HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 05/21/1998 r
i
_ e
COl1lCl$y- � .
® San Luis. Obispo
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER.,RM.376■SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408■(805)781-5011 �
ti
AGENDA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCILS AND
TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
(HOS7ED BY THE COUNTY OFSAN LUIS OBISPO)
Thursday,May 21, 1998
6:00 p.m. - Social Hour
7:00 p.m.-Regular Session.
Embassy Suites
• y
- 333 Madonna Road
San Luis Obispo, California i
e
**SPECIAL MEETING PROTOCOL**
i
i
San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors'Chairperson,Mike Ryan,will chair the meeting.
The business meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m.and adjourn no later than 11:00 p.m.
Public Comment will be limited to two minutes per speaker with a total of 16 minutes.
Due to the large number of City Council and Board of Supervisors members in attendance,all are respectfully
requested to hint their comments and/or questions to two minutes.If a Mayor,Council or Board member
wishes to be recognized by the Chair,he or she may indicate so by raising their hand.
Staff presentations will'be limited to ten minutes.
Motions will need to be ratified by each Council and the Board of Supervisors.Chairperson Ryan will
recognize each of the respective Mayors,who in tum will put the item too a vote of his/her Council.The same
process will be undertaken by the Board of Supervisors. In order to facilitate this process;discussion by
individual Council and,Board members should be limited to a minimum due to the large number of elected
officials present
SPECIAL JOINT 1V[EETING: 7:00 P.M.
�r
CALL TO ORDER' Chairperson Ryan
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:
City of Arroyo GrandeCity of Atascadero City of Grover Beach
Mayor A.K. "Pete"Dougall Mayor Ray Johnson Mayor Dee'Santos
Michael Lady Harold L. Carden,III Robert Reed
Michael Fuller George Luna Henry E. "Gene" Cartes
Thomas A. .Runels Jerry L. Clay, Sr. Peter Keith
Steve Tolley Kenneth Lerno Ronald Arnoldsen .
City of Morro Bay 9U of Paso Robles City of Pismo Beach
Mayor Cathy Novak Mayor Duane J. Picanco Mayor John Brown
Rodger Anderson Tom Baron Marian Mellow
Dave Elliott Walter J. Macklin Hal Halldin
William Peirce Lee Swanson Bill Rabenaldt
Ianice Peters Christian E. Inversen Mary Ann Reiss
2tyof San Luis Obispo County of San Luis Obispo
Mayor Allen K. Settle Chairperson Michael P. Ryan
Sill Roalman Harry L. Ovitt
have Romero Laurence L. "Bud"Laurent
Jodie Williams Peg Pinard
lathy Smith Ruth Brackett •
�PPROVAL OF AGENDA
'UBLIC COMMENT
,his portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wanting to address the City Councils and Board of
supervisors on any matter not on this agenda and over which the Councils and Supervisors have jurisdiction.
speakers are limited to two minutes per speaker with a total of 16 minutes. Please state your name and
ddress for the record before`making your statement.
�. ACTION ITEMS:
A JOINT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CONSOLIDATION OF THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO INTO A SINGLE CORPS OF ENGINEERS DISTRICT
{Chairperson Ryan will introduce item. Glen Priddy, Deputy County Engineer will give report and
present resolution}
Estimated Time: 30 minutes
2. A
JOINT RESOLUTION URGING THE GOVERNOR AND THE STA
• l TE LEGISLATURE TO
OPPOSE THE PHASE-Ota OF THE VEHICLE LICENSE FEES.
{Allen Settle, Mayor of Sign Luis Obispo, will give report and present resolution}
Estimated Time: 45 minptes
B. INFORMATION ITEMS:
1. STATUS REPORT ON DERAL INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ACT
STEA : REAUTHO
W
TION COMPARISON OF HOUSE AND SENATE VERSIONS.
{Ron DeCarli, Executiverector of the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments will give
presentation}
Estimated Time: 30 minutes
2. UPDATE REPORT ON COUNTYWIDE PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION
NEEDS.
{Ron DeCarli, Executive Director of the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments will give
presentation}
Estimated Time: 30 mintes
•
ADJOURNMENT
, j
Lipa
County- is Obispo
®f !S�� Lu
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER,RM.370 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408■(805)781_-5011 R
i
May 21 1998 C
TO: Honorable,Board of Supervisors and City Council Members of San Luis Obispo i
County li
FROM: County and City of San Luis Obispo
SUBJECT: Resolution Supporting Consolidation into a Single Corps of Engineers District
• Summary:
Our County is divided between three jurisdictional Districts of the U.S. Arms Corps of Engineers
(Corps) Pacific Division. !This situation makes it difficult for the County to effectively carry out
emergency projects duri#Ig and following natural disasters. The South Pacific Division of the
Corps has offered to discuss placing our County into a single Corps District office.
Recommendation:
Adopt the attached resollution that seeks to obtain consensus among the County and Cities for
consolidation into a single Corps District office.
Discussion:
The County and the City of San Luis Obispo, as well as many of the other cities, have had
occasion to work with the Army Corps of Engineers' Environmental Section on various projects
for sectio:. 404 permit clearance. The interface between the County agencies and the Corps has
been heightened since the 1995 storm season and has continued every year through the ongoing
El Nino storm events. Our inability to obtain a reasonable permit turnaround time has exacerbated
our working relationship. The Corps in general does not have an emergency procedure, but rather
relies on an expedited review process to review emergency projects which are intended only to
ireplace existing infrastructure as opposed to the construction of new facilities. Adding to our
problems, the Los Angelus District'has stated that they lack sufficient staff to process the growing
number of permit requests, and they have watch dog groups looking over what they do. �!
�/ 1
Consequently, they are extremely conservative in approach. To add to this, each Corps District •
in California has independent discretion to fine tune Corps national policy to fit their own
circumstances. For example, during the El Nino,each District adopted its own expedited permit
process through what was called a Regional General Permit. By next winter, new and revised
Nationwide Permits will become law and again each District will have discretion as to their own
local interpretation.
Our County is unique in that it resides in all three California district offices of the Pacific Division
of the Army Corps of Engineers. Although the County primarily does work in two of three
Offices, we must keep abreast of the local interpretation of all three District Offices. The Corps
has shown no tolerance for a perceived transgression of any of its policies even during emergency
conditions. The county was cited for violations on all 250 projects that it undertook as a result
of the 1995 winter storms.
