration of the measure (1) a monthly regional transit pass for senior (60 years or older) and disabled riders priced at not more than 25 percent of the cost of the regular regional monthly transit pass, and (2) a monthly regional youth transit pass for students (18 years or under) priced at not more than 50 percent of the cost of the regular regional monthly transit pass. 4. Remaining revenues shall be allocated for transit service improvements, including operations and supporting capital improvements. The revenues shall be allocated through the annual transit operator budget process and the improvements to be funded shall be consistent with the Short Range Transit Plan. 5. To maintain eligibility for the receipt of funds under Section 4(C), a transit operator must limit the increase in its total operating cost per revenue vehicle hour from one fiscal year to the next to no more than the increase in the Consumer Price Index for San Diego County over the same period. If the requirement is not achieved, the operator may not receive any additional funding under Section 4(C) in the following year above 18 the amount received in the previous fiscal year. If there were unusual circumstances in a given fiscal year, the operator may request the approval of the'Commission to calculate the requirement as an average over the previous three fiscal years. The operator may also request the approval of the Commission to exclude from the calculation certain cost increases that were due to external events entirely beyond the operator's control, including, but not limited to, increases in the costs for fuel, insurance premiums, or new state or federal mandates. 6. The funding level established for this program is based on the assumption that additional funding for transit operations will be available from Proposition 42 (Transportation Congestion Improvement Act approved on March 5, 2002) beginning in Fiscal Year 2009 that, when combined with revenues under Section 4(C), would provide for improvements to the base level of bus and rail services in the region. If the anticipated revenues are not available in a given fiscal year from Proposition 42, or other new revenue sources established after the operative date of this Ordinance, then the funding provided under Section 4(C) shall be increased from thirteen up to sixteen percent. These additional funds shall be deducted from the funds provided under Section 4(A). D. Eighteen percent for the Local Programs described in Section 2(C) in the following three categories: 1. Ten percent for the local street and road program described in Section 2(C)(1). The revenues available for the local street and road program shall be allocated and expended pursuant to the following distribution formula: a. Each local agency shall receive an annual base sum of $50,000. b. The remaining revenues after the base sum distribution shall be distributed to the each local agency on the following basis: 1. Two-thirds based on total population using the most recent Department of Finance population estimates. 2. One-third based on maintained street and road mileage. c. For the purposes of Section 4D(l)(a) and (b), any new incorporations or annexations which take place after July 1 of any fiscal year shall be incorporated into the formula beginning with the subsequent fiscal year. The San Diego Association of Governments population estimates of such new incorporations or annexations shall be used until such time as Department of Finance population estimates are available. 2. Four percent for the regional arterial and grade separation program as described in Section 2(C)(2). The funds shall be allocated pursuant to the formula specified in Section 4(D)(1). Jurisdictions may enter into cooperative agreements as provided under Section 7 to exchange funds under this section for funds provided under Sections 4(D)(1) or 4(D)(3) provided that the total amount of funding allocated under this section are spent for the specified purposes over the duration of the measure and over each fen year period. 19 3. Four percent for the livable communities incentive programs as described in Section 2(C)(3), with fifty percent allocated for the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Neighborhood Safety Program and fif?y percent for the Smart Growth Incentive Program. Of the funds allocated for each of these programs, fifty percent shall be allocated pursuant to the formula specified in Section 4(D)(1) and fifty percent shall be allocated on a regional competitive grant basis. Jurisdictions may enter into cooperative agreements as provided under Section 7 to exchange funds under this section for funds provided under Sections 4(D)(1) or 4(D)(3) provided that the total amount of funding allocated under this section are spent for the specified purposes over the duration of the measure and over each ten year period. 4. The funding level established for this program was based on the assumption that additional funding for local street and road purposes would be available from Proposition 42 (Transportation Congestion improvement Act approved on March 5, 2002) that, when combined with revenues under Section 4(D), would provide for an increase in overall funding for street and road purposes for the local agencies in the region. If the anticipated revenues are not available in a given fiscal year from Proposition 42, or other new revenue sources established after the operative date of this Ordinance, then the funding provided under Section 4(D) shall be increased up to thirty-three percent. These additional funds shall be deducted from the funds provided under Section 4(A) and shall augment the funds to be distributed under Section 4(D)(1). E. Five and eight-tenths percent for the Transportation Project Environmental Mitigation program described in Section 2(D). F. Up to 1% for administration of the program as described in Section 12. G. Up to $250,000 per year, with adjustments for inflation based on the Consumer Price Index for San Diego County, for activities related to the independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee as described in Section 11. H. General Provisions: 1. in implementing the projects funded under Section 4(A), priority shall be given to projects included in the Expenditure Plan for Proposition A as passed by the voters in 1987 that remain uncompleted. The Commission shall ensure that sufficient funding or bonding capacity remain available to implement such projects as expeditiously as possible once the environmental clearance for these projects is obtained and needed state and federal matching funds are committed. 2. Once any state highway facility or usable portion thereof is constructed to at least minimum acceptable state standards, the state shall be responsible for the maintenance and operation thereof. 3. All new projects, or major reconstruction projects, funded by revenues provided under this Ordinance shall accommodate travel by pedestrians and bicyclists, except where pedestrians and bicyclists are prohibited by law from using a given facility or where the costs of including bikeways and walkways would be excessively disproportionate to the 20 need or probable use. Such facilities for pedestrian and bicycle use shall be designed to the best currently available standards and guidelines. 4. All state highway improvements to be funded with revenues as provided in this measure, including project development and overall project management, shall be a joint responsibility of Caltrans and the Commission. All major project approval actions including the project concept, the project location, and any subsequent change in project scope shall be jointly agreed upon by Caltrans and the Commission and, .where appropriate, by the Federal Highway Administration and/or the California Transportation Commission. SECTION 5. EXPENDITURE PLAN PROCEDURES: A. Each local agency shall annually develop a five-year list of projects to be funded with revenues made available for local street and road improvements under Section 4(D). A local public hearing on the proposed list of projects shall be held by each local agency prior to submitting the project list to the Commission for approval pursuant to Section 6. B. All projects to be funded with revenues made available under Section 4 must be consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Project priorities or phasing shall also be consistent with the RTP. The Expenditure Plan shall be reviewed for consistency with RTP following each major update of the RTP as required by state or federal law. The Expenditure Plan shall be amended as necessary to maintain consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan. If funds become available in excess of the amount allocated in the Expenditure Plan, additional projects shall be added to the Expenditure Plan consistent with the priorities in the Regional Transportation Plan. Any amendments to the Expenditure Plan shall be made in accordance with the procedures for amending this ordinance as provided for in Section 16. C. In the allocation of all revenues made available under Section 4, the Commission shall make every effort to maximize state and federal transportation funding to the region. The Commission may amend the Expenditure Plan, in accordance with Section 16, as needed to maximize the transportation funding to the San Diego region. SECTION 6. PROJECT PROGRAMMING APPROVAL: The Commission shall annually approve a five-year project list and a biennial program of projects to be funded during the succeeding two fiscal years with the revenues made available under Section 4 herein. The program of projects will be prepared as a part of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) process as required by state and federal law. A public hearing will be held prior to approval of the program of projects. The Commission may amend the program of projects as necessary in accordance with the RTIP amendment procedures. No major projects shall be funded with the revenues made available under Section 4 unless the projects are in the approved program of projects. SECTION 7. COOPERATIVE FUND AGREEMENTS: Except as provided for herein, the distribution of funds as set forth in Section 4 shall be met over the duration of the measure. To maximize the effective use of funds, revenues may be transferred or exchanged under the following circumstances: A. The Commission, or agencies receiving funds by annual or multi-year agreement, may exchange or loan funds provided that the percentage of funds allocated for each purpose as provided in Section 4 is maintained over the duration of the measure and over each 10-year 21 period as described in Section 17. All proposed exchanges, including agreements between agencies to exchange or loan funds, must include detailed fund repayment provisions, including appropriate interest earnings such that the Commission suffers no loss of funds as a result of the exchange or loan. All exchanges must be approved by the Commission and shall be consistent with any and all rules approved by the Commission relating thereto. B. The Commission may exchange revenues for federal, state, or other local funds allocated or granted to any public agency within or outside the area of jurisdiction of the Commission to maximize effectiveness in the use of revenues. Such federal, state, or local funds shall be distributed in the same manner as the revenues from the measure. SECTION 8. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT: It is the intent of the Legislature, as stated in the Act, and the Commission that revenues provided from this measure be used to augment, not supplant existing local revenues being used for the purposes set forth in Section 4 herein. Each local agency receiving revenues pursuant to Section 4(D) shall annually maintain as a minimum the same level of local discretionary funds expended for street and road purposes on average over the last three fiscal years completed prior to the operative date of this Ordinance (Fiscal Years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002- 03), as was reported in the State Controller's Annual Report of Financial Transactions for Streets and Roads and as verified by an independent auditor. The maintenance of effort level as determined through this process shall be subject to adjustment every three years based on the Construction Cost Index developed by Caltrans. The Commission shall not allocate any revenues pursuant to Section 4(D) to any eligible local agency in any fiscal year until that local agency has certified to the Commission that it will include in its budget for that fiscal year an amount of local discretionary funding for streets and roads purposes at least equal to the minimum maintenance of effort requirement. An annual independent audit shall be conducted to verify that the maintenance of effort requirement for each agency was met. Any local agency which does not meet its maintenance of effort requirement in any given year shall have its funding under Section 4(0)(1) reduced in the following year by the amount by which the agency did not meet its required maintenance of effort level. Any local street and road revenues not allocated pursuant to the maintenance of effort requirement shall be redistributed to the remaining eligible agencies according to the formula described in Section 4(D)(1). The maintenance of effort requirement also shall apply to any local agency discretionary funds being used for the other purposes specified under Section 4. SECTION 9. PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDING: Revenues provided from this measure shall not be used to replace private developer funding that has been or will be committed for any project, [Note: This is the language from the current Ordinance. Discussions are continuing related to the development of additional language to include in this section] SECTION 10. BONDING AUTHORITY: Upon voter approval of the ballot proposition to approve the imposition of the tax and the issuance of bonds payable from the proceeds of the tax, bonds may be issued by the Commission pursuant to Division 12.7 of the Public Utilities Code, at any time, and from time to time, payable from the proceeds of the tax and secured by a pledge of revenues from the proceeds of the tax, in order to finance and refinance improvements authorized by this Ordinance. The Commission, in allocating the annual revenues from the measure, shall meet all debt service requirements prior to allocating funds for other projects. SECTION 11. INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: An Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) shall be established to provide an enhanced level of accountability for expenditure made under the Expenditure Plan. The ITOC will help to ensure that all voter mandates are carried out as required and will develop recommendations for improvements to the financial 22 integrity and performance of the program. The roles and responsibilities of the ITOC, the selection process for ITOC members, and related administrative procedures are further described in the document titled "Statement of Understanding Regarding the Implementation of the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee for the TransNet Program" which is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 12. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES: Revenues may be expended by the Commission for staff salaries, wages, benefits, and overhead and those services including contractual services necessary to administer the Act; however, in no case shall such expenditures exceed one percent of the annual revenues provided by the measure. Any funds not utilized in a given fiscal year shall remain available for expenditure in subsequent fiscal years. Costs of performing or contracting for project related work shall be paid from the revenues allocated to the appropriate purpose as set forth in Section 4 herein. An annual independent audit shall be conducted through the Independent Taxpayers Oversight Committee to assure that the revenues expended by the Commission under this section are necessary and reasonable in carrying out its responsibilities under the Act. SECTION 13. ESTABLISHMENT OF SEPARATE ACCOUNTS: Each agency receiving funds pursuant to Section 4 shall have its funds deposited in a separate Transportation Improvement Account. Interest earned on funds allocated pursuant to this Ordinance shall be expended only for those purposes for which the funds were allocated. SECTION 14. IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES: Upon approval of this measure by the voters the Commission shall, in addition to the local rules required to be provided pursuant to this ordinance, adopt implementing ordinances, rules, and policies and take such other actions as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out its responsibilities. SECTION 15. EFFECTIVE AND OPERATIVE DATES: This Ordinance shall be operative on November 3, 2004 if one of the following events occurs: 1) two-thirds of the electors voting on the ballot proposition approving the ordinance vote to approve the ballot proposition on November 2, 2004; or 2) a law is passed on or before November 2, 2004 that lowers the voter approval threshold applicable to this Ordinance and the number of electors voting in favor of this Ordinance meets that threshold. The imposition of the tax authorized by this Ordinance shall be effective on April 1, 2008. Bonds payable from the proceeds of the tax may be issued at any time prior to, on or after April 1, 2008. Improvements authorized by this Ordinance that are not funded with the proceeds of bonds may not be funded until July 1,2008 or later. SECTION 16. AMENDMENTS: This ordinance may be amended to further its purposes by ordinance, passed by roll call vote entered in the minutes, with two-thirds of the Commission concurring consistent with the Commission's standard voting mechanism. Separate documents incorporated by reference in the Ordinance may be amended by a majority vote. SECTION 17. TEN-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM REVIEW: The Commission shall conduct a comprehensive review of all projects and programs implemented under the Expenditure Plan to evaluate the performance of the overall program over the previous ten years and to make revisions to the Expenditure Plan to improve its performance over the subsequent ten years. Revisions to the Ordinance and Expenditure Plan required as a result of the ten-year review shall be subject to the amendment process in Section 16. 23 SECTION 18. DESIGNATION OF FACILITIES: Each project or program in excess of $250,000 funded in whole or in part by revenues from the measure shall be clearly designated during its construction or implementation as being provided by revenues from the measure. SECTION 19. SEVERABILITY: If any section, part, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining portions shall not be affected but shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 20. ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT: Article XIII(B) of the California Constitution requires the establishment of an annual appropriations limit for certain governmental entities. The maximum annual appropriations limit for the Commission has been established as $- million. The appropriations limit shall be subject to adjustment as provided by law. All expenditures of the transactions and use tax revenues imposed in Section 3 are subject to the appropriations limit of the Commission. SECTION 21. DEFINITIONS: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. Commission. Means the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission created by Chapter 1576 of the Statutes of 1985 (Division 12.7 of the Public Utilities Code, commencing with Section 132000). Transit. Means all purposes necessary and convenient to the Construction, operation and maintenance of transit services and facilities including the acquisition of vehicles and right-of- way. Transit services include, but are not limited to, local and express bus, bus rapid transit (BRT), paratransit (dial-a-ride), light rail (trolley) and commuter rail services and facilities. Local Streets and Roads. Means all purposes necessary and convenient for the purposes as described in Section 2(C)(1). Highways. Means all purposes necessary and convenient to the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of highway facilities, including all state highway routes and any other facilities so designated in the Expenditure Plan. Bicycle and Pedestrian facilities. Means all purposes necessary and convenient to the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of facilities intended for use by bicycles and pedestrians. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities shall also mean facilities and programs that help to encourage walking and the use of bicycles, such as secure bicycle parking facilities and bicycle and pedestrian promotion and safety education programs. Bonds. Means indebtedness and securities of any kind or class, including but not limited to bonds, notes, revenue anticipation notes, commercial paper, and certificates of participation. Expenditure Plan. Means the expenditure plan required by Section 132302 of the Public Utilities Code to be included in the transactions and use tax ordinance to be approved by the Commission. The expenditure plan includes the allocation of revenues for each authorized purpose. Regional Transportation lmprovement Program. Means the five-year programming document required by Section 65080 of the Government Code to be prepared by the' San Diego Association of Governments as the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency. 24 21 I. Transit Operator. Means any transit district, included transit district, municipal operator, included municipal operator, or transit development board as defined in Public Utilities Code Section 99210. [Note: Other definitions to be added as needed based on legal review.] SECTION 22. EFFECT ON COMMISSION ORDINANCE 87-1: This Ordinance is intended to augment the provisions of Commission Ordinance 87-1, and shall not be read to supercede Commission Ordinance 87-1. If this Ordinance is not approved by the voters of San Diego County, the provisions of Commission Ordinance 87-1 and all powers, duties, and actions taken thereunder shall remain in full force and effect. