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??