The City of San Luis Obispo has also not been pleased with the handling of emergency projects
through the Los Angeles District Office of the Corps. Both the City and the County believe the
process of obtaining 404 permits has been fraught with too much individual opinion that is not
coupled with an eye towards practical and reasonable solutions to the havoc caused by natural
events.
The Corps has made progress in forming better communication links with the Counties and Cities
in California this last winter. These efforts are very much appreciated. Numerous meetings with •
the Corps in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington D.C. took place during the last year.
The Corps recently toured San Luis Obispo, Ventura, and Los Angeles Counties with the State
Department of Water Resources and County representatives. The purpose of the tour was to see. '
first hand how similar projects in the Districts receive different application of the regulations.
Despite ite the
positive efforts made by the Corps, there remain differences in interpretation between
the Districts. The Corps has offered to meet with the County to discuss consolidation into a single
Corps district office. The Resolution before you seeks to obtain a consensus among the County
and Cities for making such a move. i
AACORPSRE,S.WPD.DS
1
i
0 [
•
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
THE INCORPORATED CITIES IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
REGARDING JURISDICTIONAL OVERSIGHT BY
THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
The following Resolution is now offered and read:
WHEREAS, The County of San Luis Obispo is within the jurisdiction of three Corps of
Engineers District Offices of the South Pacific Division (Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento);
and
WHEREAS, each District Office of the Corps of Engineers has independent authority to bring
local interpretation to Federal law governing their authority; and
WHEREAS, the County of San Luis Obispo and several of its Cities have found that local
interpretation has not allowed for uniform application of the law when applied to the issuance of permits
under Corps of Engineer's review; and
• WHEREAS, the County and Cities as experienced conflict with the Corps of Engineers over the
need for permits, or the type of permit required between Corps jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, County)and residents have suffered delays in restoring roads, bridges and drainage
systems to an operational status following emergency events; and
WHEREAS, the County and its Cities wish to respond and effect repairs to public infrastructure
in the most expeditious way!,
f
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Cities of Atascadero, Arroyo Grande,
Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach, and San Luis Obispo, within San Luis Obispo
County, support the County in its efforts to be consolidated into a single Corps District within the South
Pacific Division of the US Army Corps of Engineers; and
IT IS FURTHER RSOLVED, that the County will confer with representatives appointed by
the Cities in reaching a decision on which Corps of Engineers District to be regulated by; and
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County will work with the Cities and with the State
Resources Agency to encoui-Age the Corps to adopt regulations that provide for timely project approval
especially.for replacement of existing infrastructure damaged during emergencies; and
• he County will work with the Cities and with the State
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that t ty
Resources Agency to demand uniform application of the Corps of Engineers regulations throughout the
South Pacific Division, i.e. all three Corps Districts in California.
l J ,
Upon, motion of Supervisor seconded by Supervisor
and on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES
ABSENT:
ABSTAINING:
the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted.-
Chairperson
dopted:Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors City of Atascadero
ATTEST:
City of Arroyo Grande
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors •
[SEAL]
City of Grover Beach
City of Morro Bay
City of Paso Robles
City of Pismo Beach
City of San Luis Obispo
• 9 IQI
Qlmem'oizan6um
May 21, 1998
TO: Board of Supervisors,County of San Luis-Obispo
City Councils, San Luis Obispo County Cities
FROM: Allen Settle,Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo
SUBJECT: LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL INDEPENDENCE AND STABILITY
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a joint resolution wl ging the Governor and State Legislature to oppose the phase-out of
vehicle license fees (VLF), but to support the concept that if this occurs, any phase-out of VLF
must be linked to:
■ A constitutionally-guaranteed back-filling of these revenues from other sources.
■ The return of property taxes taken away from cities and counties by the State through the
• Education Revenue Augmentation Fund(ERAF).
DISCUSSION
As you know, there are serious proposals before the legislature (AB 1776, McClintock and SB
1723,Haynes)which would phase-out VLF revenues over the next five years. Since 1935, VLF
has been a dependable revenue source for cities and counties. Traditionally, it is assessed by the
State on behalf of cities nd counties "in-lieu" of assessment and collection of local personal
property taxes on vehicles;
Why is this proposed phase-out of critical concern to cities and counties? VLF revenues are an
essential source of funding for key General Fund services like police and fire protection. The
typical city in California'' spends 65% of its discretionary revenue on public safety services.
Statewide, VLF is the.third most important General Fund revenue for cities (after sales and
property taxes). This is an equally important revenue source to counties: statewide, $2.6 billion
annually is at risk with this phase-out; of this amount, $1.8 billion annually (700/0) goes to
counties. If the State takes these revenues away from us,they will severely jeopardize our ability
to provide basic services to our communities, and to financially plan for the future.
We need greater fiscal independence, not greater reliance upon the State. While "assurances"
have been made that cities and counties will be "made whole" in the event that VLF is phased-
out, the history of State and local government fiscal relationships over the past 20 'years (and
underscored by the past 5 years) tells us that trading a stable, dependable revenue source for a
State-controlled one is the exact opposite direction from where we want to go. Our fiscal future ^,-
lies in greater fiscal independence from the State,not in greater reliance upon it. �j v
Local Government Fiscal Independence and Stability Page 2
In short, it does not make sense for the State to take away from us a secure revenue source, and
to then suggest (not guarantee) replacing it with one that will immediately be in harm's way the
next time the State faces fiscal pressures.
This a fair source for funding local vehicle-related services VLF revenues are a fair source of
funding the vehicle-related costs that local agencies mcur.m servicing motorists, such as traffic
enforcement and street maintenance. Enforcing traffic and parking laws, designing and building
safe streets, and maintaining them well after they are built, are some of the largest costs that
cities and counties incur, and,far exceed VLF revenues. It is fair for motorists to pay directly for
some of these costs.
i
The State should return take-aways first. The discussion of phasing-out VLF largely stems f
from the State's radically improved financial condition. However, a large a part of the State's
fiscal improvement is a direct result from the revenues taken away from cities and counties by
the State under ERAF, For this reason, a strong case can be made that any surplus should go to
repaying local agencies for these take-aways — $3.6 billion annually - before Sacramento
contemplates a substantial giveaway.