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, the day of , 2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chairman STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DlEGO ) 1 5s I, Gary L. Gallegos, the Secretary of the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of an.,Ordinance adopted by the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission on , 2004 at the time and by the vote stated above, which said Ordinance is on file in the office of the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission. DATED: , 2004 Secretary 25 Attachment 2 Jercent of Total 62.1% 45.3% 7.6% 4.0% 5.2% Attachment 2 Total TransNet Requirement (30-Year Totals: $5,900 $4,300 $720 $380 $500 TransNet Expenditure Plan Summary 18.0% 10.0% 4.0% 4.0% 5.8% up to 1% 0.1 % 100.0% 100.0% (in millions of 2002 dollars) $1,71( $950 $380 $380 $550 $95 $7.5 $9,497 .! $9,500 Exaenditure Plan ComDonent Zongestion Relief Projects Highwayflransit Capital Projects (1) Project Specific Transit Operations (2) Financing Costs Proposition 42 Revenue Protection Fund (3) Transit Programs - Ongoing Senior/Disabled Passes and Services & Continuing Bus/Rail Support and Improvements Local Programs Local Street & Road Formula Program Regional ArteriaVGrade Separation Program (4) Livable Communities Incentive Program (4) Transportation Project Environmental Mitigation Administration Oversight Committee TOTAL TransNet Funding Requirement TOTAL TransNet Funds Available 13.0% $1,235 Exp. Plan $6,072 $4,715 same new same same $377 same same $9,500 same NOTES: 1. The Congestion Relief project cost estimates have been refined to reduce the TransNet requirement for capital projects to $4,300 million. In addition to relatively minor adjustments, major changes include adding SR 94 from SR 125 to Avocado Blvd., reducing funding for 1-5 north of SR 78, reducing funding on SR 78, and cutting BRT routes in the SR 52 and Genesee Ave. corridors. 2. The operating subsidy needs of the BRT and rail projects have been reduced to $720 million to reflect higher assumed fare revenues levels and the availability of FasTrak revenues from the expanded managed lane network. 3. Proposition 42 Revenue Protection Fund has been created by the funds reduced by the adjustments described in Notes 1 and 2. 4, The funding Regional ArteriallGrade Separation Program and half of the funding for the Livable Communities Program are to be allocated using the Local Street and Road program formula. Remaining Livable Communities Program funds will be allocated on a competitive grant basis. 26 23 P 0 g x 0 U c; W - - 0 00 tfi m - I= VI 8 W U 2 E d U 8 2 E F VI W - m C W w E 0 > C w W L .- 5 'c c 0 3 0 U W U C 3 W 'c n - - '5 is 0 c m c .- z 5 t: m m 8 - C .- .- b 5 W C U aJ -0 3 U c U .- - .- t: 8 C 0 c m m c .- .- .- E U 0) c 3 - e 4 B m 5 2 E m c r al w C a 0 C L - 5 8 CT 0 P a a 7 s m I .. N W 4 m - 5 C m I VI T T B 0 e 4 Ln N 0 -7- P $3 0" c r # C l- Y Y m a, c n E .- vi E 2 m E c .- L 0 .- h .- E - 0 P U Sn N w 8 m 5 ?! U .- U 0 P ; .- c m m m i/] m - C 4f a - I I I n E 2 m E x c .- b h .- - m .- L i! -0 C m >; 3 .c 0 ISI ni W U 2z al > A- 2 .- L - .- B Y d t; n m C 0 U al n m n s VI N W c 3 0 8 3 L c C - - .- c. al s 5 k U C z C W ul C W 8 m .- n E n 0 0 .- c z E n 5 5 .- 3 b 9 8 5 z P E 2 m E m .- L W L L wl .- Y- VI 2 $ 0 > .- 8 2 3 E h 5 c .- c 3 0 4 h IP Q Q1 wi x 3 s * C 0 5 C 2 al 0) W - m 2 K VI m a U U .c I- C. P 0 0 x x 0 pe 0 .- E VI V 0 8 8 P, su E2 0" WLJ I u E 99 J I ul h tft r tft 0 00 H 0 w ttl I W 0 0 N 2 Y W m c C .- E VI - % Y m W 0 C .- E 2 C m VI C B B .F + so nn 2 n- ul v 8 s a N .- E - 0 iu CT 32 - 0 H Attachment 3 Attachment 3 TransNet EXTENSION ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION PROGRAM (EMP) DRAFT PRINCIPLES Revised 2/5/04 1. The TransNet Extension Expenditure Plan will include a funding allocation category entitled "Transportation Project Environmental Mitigation Program." The Environmental Mitigation Program will include an allocation for the estimated direct costs for mitigation of upland and wetland habitat impacts for transportation projects included in the proposed TransNet Expenditure Plan, as well as for projects which are included in the adopted 2030 Regional Transportation Plan Mobility Network; of this total, up to $25 million may be spent on local transportation projects. The "mitigation costs," including land acquisition, restoration, management, and monitoring, are estimated at approximately $450 million. Funds for direct mitigation management and monitoring of these projects shall be placed into a "Regional Habitat Conservation Fund," where they can be used as partial funding for regional habitat management and monitoring activities related to implementation of the Multiple Species Conservation Plan, North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan, and future amendments thereto. 3. The Environmental Mitigation Program will also include a funding allocation for the estimated economic benefits of incorporating specified transportation projects into applicable habitat conservation plans, thereby allowing mitigation requirements for covered species to be fixed, and allowing mitigation requirements to be met through purchase of land in advance of need in larger blocks at a lower cost. The benefits of this approach are estimated at approximately $100 million. This amount will also be placed into the "Regional Habitat Conservation Fund," and will be made available for regional habitat acquisition, management and monitoring activities necessary to implement the regional habitat conservation plans described in Section 2 above. Therefore, the total initial funding for the Environmental Mitigation Program shall be set at $550 million. 4. In order to provide the economic'benefits of the proposed EMP, the participating local jurisdictions will apply for, and US Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game will process, any necessary amendments to the previously adopted Multiple Species Conservation Plan and related agreements and permits, to include RTP transportation projects as "covered projects" under this plan. For projects in the planning areas of the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan and proposed Multiple Species Conservation Program for unincorporated North County, the participating local jurisdictions will include RTP projects in their proposed plans and implementing agreements, and the wildlife agencies will process those plans and agreements so as to provide coverage for RTP projects. 5. The expenditure of funds included in this allocation category shall be phased over time in order to allow goals of regional habitat acquisition, management and monitoring to be met, while also meeting the requirements for individual transportation projects. In addition, mitigation land for projects in the planning area covered in the proposed MSCP plan for unincorporated North County shall be purchased within that planning area, while mitigation for projects in the 37 adopted MSCP and MHCP planning areas shall be purchased within those areas, unless otherwise approved by mutual consent of the parties to this agreement. As transportation projects are completed, if it is determined that the actual direct costs for mitigation of upland and wetland habitat impacts are less than those which were estimated in Section 2 above, those cost savings will be transferred to the "Regional Habitat Conservation Fund" described in Section 2, above. 6. In addition to the direct economic benefits associated with inclusion of these projects in the applicable habitat conservation plans, SANDAG and the wildlife agencies both recognize the value of expedited processing of environmental documents for individual transportation projects by all involved Federal, State, and regional agencies. Therefore, SANDAG and the wildlife agencies will actively support efforts to accomplish complete review of environmental documents within reduced timeframes. To the extent that the processing time required for such documents is reduced, the value of expedited processing shall be allocated equally between transportation-related expenditures and the "Regional Habitat Conservation Fund". 7. SANDAG agrees to act on additional regional funding measures (a ballot measure and/or other secure funding commitments) to meet the long-term requirements for implementing habitat conservation plans in the San Diego region within three years of passage of the TransNet Extension. In the event that such future funding measures generate adequate funding to meet regional habitat acquisition and management requirements, SANDAG is authorized to reallocate excess funds included in the "Regional Habitat Conservation Fund" to local transportation projects. 8. SANDAG will work with the wildlife agencies and permit holders under the existing regional habitat conservation plans to establish a regional entity that will be responsible for the allocation of funding included in the "Regional Habitat Conservation Fund" in accordance with the goals and policies of said plans. In addition, this entity will provide recommendations regarding the structure and content of future funding measures as described in Section 7 above. 