There are better places to look for tax relief. If the State believes that its improved fiscal
condition warrants a tax cut, this is certainly a legitimate topic for public policy debate. 1
However, there is no need to draw local government finances into this discussion — especially
given the battering we have received from the State over the past few years. There are many •
other broad-based taxes that could be reduced such as sales and income taxes—without again
placing local governments at risk by needlessly involving them in the State budget process.
iE
Conclusion. Executive and legislative efforts should be directed to,restoring revenues taken
away from us by the State under ERAF —however, if this is not going to happen, at minimum,
the State should not be making things worse by causing even greater fiscal uncertainty and
instability at the local level.
Proposed Resolution
J
While cities and counties should be unequivocally opposed to any VLF phase-out — as well as
any other revenue measure that would reduce our fiscal independence and increase our reliance. }
on the State—the rbdhis that support for this phase-out is gaining. For this reason,we propose
adopting the attached resolution which links any VLF phase-out to:
■ A constitutionally-guaranteed replacement of the lost revenue.
■ The return of property taxes taken away under ERAF.
SUMMARY
The proposed VLF phase-out places all cities and counties at serious risk in their ability to fund
critical services, and in taking.res onsibili for their fiscal futures. If this
P h' s happens,it needs to be
clearly linked with assurances that our fiscal outlook will be enhanced, not further threatened, as
a result.
JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND
CITY COUNCILS OF ALL THE CITIES IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
URGING THE}GOVERNOR AND THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO
OPPOSE THE PHASE-OUT OF VEHICLE LICENSE FEES
i
WHEREAS, the Governor and the State Legislature are considering a phase.-out of f
vehicle license fees (VLF),over five years as proposed in AB 1776 (McClintock) and SB 1723
(Haynes); and
WHEREAS, vehicle license fees are an essential source of funding for key city and
county services like police and fire protection, and if the State takes these revenues away from
local government—on top''of property tax revenues already taken away from cities and counties
by the State through ERAS' —this will severely jeopardize local government's ability to provide
basic services to our communities, and to financially plan for the future; and
WHEREAS, vehicle license fee revenues have a long tradition as a local government
funding source, and are a fair source of funding the vehicle-related costs that local agencies incur
in servicing motorists, such as traffic enforcement, safe street design and street maintenance; and
WHEREAS, although "assurances" have been made that cities and counties will be
"made whole" in the event that VLF is phased-out, the history of State and local government j
fiscal relationships over the past twenty years (and underscored by the past five years) tells us
that trading a stable, dependable revenue source for a State-controlled one is the exact opposite
direction from where State and local governments should go. -The fiscal future of cities and i
counties lies in greater fiscal independence from the State,not in greater reliance upon it; and
WHEREAS, the discussion of phasing-out VLF stems from the State's improved
financial condition;`.and a iarge.a part of this improvement is a direct result from the revenues
taken away from cities and counties by the State under ERAF. For this reason, any State fiscal
surplus should go to repaylg local agencies for these take-aways ($3.6 billion annually) before
Sacramento contemplates substantial giveaway; and
WHEREAS, if the''.;State believes that its improved fiscal condition warrants a.tax cut,
there is no need to draw local government finances into this discussion. There are many other
broad-based taxes that could be reduced—such as sales and income taxes-without again placing
local governments at risk by needlessly involving them in the State budget process; and
WHEREAS, in conclusion, executive and legislative efforts should be directed towards
restoring revenues taken affray from local governments by the State under ERAF; however, if this
is not going to happen, at minimum, the State should not be making things worse by causing
even greater fiscal uncertainty and instability at the local level. ',
Joint Resolution of the County and Cities of San Luis Obispo County
Page 2
-NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County
San Luis Obispo and by all the City Councils of the Cities in San Luis Obispo County that w
urge the Governor and the State Legislature to:
• EgVese Phasing-out VLF revenues.
SPAF-? -concept ffiat-t this i0eeun—, tny-ph
linked to a constitutionally-guaranteed replacement source as well as the return of property taxes
to cities and counties taken.away by the State through ERAF.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis
Obispo and the City Councils of all the Cities in San Luis Obispo County at a joint special
meeting held on the day of 1998.
I
ATTEST: ;
City Clerk,City of Arroyo Grande Mayor, City of Arroyo Grande
City Clerk, City of Atascadero Mayor, City of Atascadero •
City Clerk, City of Grover Beach Mayor, City of Grover Beach
{
City Clerk, City of-Morro Bay Mayor, Ci of Morro
City Bay ►
t
r
City Clerk, City of Paso Robles Mayor, City of Paso Robles
City Clerk, City of Pismo Beach Mayor,City of Pismo Beach E
City Clerk, City of San Luis Obispo Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo t
County Clerk, County of San Luis Obispo Chair, County Board of Supervisors
P.,
r
Se' 'n Luis Oh"Isp -0 Co- unc il of G
overnments
Arroyo Grande
i ,Regional Transportation Planning Agency Atascadero
Metropolitan'Planning Organization G Mom Bch.
Bay
Congestion Management Agenc Paco Robles
_ y Pismo Beach: .
State Census Data Affiliate
san Luis.Obispo
Ronald L.DeCarli-Executive Director San Luis Obispo County
DATE: . May 13, 1998
TO: Joint Meeting of the Cities and the County
- All Council Membors and Mayors,and Supervisors
FROM - Ronald L. DeCarli,Executive Director
i
SUBJECT: FEDERAL INTERMODAL ' SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT (ISTEA)
REAUTHORIZATION,.COMPARISON OF HOUSE AND SENATE VERSIONS&IMPLICATIONS . =
This report provides a synopsis of current efforts.to reauthorize the Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act(ISTEA).of 1991.• It identifies key provisions of the bills-and their implications to our region..Both the
House of Representatives and the Senate have passed their ownversions of bills for the reauthorization. Both bills
provide a significant increase in funding over what was provided by ISTEX. The primary focus and structure of the
1991 ISTEA remains the same. Focus continues on Metropolitan Planning'Organization (MPO)programming,and
',-
a seamless intermodal transportation.system.
A conference-committee is'now working to:reach agreement on the final reauthorization.to be submitted to. the.
President for his signature. It is(anticipated that an agreement between all the parties will.be'reached by June or-
July. The House version (HR 2400)is known as BESTEA,the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity.'.
Act; the Senate version (S1173) is known as ISTEA II. Attached are several tables, as follows:Table 1 provides a'-.
breakdown of the funding provided by the now. expired ISTEA,• compared with BESTEA and ISTEA II; ..Table 2 '.
compares the program provisions of the three bills; Table 3 provides SLOCOG's 1998 Regional Transportation
Improvement Program (RTIP); Table 4 identifies funding targets for each jurisdiction to be_programmed in August,
1998. Following is a synopsis of the major implications of both.bills: .
1. The total amount of fundin increases by about 50% over what was provided by ISTEA. . BESTEA`provides
about $219 billion and IM 11 about $217 billion. Unresolved issue: consistency with budget agreement.
Some cuts are likely;funding increase reflected in Feb., 1998 SLOCOG programming(Table 3).
2. The House Billincludes about 1,500 'demonstration' projects with a total value of over $9.3-Billion, including
$12 million in San Luis Obispo County, the Senate version includes none. Unresolved issue: total-.amount of
'demo'projects and allocation via formula or'off--the-top'.
3. Funding for the Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) program is continued in both.bills, project types.
are expanded, but use is restricted. The Senate version allows 8% of STP funds to be used while the.House.
version continues.to use the currentlevel of 10%. SLOCOG will conditionally program $2.7 million in August-
subject
ugust subject to compliance wlth'�tate guidelines.
4. The Surface Transportation'Program (STP)expanded in both bills:the House.version by73%, and the Senate
bill by 86%. SLOCOG will program funding in August, 1998 (Table .4 identifies targeted amounts). The
increased funding will be pro
grammed in 1999
5. The list of Metropolitan Planning factors is consolidated from the current.16 to 7, consideration is optional, the
requirement for completion of Major Investment Studies'(MIS).is eliminated, and the Regional Transportation
Improvement Program(RTIC')update period is increased from 2 to 3 years
6. Both bills provide for furthet streamlining of the overall programming an environmental review process. /
Ll L .
. ;.f
1
1150 Osos Street, Ste.202,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 O Tel. (805)781-4219 A Fax. (805)781-5703
Q _ ~ P O R�t M CO O O O o \ a = Z
LV c 0 M co P ]X 0 0 M N •
< f' 00 CV 00 *T coo coLfl P O cor .Q
Q 1
z w - o ca
M y _ in _ C
--- O N
A to O r to 0 O O O O�p O e = e
W O P NO M M M O O MCQ{ ' r-
CV
M tv e- T EOE N 00 N N
W o
co
iRm - -- cl
o . "-' NL =CC CV) C ca
cu _ _
r _
G CO f` N O to O'�-P O 0 0co
l� M = C
'... Q CO Q M N M ti t1 ti l� m (O O P CV CC1 e- r' m (� U
W m N N' T: It Cu Q N
❑ s em N +0+ — ca m
ca c O
WtnCa� � � =
:, N �-.
Cj) o \ o a o o o \ o C W .
• V o \ o \ o
QQ - Lo CA M tl` 00 e y o �
W co
�"� W V a P O N D ti O CV M M CO.�yaj � C
r v' : 00
-
(� m W _ Wit\- _� a.
co cmc F-
z �... c c «s �, 3 'CD � •�
Q C CO CL
L.
000 N COO O Q„ O O O O O O O: O O` N Oo
(/) M -- M �`7 to O �i O 0) 00 N O Co Cn O C
Z e- M VZ g�O a N 00 P P N N Lp 00 a) Co U cu Q
U CCS
WWI cu O
> > N O Co CV Lq 0p to �-„'O f� C)? N M COO CO 0_ V '~ (n
O = U') co CO O C� O O) P CA O O; CO O)_ 0- 76 .1 . 4••
W m N M N N rn
0 N O O 4
O MCD
O r- 0 .(n E E
Z2 = R �` w -acrn �
N. = L o00D a o0 00 0 0' 1— _ `”' co
co CO CA �CA:t �t M M .CO O
W e- e- CO �S7,P LO N P LO N M LO N:` U >_ _
co
Z C) ci ,_ CV C C O W
z �.. ` m
N CU a SS W
LL Q y s •, (� OLL W 17
Q C
H
O �. O 00 r PE}7 p O �. N N
�'" ti co met � 0) P � � cr) Co to m
Z W ON N N co r 3'rN E ' F— m W
f"
o
Ogg :.-- N M 4 L
Q zg
� x
IL
.�.• .Q+ _ Y_tu �►
CD r CD cy
t'
v A/ L2, €�L Q LCJ •a Q �
a. L O ti
mss
O i L O O
O 3 w+ d O y i L
Z ... m N N r U N O ❑ to � - F- (/� C9'
Table 2
ISTE!A REAUTHORIZATION BILLS
Current Law (I$TEA) vs HR2400 (BESTEA) & S1173 (ISTEA II).
COMPARI ON OF MAJOR PROGRAM PROVISIONS
# Program/issue C rrent Law House Version Senate Version
1 Funding Period 6 years 6 years 6 years _
2 Modes Included Hwys, Transit Hwys, Transit Safety, Hwys, Transit Safety,
Saffety, Research Research & Rail Research & Rail
3Fundn foi-Ail An uaI $26 '13vArima( $36 5 Bi[i�oix
sz = � BII
vPrograms� To $'C 7,26}` Total $219 6 Billror =Tota} 2Z.2BI[IrQ
�1HS' Infer stater x r
--z , 5'ame as [STEA pias high Sarri as EBZpIu
¢ OveraIi Program �r ht cost infersafe reconsf, Bordet Crass ng &T
MAQ, ITS„
Stricture } s Access to;Jobs, $9 3 Bigton corndorsi:remote sense
- S nic Byways, 5 o no 'dettto' pets
-` .......... ass Transit for:1 00+ `decna' pr 1ects
1
Emergency Relief ER y lA ofd demos Special
Programs Exempt (ER), Min. 4 ER, MA, old demos and
5 ,&High Pnonty�proJects and::;
from funding limits Allroc.(MA), and x ;; special projects
demo projects z,new demo projects-r
r x xp
Provides$35 213 designates rovjes $72 fo� r[e
1National Highway motor IntermadaC jlnCerstatoNHS`prop'
System(SLOCOG Pr avid. $26 413 connectors,-allows states tQ designates aJor
6 `Intermodal conrJecfcrs
programmed in ver 6 years assume interstate &non
Feb 98 interstate oversight a sq�
lo�nc a es on
s st t
in erstafe &no in ers a
responsibilities _
y , vers cespoos'i�illities.:
ig
Surface Pr vided $238,�
o Provides $39 76, requires-!1,1Provides'$AZ 96 wed res
.Transportation required that 10/a ° x _
,that 10%,be spent on TE TE to 8/° of otal=anii�res
7-1."., Program (STP) be spent on ,
OP. gives:State oversight for State avers► htfor na
(SLOCOG will E hancements g
-.: non:NHS protects � ��NHS projects= .�'�`
program Aug 98)
x
Provided $16B and Integrates program into
Bridge allowed 50% to be Provides $26.88, allows new'Interstate & NHS'
8 $100M annually for
Replacement transferred to NHS discretionary projects program with a total of
or STP $72.78
Provided 10% of Revises 10% safety
STP! ($2.313)for rail Provides 10% setaside, setaside, expands eligible
9 Highway Safety grade crossings authorizes $5.7513 for High uses and transferability,
and hazard Risk Road Safety Program eliminates req'd grade
elimination crossing percentage, make
traffic calming eligible use
Prcjvided $813 for Provides $1013 for maint. provides $713 for maint.