38 3s Attach men t 4 Attachment 4 TransNet Expenditure Plan: Environmental Enhancement Criteria Mitigating Highway 67, 76, and 94 Expansion Impacts Segments of Highways SR 67, SR 76 and SR 94 are proposed for expansion from two to four lanes through funding identified in the TransNet Expenditure Plan. The proposed expansions will have substantial direct and indirect impacts to plant and animal species and to the regional wildlife movement corridors bisected by the roads. These corridors are essential "infrastructure" for our region's nationally-recognized habitat preservation plans. Very high levels of road kill are a significant existing condition on all of these highway segments, which could be exacerbated by the increased traffic along the expanded highways should they be widened. Direct and indirect impacts to sensitive plant and animal populations, and to the function of the wildlife corridors, should be mitigated in order to produce an on-site "net-benefit" to species and to the movement of wildlife along these wildlife corridors. In order to accomplish this objective, it is necessary that the adopted TransNet Expenditure Plan include policy language and directives that insures the "net benefit" mitigation standard is met. This will require a comprehensive baseline analysis of existing and future conditions, adoption of measures to mitigate direct and indirect impacts to species, adoption of measures to accommodate species-specific wildlife movement through the corridors, and implementation of capital project designs that can reduce impacts. Biological analysis and recommendations need to be consistent with MSCP and MHCP goals and objectives, data, and protocols. Analysis will commence at the time of, or prior to, TransNet funding availability. Key road segments: k SR67, Mapleview to Dye Road l+ SR76, Melrose to 1-15 k SR94, Jamacha Road to Steele Canyon Road 39 Attachment 5 Attach men t 5 DRAFT STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE FOR THE TRANSN€T PROGRAM Purpose of the ITOC The Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) is intended to provide an increased level of accountability for expenditures made under the TransNet Extension, in addition to the independent annual fiscal and compliance audits required under the existing TransNet program. The ITOC should function in an independent, open and transparent manner to ensure that all voter mandates are carried out as required in the Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, and to develop positive, constructive recommendations for improvements and enhancements to the financial integrity and performance of the TransNet program. intent of the ITOC as a Functional Partner to SANDAG The TransNet Ordinance contains a summary of the ITOC's role and responsibilities consistent with the above Purpose. In this document, additional and supplementary details with regard to the ITOC are delineated. These pertain to the process for selecting members of ITOC, terms and conditions governing membership, responsibilities, funding and administration, and conflict of interest provisions. . It is noteworthy that these details have been developed in a cooperative process between SANDAG and representatives of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, and with the involvement of other transportation professionals within the region. This document is understood to provide the basis for describing how the ITOC will function once the Ordinance is approved. In addition to the details outlined in this document the intent that provides the foundation for the desired partnership between ITOC and SANDAG, as viewed by the principal authors, is summarized as follows: Resource-it is the intent that the ITOC will serve as an independent resource to assist in SANDAG's implementation of TransNet projects and programs. The Committee's membership is designed to provide to SANDAG a group of professionals who, collectively, can offer SANDAG the benefit of their experience to advance the timely and efficient implementation of TransNet projects and programs. The ITOC will work in a public way to ensure all deliberations are conducted in an open manner. Regular reports from the ITOC to the SANDAG Board of Directors (or policy committees) are expected with regard to program and project delivery, and overa I I perfor ma nce. Productive-it is the intent that the ITOC will rely upon data and processes available at SANDAG, studies initiated by the ITOC, and other relevant data generated by reputable sources. It is understood, however, that SANDAG will be continuously striving to improve the reliability of data and to update analytical and modeling processes to be consistent with the state-of-the- 40 art, and that the ITOC will be kept abreast of any such efforts, and invited to participate in development of such updates in a review capacity. Cost-efficient-it is the intent that the ITOC will not add cost burden to SANDAG's implementation of the TransNet program and projects. Rather, through a cooperative and productive working relationship between ITOC and the SANDAG implementation team, it is the objective that costs will be saved. Flexible-it is the intent that the ITOC will assist SANDAG to be opportunistic to take advantage of changing situations in the future with regard to technologies and transportation developments. Therefore, the provisions contained below are viewed through 2038 based upon a 2004 perspective and are not meant to be unduly restrictive on ITOC's and SANDAG's roles and responsibilities. Membership and Selection Process 1. Membership: There shall be seven ITOC voting members with the characteristics described below. The intent is to have one member representing each of the specified areas of expertise. However, if, after a good faith effort, qualified individuals have not been identified for one or more of the areas of expertise, then no more than two members from one or more of the remaining areas of expertise may be selected. For each of the areas of expertise listed below, an individual representing one of the region's colleges or universities with a comparable level of academic experience also would be eligible for consideration. a A professional in the field of municipal/public finance and/or budgeting with a minimum of ten years in a relevant and senior decision making position in the public or private sector. A licensed architect, civil engineer or traffic engineer with demonstrated experience of ten years or more in the fields of transportation and/or urban design in government or the private sector. A professional with demonstrated experience of ten years or more in real estate, land economics, and/or right-of-way acquisition. A professional with demonstrated experience of ten years or more in the management of large-scale construction projects. A licensed engineer with appropriate credentials in the field of transportation project design or construction and a minimum of ten years experience in a relevant and senior decision making position in the government or private sector. The chief executive officer or person in a similar senior-level decision making position, of a major private sector employer with demonstrated experience in leading a large organization. A professional in biology or environmental science with demonstrated experience of ten years or more with environmental regulations and major project mitigation requirements and/or habitat acquisition and management. Ex-Officio Members: SANDAG Executive Director and the San Diego County Auditor The criteria established for the voting members of the ITOC are intended to provide the skills and experience needed for the ITOC to carry out its responsibilities and to play a valuable and 41 constructive role in the ongoing improvement and enhancement of the TransNet program. Applications will be requested from individuals interested in serving on the ITOC through an open, publicly noticed solicitation process. 2. Technical Screening Committee: A technical screening committee will be established to review applications received from interested individuals. This committee will consist of three members selected by the SANDAG Executive Director from high-level professional staff of local, regional, state or federal transportation agencies outside of the San Diego region, or from one of the region’s colleges or universities in a transportation-related field, or a combination thereof. The committee will develop a list of candidates determined to be qualified to serve on the ITOC based on the criteria established for the open position(s) on the ITOC. The technical screening committee will recommend two candidates for each open position from the list of qualified candidates for consideration by the Selection Committee. The recommendations shall be made within 30 days of the noticed closing date for applications. 3. Selection Committee: A selection committee shall be established to select the ITOC members from the list of qualified candidates recommended by the technical screening committee. The selection committee shall consist of the following: Two members of the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors The Mayor of the City of San Diego A mayor from the Cities of Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, or National City selected by the mayors of those cities. A mayor from the Cities of El Cajon, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, or Santee selected by the mayors of those cities. A mayor from the Cities of Carlsbad, Del Mar, Encinitas, Oceanside, or Solana Beach selected by the mayors of those cities. A mayor from the Cities of Escondido, Poway, San Marcos, or Vista selected by the mayors of those cities. The selection of ITOC members shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of recommendations from the technical screening committee. All meetings of the selection committee shall be publicly noticed and conducted in full compliance with the requirements of the Brown Act. Should the selection committee be unable to reach agreement on a candidate from the qualified candidates recommended by the technical screening committee, the selection committee shall request the technical screening committee to recommend two additional qualified candidates for consideration. . Terms and Conditions for ITOC members 8 ITOC members shall serve a term of four years, except that initial appointments may be staggered. . . ITOC members shall serve without compensation except for direct expenses related to the work of the ITOC. 8 In no case shall any member serve more than eight years on the ITOC. 42 If and when vacancies in the membership of the ITOC occur, the same selection process as outlined above shall be followed to select a replacement to fill the remainder of the term. At the completion of a term, eligible incumbent members will need to apply for reappointment for another term. Term limits for ITOC members should be staggered to prevent significant turnover at any one time. The initial appointment process should be based on this staggered term limit concept. ITOC Responsibilities The ITOC shall have the following responsibilities: 1. Conduct an annual fiscal and compliance audit of all TransNet-funded activities using the services of an independent fiscal auditor to assure compliance with the voter-approved Ordinance and Expenditure Plan. This annual audit will cover all recipients of TransNet funds during the fiscal year and will evaluate compliance with the maintenance of effort requirement and any other applicable requirements. The audits will identify expenditures made for each project in the prior fiscal year and will include the accumulated expenses and revenues for ongoing, multi-year projects. 