and nonattainment areas,
Congestion projects in maint. permits transfer of 50% of and nonattainment areas,
10 Mitigation &Air andl nonattainment with no transfer of funds to
Quality (CMAQ) areas; SLO Co. increased funds to other Fedther programs; SLO co.
mot eligible . aid programs; SLO Co.Ca not eligible
not eligible
Istea Reauthorization bills Page 2 of 3
# Program/Issue Current Law House Version
Senate Version
i =-R u" 'd that' o j Refains -E----'ra 'arm Reduces T>�pr ra
Yx eq f � 9r ; r �� .
s x Transportation of STP funds be setas[de ofwSTPrsefaside8a�,ofS')P
al y" e9 {
.. uti ..y,ce>.?.S .t
,1, En ancements fruit s, increase to eet eS r 'M
o_esrequire n,,,en
�+ rtsed forenv
'""'7a "•[r ...ra r-'.s^- ,?3-. yr "�' $�ngf u �t
!t�gat�o x oto rrclude tour�st(wetcome � r p
P. ar , - grn colverne ar e
a yro i amrgSj pedestrian, ►Gyele, centers and regctires;a dEreet ww
' x and scenrc h s �" " _ slidrn scale=forF d a
transportationIin1r
ma cAMO� �
..-.. .-_,... ,...,..Fay. ......,.� _-
�
$30M per year
apportioned by
formula divided Provides$45M per year Provides average of
12
Recreational Trails 30% each for apportioned by formula; $21.8M per year
Program ° apportioned by formula;
9 motorized retains 30/o project split;
nonmotorized, & Federal share is 50% retains 30°!o project split;
diverse projects. Federal share is 80%
50% Federal share
r
&
" * Protects elkr'ble for mus be considered r + wt''I
Needs t
oiralt n wand _ x
r= BIc cle funding through Sage as House versiQu I
ma arcate ZM
aces reconstrrct�on projects, rZ.
�
13 Pedestrian LY g requires study woh AASHTC expands f jpzarCl elirgj: !
must senze bike to mcictde hazards a
Projects to emend hwy &st design
transportation 13lCYClIS `
,purpose standards o aceom
m date is
} a .u'y
3 a bicxclists and pedestrians 1 •
2'r
61
6 rs t
Mantlated
41 rip ffie 1
_ �rY+c'<r Y.Y'
fi
L consideration of 16 planning factors to 7,Ei
- l
— � Y
4 i Sambas House ve�rs10 bu
TMe, -lit ,nplanning factors, r makes-consi_f_1 i, project specif[c floc in
14 plannm , d"MISE set optional, eliminates Mafor sources riot regrtiredo [
g
3 year fiscally Invesfi.StudyY(MIS) afeslVl
planar TIP,etimiri f
f 4 i L K xx 3X'+yr� S *SYaI
t
constrained TIP, requirement, changes TIP as stand alone requ�ren[ nf
updated b�enrnally„ update to every 3 years
W
Provides$150M per year to
Welfare-to-Work fund 10 projects to assist 1
15 Program/Access to No Provision Welfare recipients gain Same as House version
Jobs Program access to jobs; two projects
to be located in urbanized
areas of less than 200,000
Established
program to Continues program as
Intelligent Continues program as originally designed;
16Transportation research &develop originally designed; provides ITS as part of g y g ; p provides $120M for FY
Systems (ITS) Nation's transp. $100M annually 1998 ($800M total for FY's
s stem 1998-2003)
1 � I
Istea Reauthorization bills Page 3 of 3
# Program/Issue Current Law House Version Senate Version
c h q. s _.
r Y S t.more flexEbla er s ream
Z r ect approval anc
Eu
R.
reurrementsfor prO1
�17P,rogram _F oversight certrficatian precessaflows
_ Streamlrnrng :; rx States to assurne 3mes6usee sore
Y pr jectapprovals f z �
r -� y„, oversr ht res onsif?rirties
- a d certification k 3 H
z f 3 for botF 1�IHS,a d non N f
y ;
Provrdes-concurrent; _ _I
AE-VGz . ' �r
M
in V4 bask coor�dmatectcevrewIegwres e3b1�`sarrn
s
En 18 _1ronmental , rocess between federal - irtt"egrafe �e rsrar fna_ rn j' erzevrew
am 11
agencres,�al[ows envGocess heeenrd
process ¢responsibilities to be and;State aertcl "
����„
Provided $5M per Provides $10M per year in Provides $5M set aside
yeer from FY's 93- FY's 98-2001 for corridor from full STP auth. each FY
19 High Speed Rail for Railway-hwy xing
97;I$25M for demo planning; $25M per year for hazard elimination in 9 high
projects high speed rail technology � seed rail corridors
-rotal:$29.4B Total: $36.66; preserves
$1 .46 for capital ISTEA flexibility; allows use Total:$41.3B; allows
20 Transit Service of funding for transit formula funds to be used
and $176 for enhancements and for operations or capital
operations maintenance
Provides grants to Codifies program at$30M Codifies program at$19.3M
states for ping. and per year; to be designated per year; to be designated
maint. of scenic& must be State Scenic must be State Scenic
toric byways;
Scenic Byways Byway; funds may be used Byway; funds may be used
21 Program his97 for wide variety of for wide variety of
$14kMyear in 9 improvements, incl. passing improvements, incl. passing
96 97; 80% Fed.. lanes, rest areas, bike/ped lanes, rest areas, bike/ped
share. lanes, etc. lanes, etc.
The Metropolitan Transportation Planning process shall provide for consideration of the
following factors:
1. Supporting the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global
competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;
2. Increasing the safety and securi!y of the transportation system for motorized and
nonmotodzed users;']
3. Increasing the accesgibility and mobility options available to people and for freight;
4. Protecting and enhancing the environment and quality of life, coordinating land-use and
transportation plans end programs, and promoting energy conservation
5. .Enhancing the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and
• between modes, for People and freight;
6. Promoting efficient system management and operation; and
7. Emphasizing the preservation of the existing transportation system. '
'a eS O OO O O O r r
O O CA 1- O O O O O r to O (D CO
N. cq
LoQ = 13 ,
o
co r M r '_ N N In tCf
r '
o
O U)
U) Qa ,a O M p M O O0
O O O O O
V ^ r. Cfl e- C
C1 N O ti o n
OC ` ++ c c c
CL v � . �
LO
-s. ��.+s`.t
,..! � .}�u nrN.FF' ' rPM � i� '' -M.' •iF �l�L..�/'-�h�. +WiY�� /FSS.
O :XA��.
E co
�' f,.,Fs,r`. ..rN- ,.,,+x.`.f.. - °"ve- —•Y•�' -r.:._Ft +,s':. ,: .. w. n� ^'-°"j
E
to C � ~
LL d. 'C w O O O a O O O O O p M ti ,
a 'O C CD CD co .-:
LL M .- Ch y C
Q)
^ lu 0 WC N a O O O O M O
O ._d, 0.N ( COo tp It
V
L O �d' m u M N T ~ N y "
0 to w. W O a)CC) O O O O N tN
CL ` m N O U') O to C O
-0 a
LL
Q.
16.0 0 E .0 0 .- N O tD 0)
w ti
V-
o _ v o m o 0 0 o O co
OU V N N ti ti N N COD M CA t` In 0
O E
0 3 O V 000 co ct O .- CV r C .0 y0`'
O Cl) (/� V o a) U O
L o ) p
O O: O O e- r O CO N M d CD
O CD e- to r O O' M O .y.
C`7 W �! r O p y
0 C a1
o
m a
rL ca
e-
4
L Up y � U O y O .�
N LU
O y v a)
O. o c
> Q) C C4 4) 3 �
^ ti.. tm y
C U C a y y ^ Co _ j y C �.
a ami ca
cc ami F- .c r >, 3
3 ^ -a >
Co mCVvt a CN O - 'Oj ao ,s ocy
0 = j 64
ca c
~Crn
O_ y O C O 0 a (D W Cca
~ - 0 O N O m CD
C C y pOj C N
•� ., C E in C c tv v) O � f0 > N c .N c 0) N y
C� R to) C a) y CO CSS 0 RD -0 Q. W y >o y c vci Q a E v
M n' m c E � ca - c a) E ,2 Q 3a a' N -flco
y .0.) CO �
'a o to a a) O C O :N S 17i O a) C a3 y C_�o M
°i o m c W o ccu ca 0 m c c J W ' c U �.
ti G CO E
v ca
(D N a i y (E caLO i W E 0 CD C6
N .0 co tmM Q - y am
Ld-
US CL
Q 0 W E2 y O a (i N N 0 c m 'C d
LLQ .0 X o -� E c aa) a p m 'w v ~ 4? y o p v-
� � W m o �? ° Q c � 0 � m � V � � m � c
0 L cf) et y V ry C y N �t e* a) W 0 0 U O
CD 0
CU0 12 12 0
to CO o J L F- 1- F- 0 o a O Q co Z W
t c a c Z a a w fn a Z r CV C9 �r {fi
O 1,- co 'm O • '�
�- r
SAN LU1S� OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Table 4
Transportation Project Funds
1997/98 thru 2002/2003
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
Adopted 6-Year Allocated Adopted
Jurisdiction 120% 90/91 "Target" Nextea $'s "Target"
Cities
Arroyo Grande 70,356 422,136 0 422,136
Atascadero 114,816 688,896 110,000 578,896
Grover Beach 56,238 337,428 0 337,428
Morro Bay 44,928 269,568 213,199 56,369
Paso Robles 99,528 597,168 57,000 540,168
Pismo Beach 37,986 227,916 0 227,916
San Luis City 194,766 1,168,596 0 1 ,168,596
Total Cities 618,618 3,711 ,708 380,199 3,331 ,509
County
Cambria (urb) 25,428 152,568 0 152,568
Los Osos (urb) 66,612 399,672 0 399,672
• Nipomo (urb) 39,780 238,680 0 238,680
Oceano (urb) 29,562 177,372 0 177,372
Unincorp Rural 578,000 3,468,000 0 3,468,000
Total Count 739 382 4 436 292 0
County 4,436,292
Cities & County 1 ,358,000 8,148,000 380,199 7,767,801
Regional Funds y 754,000 4,524 000 1,466,26$ 3 0577' 2
Sub-Total STP 2,112,000 112,672,000 1 1,846,487 10,825,513
Trans. Enhance. Activities (TEA) ($452k/yr for 6-years) 2,712,000
Grand Total STP I& TEA Funding 13,537,513
Statewide Discretionary Funding
State Env. Enhance. & Mitigation (EEM) Funds (6-years) 11250,000
��f
San-. is Obit : _0 Council of Governments
ACOy°GrandeRegional TraationPlannnb ArtbencY
Atascadero
Metropolitan Planning Organization c Motroo Bay
Bay
Congestion Managemg
ent A enc Paso Robles
. .Y Pismo Beach
State CensusData Affiliate san Luis Obispo
Ronald L.DeCarli-Executive Director 4 San Luis Obispo County
DATE: May 13,.199 ...
TO: Joint Meeting,of the Cities and the County"
All Council Members & Supervisors
FROM: Ronald L 0e0arli, Executive Director '
; SUBJECT: Updated Couitywide Pavement Maintenance & Rehabilitation Needs Report
Attachment A to this transmittal,is an update of the original Countywide Pavement Maintenance
and Rehabilitation. Need$ :report that was "'completed *by SLOCOG -staff in. Aprii, 1997::
Attachment B is the final report on the meetings of the Supplemental .Transportation Funding
Committee which was established at a joint meeting of the seven.Cities in June, 1997. These,
reports are being brought, before this meeting as a, result of.a`recommendation made by the
Mayors'& Managers group that it is an issue of continuing.concem to the Cities and the'County: :,
that should be addressed.