2. Prepare an annual report to the SANDAG Board of Directors presenting the results of the annual audit process. The report should include an assessment of the consistency of the expenditures of TransNet funds with the Ordinance and Expenditure Plan and any recommendations for improving the financial operation and integrity of the program for consideration by the SANDAG Board of Directors. This consistency evaluation will include a review of expenditures by project type for each local jurisdiction. The ITOC shall share the initial findings of the independent fiscal audits and its recommendations with the SANDAG Transportation Committee 60 days prior to their release to resolve inconsistencies and technical issues related to the ITOC's draft report and recommendations. Once this review has taken place, the ITOC would make any final amendments it deems appropriate to its report and recommendations, and adopt its report for submission directly to the SANDAG Board of Directors and the public. The ITOC shall strive to be as objective and accurate as possible in whatever final report it adopts. Upon completion by the ITOC, the report shall be presented to the SANDAG Board of Directors at its next regular meeting and shall be made available to the public. 3. Conduct triennial performance audits of SANDAG and other agencies involved in the implementation of TransNet-funded projects and programs to review project delivery, cost control, schedule adherence and related activities. The review should include consideration of changes to contracting, construction, permitting and related processes that could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the expenditure of TransNet revenues. These performance audits shall be conducted using the services of an independent performance auditor and should include a review of the ITOC's performance. A draft of the ITOC's report and recommendations regarding the performance audits shall be made available to the SANDAG Transportation Committee at least 60 days before its final adoption by the ITOC to resolve inconsistencies and technical issues related to the ITOC's draft report and recommendations. Once this review has taken place, the ITOC would make any final amendments it deems appropriate to its report and related recommendations, and adopt its report for presentation directly to the SANDAG Board of Directors and the public. The ITOC shall strive to be as 43 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. objective and constructive as possible in the text and presentation of the performance audits. Upon completion by the ITOC, the report shall be presented to the SANDAG Board of Directors at its next regular meeting and shall be made available to the public. Provide recommendations to the SANDAG Board of Directors regarding any proposed amendments to the Ordinance and Expenditure Plan. Provide recommendations as part of the 10-year review process. This process provides an opportunity to undertake a comprehensive review of the TransNet program every 10 years and to make recommendations for improving the program over the subsequent .10 years. This review process should take into consideration the results of the TransNet-funded improvements as compared to the performance standards established through the Regional Transportation Plan and the Regional Comprehensive Plan. Participate in the ongoing refinement of SANDAG's transportation system performance measurement process and the project evaluation criteria used in development of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and in prioritizing projects for funding in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. The focus of this effort will be on TransNet-funded projects. Based on the periodic updates to the RTP, as required by state and federal law, the oversight committee shall develop a report to the SANDAG Transportation Committee, the SANDAG Board of Directors and the public providing recommendations for possible improvements and modifications to the TransNet program. On an annual basis, review ongoing SANDAG system performance evaluations, including SANDAG's "State of the Commute" report, and provide an independent analysis of information included in that report. This evaluation process is expected to include such factors as level of service measurements by roadway segment and by time of day, throughput in major travel corridors, and travel time comparisons by mode between major trip origins and destinations. Such information will be used as a tool in the RTP development process. Review and comment on the programming of TransNet revenues in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). This provides an opportunity for the ITOC to raise concerns regarding the eligibility of projects proposed for funding before any expenditures are made. In addition to a general eligibility review, this effort should focus on significant cost increases and/or scope changes on the major corridor projects identified in the Ordinance and Expenditure Plan. Review proposed debt financings to ensure that the benefits of the proposed financing for accelerating project delivery, avoiding future cost escalation, and related factors exceed issuance and interest costs. Review the major Congestion Relief projects identified in the Ordinance for performance in terms of cost control and schedule adherence on a quarterly basis. In carrying out its responsibilities, the ITOC shall conduct its reviews in such a manner that does not cause unnecessary project delays, while providing sufficient time to ensure that adequate analysis can be completed to allow the ITOC to make objective recommendations and to provide the public with information about the implementation of the TransNet program. 44 ITOC Funding and Administration 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. All costs incurred in administering the activities of the ITOC, including related fiscal and performance audit costs, shall be paid annually from the proceeds of the TransNet sales tax. The funds made available to the ITOC shall not exceed $250,000 annually, as adjusted for inflation annually for the duration of the program. Any funds not utilized in one fiscal year shall remain available for expenditure in subsequent years as part of the annual budget process. The expenditures of the ITOC shall be audited annually as part of the same fiscal audit process used for all other TransNet- funded activities. The process for selecting the initial ITOC members shall be started no later than April 1 of the year following the passage of the Ordinance by the voters. Because the funding for this activity would not be available until Fiscal Year 2008-09, the ITOC activities during the initial transition period will be phased in to the extent possible within the budget constraints of the one percent administrative cap under the current TransNet Ordinance. Given the thirty-year duration of the TransNet tax extension, the ITOC shall continue as long as funds from the current authorization remain available. An annual ITOC operating budget shall be prepared and submitted to the SANDAG Board of Directors for its approval 90 days prior to the beginning of each fiscal year. All ITOC meetings shall be public meetings conducted in full compliance with the Brown Act. The ITOC will meet on a regular basis, at least quarterly, to carry out its roles and responsibilities. SANDAG Directors and staff will fully cooperate with and provide necessary support to the ITOC to ensure that it successfully carries out its duties and obligations, but should limit involvement to the provision of information required by the ITOC to ensure the independence of the ITOC as it carries out its review of the TransNet program and develops its recommendations for improvements. ITOC members and their designated auditors shall have full and timely access to all public documents, records and data with respect to all TransNet funds and expenditures. All consultants hired by the ITOC shall be selected on an open and competitive basis with solicitation of proposals from the widest possible number of qualified firms as prescribed by SANDAG's procedures for the procurement of professional services. The scope of work of all such consultant work shall be adopted by the ITOC prior to any such solicitation. SANDAG shall provide meeting space, supplies and incidental materials adequate for the ITOC to carry out its responsibilities and conduct its affairs. Such administrative support shall not be charged against the funds set aside for the administration of the ITOC provided under No. 1 above. 45 Conflict of Interest The ITOC shall be subject to SANDAG’s conflict of interest policies. ITOC members shall have no legal action pending against SANDAG and are prohibited from acting in any commercial activity directly or indirectly involving SANDAG, such as being a consultant to SANDAG or to any party with pending legal actions against SANDAG during their tenure on the ITOC. ITOC members shall not have direct commercial interest or employment with any public or private entity, which receives TransNet sales tax f.unds authorized by the voters in this ordinance. 46 lf3 FortheTnformatIonOfths: March 8,2004 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: Deputy City Engineer, Transportation TRANSNET EXTENSION The SANDAG Ad Hoc Working Group on TransNet held a special meeting on March 5, 2004. They recommended that Option C of the TransNet expenditure plan to be presented to the full Board on March 12, 2004 for approval to distribute for public comment. Option C is the Proposition 42 Guarantee Hybrid. The SANDAG staff report indicates that: "This option reflects a hybrid approach combining the basic concepts of Options A and B. The Proposition 42 guarantee provisions would be retained as provided in the draft Ordinance as presented at the February 27, 2004 Board meeting. However, if the Proposition 42 Revenue Protection Fund is not needed to fulfill the Proposition 42 guarantee provisions of the Ordinance, the balance would be transferred to the local street and road program." Supervisor Jacob was the only negative vote on the Working Group. The entire staff report for the March 5, 2004 meeting is attached. ROBERT T. JOHNSON, JR., P.E. Deputy City Engineer, Transportation RTJ:jd C: Public Works Director Deputy Public Works Director, Engineering Services SPECW MEmMG 401 8 Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92 IO 1 - 423 1 (6 19) 699- 1 900 fa 16 19) 699- I905 www.sandag.org MEMBER AGENCIES Cities of Carlsbad Chula vista coronado Del Mar €1 Cajon Encinitas Escondido /mperia/ Beach La Mesa Lemon Grove National Cify Oceanside &way San Diego San Marcos bn tee Solma Beach vista and County of San Diego ADWSORY MEMBERS hperial County California Deparrment of Transportation Me fropoli fan TIansit System North San Diego County nansit Development Board United States Department of Defense San Diego Unified Port District San Diego County Water Authority Baja Califorfliahferiro NOTICE AND AGENDA AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON TRANSNET The Working Group may take action on any item appearing on this agenda. Friday, March 5, 2004 1 :30 to 3:30 pm SANDAG, Board Room 401 B Street, 7'h Floor San Diego, CA 92101-4231 Staff Contact: Craig Scott (619) 699-1926 csc8sandag.org SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit. Phone I-800-COMMUTE or see ww. sdcornmute.com for route information. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (67 9) 699- 1900, (6 19) 699- 1904 m), or fax (61 9) 699- 1905. AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON TRANSNET SPECIAL MEETING Friday, March 5, 2004 1 :30 to 3:30 pm SANDAG, Board Room 401 B Street, 7fh Floor San Diego, CA 92101-4231 ITEM # ACTION 1. Draft TransNet Extension Expenditure Plan Issue - Funding Distribution (Craig Scott) As a follow-up to the discussions on the draft TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan at the February 27, 2004 Board of Directors meeting, the Working Group should discuss the options presented to date for splitting the funding among the various categories (local streets and roads, transit, and highways) in the draft Expenditure Plan and provide a recommendation to the Board of Directors. Draft TransNet Extension Expenditure Plan Issue - Formula Funding versus Competitive Grants (Craig Scott) One of the issues discussed at the February 27, 2004 Board of Directors meeting dealt with the method of allocation of funding under the proposed Livable Communities Program. Various options were discussed for allocating portions of this funding by formula to each jurisdiction as opposed to allocating funding by a regionwide competitive grant program. The Working Group should discuss the pros and cons of these options and provide a recommendation to the Board of Directors. (Craig Scott) Among the issues discussed at the February 27, 2004 Board of Directors meeting was the proposed amendment procedure for the Ordinance. Several options for revised wording to this section were presented. The Working Group should discuss these options and provide a recommendation to the Board of Directors. POSSIBLE ACTION 2. POSSIBLE ACTION 3. Draft TransNet Extension Ordinance Issue - Amendment Procedures POSSIBLE ACTION 4. Private Developer Fundingllmpact Fees (Marney Cox) POSSIBLE ACTION The Working Group will be provided with a proposal regarding regional transportation impact fees as part of the TransNet Extension. The recommended proposal would be included as part of the draft Ordinance and Expenditure Plan. The Working Group should review the proposal and provide a recommendations to the Board of Directors. 2 - ITEM# ACTION 5. Next Meeting Date POSSIBLE ACTION The Working Group should discuss its meeting schedule for the future. The previously scheduled meeting date of March 12, 2004, from 10:15 a.m. - 12:OO p.m., has been set instead as a meeting of the full SANDAG Board of Directors to discuss the TransNet Extension. This agenda is sent to all members of the SANDAG/RTC Board of Directors and alternates for informational purposes + next to an agenda item indicates an attachment 3 San Diego Association of Governments AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON TRANSNET March 5, 2004 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 1 Action Requested: APPROVE DRAFT TRANSNET €XT€NS/ON EXPENDITURE PLAN ISSUE - FUNDING DISTRIBUTION Introduction During the discussion of the draft TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan at the February 27, 2004 Board meeting, issues were raised regarding the proposed distribution of revenues in the draft Ordinance and several options were presented. The voter opinion research conducted during 2003 clearly indicated that focusing a major share of the TransNet funding on major corridor congestion relief projects was the key to achieving the necessary two-thirds vote threshold. For this reason, the draft Ordinance and Expenditure proposes to allocate the majority of the new TransNet revenues on the major highway and transit corridor projects which are high priority projects in the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, as well as high priority projects with the voters based on the public opinion survey work and focus groups. One of the major issues that has been raised relates to the proposed reduced level of TransNet funding for local street and road program in the draft Ordinance as compared to the current TransNet program. Concerns have been expressed about the uncertainty of alternative funding from Proposition 42 and the impacts to the local street and road programs if those funds do not materialize as projected. Recommendation It is recommended that the Working Group recommend to the Board of Directors that the Proposition 42 Guarantee provisions be retained in the draft Ordinance and Expenditure Plan as presented to the Board at the February 27, 2004 meeting, with the addition of a provision to allocate the balance of the Proposition 42 Revenue Protection Fund for local street and road purposes if it is not needed to carry out the purposes of the Proposition 42 Guarantee (Option C below). Discussion Option A: Proposition 42 Guarantee The draft Ordinance as presented to the Board on February 27, 2004, contained provisions for a guaranteed funding level under TransNet should the revenues from Proposition 42 beginning in Fiscal Year 2009 not be available. The "backfill" mechanism would increase the funding provided 4 for local programs from 18% up to the 33% equivalent level provided for in the current TransNet program by shifting funding as needed on an annual basis from the Congestion Relief project category to the local street and road program should the sum of the TransNet funds for local programs (at 18%) and Proposition 42 funds in a given year fall below the equivalent 33% TransNet share level for each jurisdiction. As discussed above, the Congestion Relief project costs have been reduced to establish a $500 million Proposition 42 Revenue Protection Fund to yarantee the funding backfill for approximately ten years of potential Proposition 42 suspensions. If these funds are not required for the backfill, the Board would have the opportunity at the IO-year review to consider allocating funds to new Congestion Relief projects or proposing an amendment to the Ordinance to shift funds to another category based on the needs at the time. Option B: Eliminate the Proposition 42 Guarantee Another option discussed by the Working Group at the last meeting and presented to the Board on February 27, 2004 was to drop the entire Proposition 42 guarantee concept and simply add the $500 million from the Proposition 42 Revenue Protection Fund into the funding for the Local Street and Road formula program. This would increase the Local Program category from 18% of the total revenues to 23.2%. Option C: Proposition 42 Guarantee Hybrid This option reflects a hybrid approach combining the basic concepts of Options A and B. The Proposition 42 guarantee provisions would be retained as provided in the draft Ordinance as presented at the February 27, 2004 Board meeting. However, if the Proposition 42 Revenue Protection Fund is not needed to fulfill the Proposition 42 guarantee provisions of the Ordinance, the balance would be transferred to the local street and road program. Option D: Increase Street and Road Share to 33% Concerns have been expressed by local agencies that the Proposition 42 guarantee is not sufficient and that nothing short of the same 33% share of the total TransNet revenues provided in the current measure will be acceptable. A total of $500 million has already been deducted from the Congestion Relief projects included in the initial draft Expenditure Plan to establish the Proposition 42 Revenue Protection Fund described above. To bring the total Local Program share up to 33%, approximately another $1 billion in TransNet funds would need to be shifted from other projects and programs in the Expenditure Plan. Because of the 50/50 match assumptions for the Congestion Relief projects, to free up $1 billion in TransNet funds from the Congestion Relief projects, a total of $2 billion in construction costs would need to be reduced from the projects identified in the draft Expenditure Plan. The following are two optional ways of adjusting the proposed Expenditure Plan to shift more funding into local programs. - Option D-I: Shifting Highway Improvements to Local Programs - As mentioned above, a total of $2 billion in highway improvements, or about one-third of the total highway project list, would have to be eliminated to raise the local street and road share to 33%. In considering how to approach cuts of that magnitude, an attempt was made to preserve improvements to the highest volume routes experiencing the most severe congestion problems. Under such a scenario, improvements could only be retained for the 1-15 corridor, 5 the 1-805 corridor, and the 1-5 corridor, with the exception of any improvements south of SR 54. other improvements would have to be eliminated from the Expenditure Plan. - Option D-2: Shifting Transit Improvements to Local Programs - To increase local programs to 33% by reducing funding for the transit projects on the Congestion Relief project list, a total of $2 billion in transit capital project costs would have to be eliminated - or about 75% of the entire transit project list. Alternatively, funding could be taken from the operating component of the Congestion Relief program in order to build a greater share of the proposed transit projects; however, a balance would need to be maintained so that sufficient funds would be available to operate the reduced list of transit projects to be constructed. As an example, to revise the transit projects identified in the draft Expenditure Plan to free up $1 billion in TransNet funds, a scenario was developed that focused on preserving and enhancing the investment that has been made in the regional rail network in order to maintain and increase the high ridership levels on such services. Under such a scenario, the proposed capital improvements to the Coaster commuter rail line and the Blue, Orange, and Mid-Coast lines of the Trolley could be retained, along with one BRT route such as the proposed Super Loop serving the U.C. San DiegoNniversity Towne Center area or the BRT route serving SDSU and Downtown San Diego along the El Cajon Blvd./Park Blvd. Corridor. mother proposed BRT improvements and improvements to the Sprinter line would have to be eliminated from the Expenditure Plan. Option E: Supervisor Jacob's Alternative At the Board meeting, Supervisor Jacob offered several suggestions, including an additional option relating to the distribution of funds. This option is based on Option B which adds the $500 million from the Proposition 42 Revenue Protection Fund to the local street and road program. Rather than increasing the local street and road formula share to 33% as in Option D, this option would shift approximately $480 million from the transit projects in the Congestion Relief Program category to local streets and roads to equalize the allocation for transit and local streets and roads at about 28.3% each. This alternative would result in cuts to a lesser degree than under Option D-2. A reduction of nearly $1 billion in transit capital costs, or over 37% of the total transit program would have to be eliminated to achieve the shift of funding to local streets and roads under this option. As discussed above, alternative combinations of transit capital and operating cuts also could be considered. 6 San Diego Association of Governments AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON TRANSNET March 5,2004 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 2 Action Requested: APPROVE DRAFT TRANSNET EXTENSION EXPENDITURE PLAN ISSUE - FORMULA FUNDING VERSUS COMPETITIVE GRANTS Introduction The Initial Draft Expenditure Plan proposed to allocate the funding under the Regional ArteriaVGrade Separation Program (4% of total funding) and the Livable Communities Program (4%) on a competitive grant basis. Based on comments received from the local agencies, the draft Ordinance presented to the Board at the February 27, 2004 meeting was revised to allocate the Regional ArteriaVGrade Separation Program funding on a formula basis rather than as a competitive grant program: Similarly, one-half of the funding from the Livable Communities Program (2% of total annual revenues) would be allocated to each jurisdiction on a formula basis rather than allocating these funds through a competitive grant process. The remaining share of the Livable Communities Program (2%) would continue as a regional competitive program as proposed in the initial draft Expenditure Plan. It is important to note that the draft Ordinance requires that the same amount of funds be expended for these purposes as was provided in the initial draft Expenditure Plan. Regardless of the distribution approach, the funds for these programs would have to be spent in a manner consistent with regional criteria to be established for these purposes and each local agency would be required to develop a list of projects proposed for funding under each program and submit the projects lists to SANDAG for approval as part of the fund programming process. Recommendation It is recommended that the Working Group recommend to the Board of Directors that the approach outlined in the draft Ordinance presented to the Board at the February 27, 2004 meeting be retained with the Regional ArterialIGrade Separation program being allocated to each local agency by formula based on population and the Livable Communities Program, including each of its component parts, being allocated half to each local agency by formula based on population and half on a regional competitive grant basis. It also is recommended that language be included to the draft Ordinance regarding the development of specific criteria regarding eligible expenditures under each of these programs. 7 Discussion As described above and reflected in the draft Ordinance, the 4% of total funds allocated for the Livable Communities Program would be distributed half by formula and half by competitive grants. Since the Livable Communities Program funds are further subdivided with 50% (or 2% of total annual funding) allocated for the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Neighborhood Safety Program and 50% for the Smart Growth Incentive Program, these two programs also would be allocated half by formula and half by competitive grants as recommended in the draft Ordinance presented to the Board on February 27, 2004. Concerns have been expressed that such an approach could result in an inefficient use of these funds and that the distribution of these funds would result in allocations to local agencies that would be too small to be useable. This is one of the basic tradeoffs between a formula driven approach and a competitive grant approach. The formula approach provides greater certainty regarding funding availability for local agencies, while the competitive grant process provides more of an incentive for the highest quality projects to receive funding. The development of specific criteria for these programs would help to ensure that high quality projects are implemented throughout the region through the use of these funds. The draft Ordinance contains provisions that would allow local agencies to exchange these funds among the local program categories with other agencies to provide additional flexibility. One option presented at the February 27, 2004 Board meeting was to allocate all of one program by formula and the all of the other by discretionary grants. This allocation method would have no change on the total dollar amount being allocated by formula, but may make the programs easier to administer. The current TransNet program has been allocating the $1 million per year for bicycle projects on a competitive grant basis. Allocating the 2% Bicycle, Pedestrian and Neighborhood Safety Program funds (estimated at about 85 million per year) on a competitive grant basis would maintain the tradition that has been established. Another option would be to go back to the concept in the initial draft Expenditure Plan and make the entire Livable Communities Program funding and/or the Regional Arterial/Grade Separation Program funding competitive rather than formula based. 8 San Diego Association of Governments AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON TRANSNET March 5, 2004 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3 Action Requested: APPROVE DRAFT TRANSNET EXTENSlON EXPENDITURE ORDINANCE ISSUE - AMENDMENT PROCEDURES Introduction At the February 27, 2004 Board meeting, issues related to the draft Ordinance language related to amendment procedures (Section 16) were discussed. The current draft Ordinance wording allows for the Ordinance to be amended by a two-thirds vote of the Board. Several concerns have been raised regarding various provisions that should not be subject to change. The draft Ordinance language was written to provide a measure of flexibility in recognition of the possibility that circumstances and regional needs and priorities could change between now and 2038. As discussed at the Board meeting and at previous Working Group meetings, the specific areas that have been brought up for potential exclusion from these amendment procedures are: Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) - Concerns have been raised that the ITOC requirement should not be amendable. By adding the phrase ”With the exception of Section 11,” at the beginning of Section 16, the ITOC requirement could be further safeguarded by requiring a majority vote of the electorate to delete the requirement. Since the details on the ITOC are contained in the separate “Statement of Understanding,” there is some flexibility provided to make changes over time to some of the administrative details of the ITOC, if needed. Projects on the Congestion Relief Project List - Concerns have been raised about locking the specific projects identified in the Expenditure Plan. One option that has been discussed to provide additional safeguards in this area is to allow for a two-thirds vote of the Commission, but to add language to the effect that, in order to delete one of the specified Congestion Relief projects, the concurrence the jurisdictions in which the project is located must be obtained. Distribution of Funds in the Expenditure Plan - Comments also have been received regarding locking in the percentage distribution of funds specified in Section 4, or at least for certain programs like the allocations for local streets and roads. This could be addressed by excluding that section from the amendment provisions similar to the language suggested for the ITOC. The result of such changes to the amendment provisions would be a significant reduction in the Commission’s ability to address changes in the region’s needs and priorities in the future, but would 9 provide a greater degree of assurance that the projects included in the Expenditure Plan would not be changed. If too many of the Ordinance provisions are "locked in", the concept of the 10-year review process could be called into question. Further, it would reduce the desired scope of the ITOC. Actual experience on the current TransNet has shown a minimal amount of changes to the Ordinance over the last 16 years. Recommendation It is recommended that the Working Group recommend to the Board of Directors that Section 16 of the Ordinance be revised to read as follows: SECTION 16. AMENDMENTS: With the exception of Sections 3 and 11 which require a vote of the electors of the County of San Diego to amend, this ordinance may be amended to further its purposes by ordinance, passed by roll call vote entered in the minutes, with two-thirds of the Commission concurring consistent with the Commission's standard voting mechanism. Separate documents incorporated by reference in the Ordinance in Sections 2, 9, and 11 may also be amended with a two-thirds vote of the Commission. Discussion The proposed language would clarify that the imposition of the tax in Section 3 (the Yz% level and the 30-year duration) and the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) referenced in Section 11 cannot be changed without a vote of the people. The separate Statement of Understanding regarding the ITOC could be amended by a two-thirds vote of the Commission providing a measure of flexibility should some administrative provision need to be revised in the future. Additional restrictions regarding locking down the specific projects and the distribution of funds are not recommended in order to allow the Commission some flexibility to deal with changing needs and circumstances in the future and to give the 10-year comprehensive review process and the ITOC process real meaning. 