This update of the road maintenance needs report incorporates data from recentlycompleted
• road condition inventories'and adoption of maintenance strategies by the County.of San .Luis
Obispo, and the,cities of Arroyo Grande,Morro Bay and San Luis Obispo
The. major finding of this update is that the total cost-to carry.out all currently identified
maintenance and rehabilitation work ranges from a low of about.$35.5 million to a high of about
$93 million. The original report, prior to the update of the inventory completed by the..County,
and the Cities"Arroyo Grande, Morro Bay and San Luis Obispo, estimated that the cost of all
required maintenance ranged from about $52 million to about $153'm illio'n. This reduction in
the estimated cost is mainly due to the availability'of actual inventory data on road conditions
Based on staff review of projected budgets: .of local jurisdictions for street..and road
maintenance, none;of the jurisdictions in the region is currently able to. cant' out the entire
current backlog of'needed road rehabilitation work identified on either tables 3 or 4 within.the
next few years.. Those jurisdictions,with an adopted Pavement Management Plan(PMP) are
generally working with.the goal of improving the condition.of their roads to a certain level within
ten years. ' So far; only) the city of San Luis Obispo .has adopted .a plan which 'proyides a
significant increase in funding for maintenance and rehabilitation; increased: from: about
$750,000 per year to $1. million. For most of the other jurisdictions there is still a need to . .
significantlyincrease funding to accomplish all needed.work.
„
Mayors Group Recommendation: Re-Establish Supplemental Transportation Funding
Committee to review updated. infomiation .and
recom_mend.a course of:possible action
L
1150 Osos Street,Ste.202,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 ®Tel. (8051 78.1-4219 A Fax. (805)781-5703
Attachment A
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
Draft Countywide Pavement Maintenance & Rehabilitation Needs •
Report Update
(May, 1998)
This is an update of the original report which was completed in April, 1997. It incorporates data
coming from the completion of road condition inventories and adoption of maintenance
strategies by the County of San Luis Obispo, and the cities of Arroyo Grande, Morro Bay and
San Luis Obispo.
Study Objective
To provide a comprehensive, countywide analysis of current local street and road pavement
maintenance and rehabilitation needs to assist local jurisdictions in developing a strategy to
address the continuing decline in the availability of adequate funding for this purpose.
Summary of Problem
During the past decade concem has grown throughout the State of California and the nation
over the continuing deterioration of our transportation infrastructure. In general, this has
occurred as our transportation system has continued to age as funding for maintenance and
rehabilitation has declined. In California the decline in funding has been especially serious due
to a combination of unanticipated natural and man made events.
When constructed, roads are designed to last twenty years, but their life can typically be •
extended to forty years or more with careful maintenance. To do so requires regularly sealing
cracks, patching potholes and deteriorated areas, chip sealing the entire surface every five
years, and applying a thin (1") or thick(2") paving overlay after ten years.
Without an active maintenance program, the typical roadway surface will eventually deteriorate
to a point where it must be reconstructed at a significant cost. Preventive maintenance and
rehabilitation can, however, be carried out at a'relatively low cost. Patching and sealing will
typically cost no more than one cent a square foot (for a gross area). A one inch overlay
project may only cost thirty cents a square foot. If reconstruction is necessary it may cost at
least$7 a square foot.
Background
There are 1,825 miles of local roads in the San Luis Obispo region:1,284 miles are the
responsibility of the County and 541 the cities (see Table 1). During the past 10-20 years the
amount of funding available to maintain these roads has declined significantly. This situation
was primarily due to the general decline in overall community budgets which began with the
passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 and later extended during the California recession which
occurred between 1990 and 1995.
For example, in FY 1983/84 the County of San Luis Obispo expended over $7 million for road
maintenance purposes, of which about $5 million was general fund revenue. As other needs
became a higher priority general fund revenue was gradually withdrawn from the streets and
roads budget, until Fiscal Year 97/98 when $1.34 million was provided for reconstruction of
arterials rated `bad'.
s
1
This February (1998), thel, County Board of Supervisors accepted the findings of an updated
road condition inventory which had just been completed by County Engineering, and adopted a
Pavement Management Flan. (PMP) to guide the future maintenance of County roads. The
staff recommendation wasi to provide $3 million annually to cavy out the program. The Board
adopted an overall standard of maintenance for County roads. The proposed County budget is
expected to provide a total of about $2.5 million for preventative maintenance in the FY 98/99
budget as a one-time mea ure. It is unknown at this.time whether there will be a continuation
of this level of funding in the future.
For the cities during this period, the reduced ability to provide adequate funding for
maintenance was not as significant, but was still serious. The city of Atascadero for example,
has the largest amount (130) of road miles of all seven cities and a relatively limited revenue
basis. Other cities, such as Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Morro Bay, which have a
relatively small amount of road miles, simply did not have the ability to provide adequate
funding for road maintenance. Some cities, such as Paso Robles which experienced
considerable growth during the past ten years, or the city San Luis Obispo, which has benefited
from being the long established government and commercial center of the region, were
generally able to maintain *adequate funding for. street and road maintenance. ' The
maintenance problem for these two cities has continued to grow, however, along with that of the
other jurisdictions. The extent of the problem was exposed most recently in the City of San Luis
Obispo, where in April,19g8;*the City adopted an updated Pavement Management Plan (PMP),
which included an additional $675,000 for an enhanced pavement maintenance effort in the FY
98/99 budget. This will provide about $1.5 million in total funding for maintenance annually
over the next ten years. Adoption of this plan was in recognition that there had been a decline
in the condition of roads ''throughout the city because less that adequate funding had been
provided for maintenance.
• Study Methodology
Road condition inventories and Pavement Management Plans (PMP's) for those jurisdictions.
that had completed one vithin the last few years were assembled and the data reviewed to
prepare three tables described below. As of the preparation of the first report, completed in
April, 1997, five of the seven cities in the region did not have a recent inventory (one which had
been completed within th16 last five years). These were the cities of Arroyo Grande, Pismo
Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, and San Luis Obispo.. In addition, the County of San Luis
Obispo had an inventory that had been completed in 1989. Inventories for the Cities of Arroyo
Grande, Morro Bay and Son Luis Obispo, and the County were subsequently completed.
It is important to understand that the data from these inventories is a 'snapshot' in time of the
roadway conditions. As such the findings depicted on Tables 1-4 only represent the situation
as it exists at the time of t e inventories. The condition of a road will deteriorate over time.if it '
is not maintained based or�appropriate engineering standards.