10 TRANSPORTATION FINANCINGTRANSNET SALES TAX TRANSNET SALES TAX EXTENSION UPDATEEXTENSION UPDATE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING SOURCESTRANSPORTATION PROJECTSSTATE FUNDSFEDERAL FUNDSREGIONAL FUNDSLOCAL FUNDS EXISTING TRANSNET PROGRAM!!Approved by San Diego County voters in 1987Approved by San Diego County voters in 1987!!Created a ½ cent sales tax dedicated to Created a ½ cent sales tax dedicated to transportation programstransportation programs!!Revenue split evenly between highway, transit and Revenue split evenly between highway, transit and local projectslocal projects!!Local funds allocated based on population and Local funds allocated based on population and miles of maintained roadsmiles of maintained roads!!Over program life, TransNet will generate $3.1 Over program life, TransNet will generate $3.1 billion countywide and over $2 million annually billion countywide and over $2 million annually for Carlsbadfor Carlsbad!!2020--year term expiring in March 2008year term expiring in March 2008 TRANSNET EXTENSIONWhat we know about SANDAG proposal:!!Tax rate remains ½ centTax rate remains ½ cent!!Picks up when current program endsPicks up when current program ends!!3030--year termyear term!!Targeted for November 2, 2004 electionTargeted for November 2, 2004 election!!Requires 2/3 voter approvalRequires 2/3 voter approval!!Greater emphasis on highway and transit Greater emphasis on highway and transit projectsprojects!!Reduces amount allocated to local agenciesReduces amount allocated to local agencies!!Alternative funds would offset reduced Alternative funds would offset reduced TransNet fundsTransNet funds TRANSNET EXTENSIONWhat we don’t know:!!Specific allocation of funds between highway, Specific allocation of funds between highway, transit and local projectstransit and local projects!!Amount of annual impact to CarlsbadAmount of annual impact to Carlsbad!!Reliability of backfill fundingReliability of backfill funding!!Development impact feeDevelopment impact fee SANDAG ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE PLAN PROVISIONS!!Congestion Relief ProjectsCongestion Relief Projects!!Local Streets and Roads ProgramLocal Streets and Roads Program!!Transit ProgramsTransit Programs!!Transportation Environmental Mitigation ProgramTransportation Environmental Mitigation Program!!Private Development FundingPrivate Development Funding!!Oversight CommitteeOversight Committee!!Remaining TransNet ProjectsRemaining TransNet Projects!!Ordinance ProceduresOrdinance Procedures SANDAG ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE PLAN PROVISIONS!!Congestion Relief ProjectsCongestion Relief Projects!!Local Streets and Roads ProgramLocal Streets and Roads Program!!Transit ProgramsTransit Programs!!Transportation Environmental Mitigation ProgramTransportation Environmental Mitigation Program!!Private Development FundingPrivate Development Funding!!Oversight CommitteeOversight Committee!!Remaining TransNet ProjectsRemaining TransNet Projects!!Ordinance ProceduresOrdinance Procedures SANDAG ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE PLAN PROVISIONS!!Congestion Relief ProjectsCongestion Relief Projects!!Local Streets and Roads ProgramLocal Streets and Roads Program!!Transit ProgramsTransit Programs!!Transportation Environmental Mitigation ProgramTransportation Environmental Mitigation Program!!Private Development FundingPrivate Development Funding!!Oversight CommitteeOversight Committee!!Remaining TransNet ProjectsRemaining TransNet Projects!!Ordinance ProceduresOrdinance Procedures FUNDING ALLOCATION!!SANDAG staff studying 6 optionsSANDAG staff studying 6 options!!Local discretionary funds would reduce from 33% Local discretionary funds would reduce from 33% to as low as 10%to as low as 10%!!4% for arterial roads; 2% for bicycle/pedestrian; 4% for arterial roads; 2% for bicycle/pedestrian; 2% for Smart Growth incentives2% for Smart Growth incentives!!Bicycle/pedestrian funds would be awarded on a Bicycle/pedestrian funds would be awarded on a competitive basiscompetitive basis!!Utilize Proposition 42 Funds to offset lossesUtilize Proposition 42 Funds to offset losses!!Establish a Proposition 42 Revenue Protection Establish a Proposition 42 Revenue Protection Fund (RPF)Fund (RPF) ALLOCATION OPTIONSSHIFTS $480M FROM TRANSIT SHIFTS $480M FROM TRANSIT TO LOCALSTO LOCALSELIMINATE $2B IN TRANSIT ELIMINATE $2B IN TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTSIMPROVEMENTSELIMINATE $2B IN HIGHWAY ELIMINATE $2B IN HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTSIMPROVEMENTSPROP 42 BACKFILL AND RPF PROP 42 BACKFILL AND RPF GIVEN TO LOCALSGIVEN TO LOCALSRPF GIVEN TO LOCALSRPF GIVEN TO LOCALSRPF BACKRPF BACK--UP FOR PROP 42UP FOR PROP 42COMMENTSCOMMENTS28.3%28.3%NONONONO28.3%28.3%EE33%33%NONONONO33%33%D2D233%33%NONONONO33%33%D1D133%+33%+$500M$500MYESYES18%18%CC23.2%23.2%$500M$500MNONO18%18%BB33%33%$500M$500MYESYES18%18%AAEFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE SHARESHAREPROP 42 PROP 42 RPFRPFPROP 42 PROP 42 BACKFILLBACKFILLTRANSNET TRANSNET SHARESHAREOPTOPTRPF – REVENUE PROTECTION FUND ALLOCATION OPTIONSRPF BACKRPF BACK--UP FOR PROP 42UP FOR PROP 42COMMENTSCOMMENTS33%33%$500M$500MYESYES18%18%AAEFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE SHARESHAREPROP 42 PROP 42 RPFRPFPROP 42 PROP 42 BACKFILLBACKFILLTRANSNET TRANSNET SHARESHAREOPTOPTRPF – REVENUE PROTECTION FUND ALLOCATION OPTIONSRPF GIVEN TO LOCALSRPF GIVEN TO LOCALSCOMMENTSCOMMENTS23.2%23.2%$500M$500MNONO18%18%BBEFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE SHARESHAREPROP 42 PROP 42 RPFRPFPROP 42 PROP 42 BACKFILLBACKFILLTRANSNET TRANSNET SHARESHAREOPTOPTRPF – REVENUE PROTECTION FUND ALLOCATION OPTIONSPROP 42 BACKFILL AND RPF PROP 42 BACKFILL AND RPF GIVEN TO LOCALSGIVEN TO LOCALSCOMMENTSCOMMENTS33%+33%+$500M$500MYESYES18%18%CCEFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE SHARESHAREPROP 42 PROP 42 RPFRPFPROP 42 PROP 42 BACKFILLBACKFILLTRANSNET TRANSNET SHARESHAREOPTOPTRPF – REVENUE PROTECTION FUND ALLOCATION OPTIONSELIMINATE $2B IN HIGHWAY ELIMINATE $2B IN HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTSIMPROVEMENTSCOMMENTSCOMMENTS33%33%NONONONO33%33%D1D1EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE SHARESHAREPROP 42 PROP 42 RPFRPFPROP 42 PROP 42 BACKFILLBACKFILLTRANSNET TRANSNET SHARESHAREOPTOPTRPF – REVENUE PROTECTION FUND ""II--5 North5 North$1144$1144""II--5 South5 South$ 722$ 722""II--1515$ 882$ 882""II--805805$1371$1371"I-8 $ 29"SR 52 $ 476"SR 67 $ 218"SR 76 $ 164"SR 78 $ 405"SR 94/125 $ 601"SR 94 East $ 88"Coronado Tunnel $ 25"Border Access $ 25Impacts to Highway Projects(Capital Cost in Millions) ALLOCATION OPTIONSELIMINATE $2B IN TRANSIT ELIMINATE $2B IN TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTSIMPROVEMENTSCOMMENTSCOMMENTS33%33%NONONONO33%33%D2D2EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE SHARESHAREPROP 42 PROP 42 RPFRPFPROP 42 PROP 42 BACKFILLBACKFILLTRANSNET TRANSNET SHARESHAREOPTOPTRPF – REVENUE PROTECTION FUND Impacts to Transit Projects(Capital Cost in Millions)""Blue Line TrolleyBlue Line Trolley$268$268""Orange Line TrolleyOrange Line Trolley$ 69$ 69""Coaster/BRTCoaster/BRT$376$376""MidMid--Coast ProjectCoast Project$660$660""BRT (SDSUBRT (SDSU--Downtown)Downtown)$ 79$ 79"BRT (Escondido-Downtown) $359"BRT (Escondido-Sorrento Mesa) $ 60"BRT (Otay Mesa-Downtown) $487"BRT (San Ysidro-Sorrento Mesa) $ 60"Super Loop (UTC-UCSD) $ 20"Sprinter/BRT $197 ALLOCATION OPTIONSSHIFTS $480M FROM TRANSIT SHIFTS $480M FROM TRANSIT TO LOCALSTO LOCALSCOMMENTSCOMMENTS28.3%28.3%NONONONO28.3%28.3%EEEFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE SHARESHAREPROP 42 PROP 42 RPFRPFPROP 42 PROP 42 BACKFILLBACKFILLTRANSNET TRANSNET SHARESHAREOPTOPTRPF – REVENUE PROTECTION FUND ALLOCATION OPTIONSSHIFTS $480M FROM TRANSIT SHIFTS $480M FROM TRANSIT TO LOCALSTO LOCALSELIMINATE $2B IN TRANSIT ELIMINATE $2B IN TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTSIMPROVEMENTSELIMINATE $2B IN HIGHWAY ELIMINATE $2B IN HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTSIMPROVEMENTSPROP 42 BACKFILL AND RPF PROP 42 BACKFILL AND RPF GIVEN TO LOCALSGIVEN TO LOCALSRPF GIVEN TO LOCALSRPF GIVEN TO LOCALSRPF BACKRPF BACK--UP FOR PROP 42UP FOR PROP 42COMMENTSCOMMENTS28.3%28.3%NONONONO28.3%28.3%EE33%33%NONONONO33%33%D2D233%33%NONONONO33%33%D1D133%+33%+$500M$500MYESYES18%18%CC23.2%23.2%$500M$500MNONO18%18%BB33%33%$500M$500MYESYES18%18%AAEFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE SHARESHAREPROP 42 PROP 42 RPFRPFPROP 42 PROP 42 BACKFILLBACKFILLTRANSNET TRANSNET SHARESHAREOPTOPTRPF – REVENUE PROTECTION FUND ALLOCATION OPTIONSSHIFTS $480M FROM TRANSIT SHIFTS $480M FROM TRANSIT TO LOCALSTO LOCALSELIMINATE $2B IN TRANSIT ELIMINATE $2B IN TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTSIMPROVEMENTSELIMINATE $2B IN HIGHWAY ELIMINATE $2B IN HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTSIMPROVEMENTSPROP 42 BACKFILL AND RPF PROP 42 BACKFILL AND RPF GIVEN TO LOCALSGIVEN TO LOCALSRPF GIVEN TO LOCALSRPF GIVEN TO LOCALSRPF BACKRPF BACK--UP FOR PROP 42UP FOR PROP 42COMMENTSCOMMENTS28.3%28.3%NONONONO28.3%28.3%EE33%33%NONONONO33%33%D2D233%33%NONONONO33%33%D1D133%+33%+$500M$500MYESYES18%18%CC23.2%23.2%$500M$500MNONO18%18%BB33%33%$500M$500MYESYES18%18%AAEFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE SHARESHAREPROP 42 PROP 42 RPFRPFPROP 42 PROP 42 BACKFILLBACKFILLTRANSNET TRANSNET SHARESHAREOPTOPTRPF – REVENUE PROTECTION FUND SANDAG ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE PLAN PROVISIONS!!Congestion Relief ProjectsCongestion Relief Projects!!Local Streets and Roads ProgramLocal Streets and Roads Program!!Transit ProgramsTransit Programs!!Transportation Environmental Mitigation ProgramTransportation Environmental Mitigation Program!!Private Development FundingPrivate Development Funding!!Oversight CommitteeOversight Committee!!Remaining TransNet ProjectsRemaining TransNet Projects!!Ordinance ProceduresOrdinance Procedures PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT FUNDING!!$2000/Residential Dwelling Unit$2000/Residential Dwelling Unit!!Unidentified Commercial/Industrial ImpactUnidentified Commercial/Industrial Impact!!Potential credit for local developer feesPotential credit for local developer fees!!Coordinating with BIACoordinating with BIA SANDAG ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE PLAN PROVISIONS!!Congestion Relief ProjectsCongestion Relief Projects!!Local Streets and Roads ProgramLocal Streets and Roads Program!!Transit ProgramsTransit Programs!!Transportation Environmental Mitigation ProgramTransportation Environmental Mitigation Program!!Private Development FundingPrivate Development Funding!!Oversight CommitteeOversight Committee!!Remaining TransNet ProjectsRemaining TransNet Projects!!Ordinance ProceduresOrdinance Procedures OVERSIGHTCOMMITTEE!!Establishes an Independent Taxpayer Oversight Establishes an Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC)Committee (ITOC)!!Selection committee comprised of elected officialsSelection committee comprised of elected officials!!Ensures Expenditure Plan accountabilityEnsures Expenditure Plan accountability TIMELINE!!February 27, 2004 February 27, 2004 --Draft TransNet Extension Ordinance Draft TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (Plan) presented to SANDAG Boardand Expenditure Plan (Plan) presented to SANDAG Board!!March 5, 2004 March 5, 2004 ––SANDAG TransNet Ad Hoc Working SANDAG TransNet Ad Hoc Working Group to finalize Plan detailsGroup to finalize Plan details!!March 9, 2004 March 9, 2004 ––Carlsbad City Council UpdateCarlsbad City Council Update!!March 12, 2004 March 12, 2004 ––Final Plan submitted to SANDAG Board Final Plan submitted to SANDAG Board of Directors for approvalof Directors for approval!!April 9, 2004 April 9, 2004 ––First reading of proposed final ordinanceFirst reading of proposed final ordinance!!May 14, 2004 May 14, 2004 ––SANDAG Board to vote on PlanSANDAG Board to vote on Plan!!November 2, 2004 November 2, 2004 ––Election DayElection Day DISCUSSION ITEMS!!Preferred funding allocation Preferred funding allocation ––Select Select SANDAG option or propose our own?SANDAG option or propose our own?!!Private development feePrivate development fee##Local controlLocal control##Fee creditsFee credits##Commercial/Industrial obligationCommercial/Industrial obligation##$2000/Unit$2000/Unit END OF PRESENTATIONQuestionsQuestions??