Table 1: Current Pavement Condition - This table summarizes pavement conditions for local
roads in all jurisdictions. The inventories were basically based on the following scoring system:
roads with scores from 0-20 were rated 'bad', scores of 21-40 were rated 'poor', scores from
41-60 were rated 'fair', scores rates 61-80 were rated 'good', and scores from 81-100 were
rated 'best'. The scores of the roads in cities with completed inventories were averaged by
classification to estimate conditions in the cities of Paso Robles and Pismo Beach.
Table 2: Currently Req !red Work - This table presents estimates of necessary road
maintenance and rehabilitation work based on the condition data contained in Table 1. To
develop an estimate of the total current cost of providing the identified road maintenance and
rehabilitation staff converted the road condition data into specific work tasks based on i
4
standardized methods: road miles rated 'best' require no current maintenance; miles rated
`good' or 'fair' typically require sealing and/or.patching; miles rated 'poor' typically require at
least a thin (1") overlay; and miles rated `bad' typically require at least a thick (2") overlay. •
Some miles rated 'bad' will, if not properly maintained or rehabilitated, eventually require full
reconstruction. Most jurisdictions apply either a one or two inch overlay based on the condition
of the road. The County Engineering Department, however, uses a one and one-half inch
overlay as its standard.
Table 3: Cost of Currently Required Maintenance(Low cost scenario) -This table presents
estimates of the direct cost (including materials, equipment and labor)to carry out the currently
estimated backlog of maintenance and rehabilitation as described in Tables 2. The costs used
on these tables, which are based on contracts let by the City of Grover Beach,and as such are
a low cost scenario which may not represent true conditions for all situations. This table shows
the breakdown of total expenditures by category. The cost of crack sealing and patching,used
was 3 cents per square foot; thin (1") overlays $1 dollar per square foot; and thick (2")overlays
$1.50 per square foot. For each maintenance or rehabilitation task an average twenty-five (25')
foot wide road section was used for calculating the total cost. This width was chosen by
averaging available road width data from each the jurisdictions in the region.
The total estimated-cost of all maintenance work in the region (low cost scenario), based on the
standardized methodology used in this report, is about $35.5 million. The original report, prior
to the update of the inventory completed by the County, and the Cities Arroyo Grande, Morro
Bay and San Luis Obispo, estimated that the cost of all required maintenance was about $52
million. It should be understood both estimates are 'snapshots' of the total, continuing road
maintenance and rehabilitation needs in the region, and that the actual cost for any particular
jurisdiction may vary depending on area specific labor and materials costs.
Table 4: Cost of Currently Required Maintenance (Standard cost scenario) - This table is
identical to table 3 except for the fact that the costs (materials, equipment and labor) are based
on a "Standard Cost Scenario" derived from information provided by County Engineering)which
assume a "high" or "worst case" cost for each of the needed maintenance and rehabilitation
tasks. The cost of crack sealing and patching was increased from 1 cent per gross square foot
to 3 cents; thin (1") overlays from 30 cents per square foot to $1 dollar; and thick (2") overlays
from 60 cents per square foot to $1.50.
The total estimated cost to cavy out the currently identified maintenance and rehabilitation work
based on the standardized'methodology used in this report is about$93 million. The original
report, completed prior to the update of the inventories completed by the County, and the Cities
Arroyo Grande, Morro Bay and San Luis Obispo, found that the cost of all required
maintenance was about $153 million. As with the low cost scenario, it should be understood
both estimates are`'snapshots' of the total, continuing road maintenance and rehabilitation
needs in the region, and that the actual cost for any particular jurisdiction may vary depending
on area specific labor and materials costs.
Financial Conclusions - Based on staff review of projected budgets of local jurisdictions for
street and road maintenance, none of the jurisdictions in the region is currently able to carryout
the entire current backlog of needed road rehabilitation work identified on either tables 3 or4
within the next few years. . Those jurisdictions with an adopted Pavement Management Plan
(PMP) are generally working with the goal of improving the condition of their roads to a certain
level within ten years. So far, only the city of San Luis Obispo has adopted a plan which
provides a significant increase in funding for maintenance and rehabilitation; increased from
about$750,000 per year to $1.5 million. For most of the other jurisdictions, there is still a need
to significantly increase funding to accomplish all needed work.
I
3i
In the short term it will be necessary for each of the jurisdictions to carry out a pavement
management program that focuses on preventive maintenance while also carrying out more
extensive rehabilitation projects on the most seriously deteriorated road segments. By focusing
on low cost crack sealingl, and patching it is possible to stabilize the condition of many road
segments, and at the same time prioritize overlay projects so.that the worst road segments are
rehabilitated first.
The analysis of options for rehabilitating the road system of the City of Grover Beach conducted
by its Community Development Director showed that it would be necessary to increase it
budget from the current$80,000 to $400,000 annually for a period of twenty years to bring 72%
of its roads up to an acceptable condition rating (based on the methodology contained in the
PMSPro computerized pavement management program). Similar conclusions about.funding .
can be made for the other smaller jurisdictions, including the cities of Arroyo Grande, Pismo
Beach and Mono Bay. For the cities of Atascadero and Paso Robles the financial implications
are somewhat more extensive, although the City of Paso Robles appears to have more
resources than Atascadero.
Condition Summary by Jurisdiction - Following are summaries.of the estimated pavement
conditions of roadways in each jurisdiction in the region (see Table 1). This includes a
summary of: standard based work needed to maintain and rehabilitate the roads based on their
current estimated condition (see Table 2); current estimated costs to complete required work
(see Table 3); and a brief review of the current funding situation. Two scenarios for estimating
costs were prepared: a low cost scenario based on actual costs for recent contracts let by the
City of Grover Beach in 1996, and a higher "standard cost" scenario based on regionwide and
state estimates of generally expected costs.
• Arroyo Grande - The City has 60 miles of roads, 3 percent of all local roads in the region. An
inventory of road conditions and a report were completed in late 1997. This inventory showed
that current estimated road conditions are as follows: 46% of the roads in the City (27 miles)
are in 'good' or 'best' condition, currently requiring no maintenance or rehabilitation; 6% (4
miles) are in 'fair conditidn, requiring crack sealing and patching; 9% (5 miles) are in 'poor
condition, requiring a thin'(1") overlay; and 39% (23 miles) are in 'bad' condition, requiring a
thick (2") overlay.
The total estimated current cost of doing needed maintenance and rehabilitation work identified
on Table 2 ranges from about $2 million (Table 3) to about$5 million (Table 4). The current City
budget for this type of work is $30,000. The adopted maintenance plan includes about
$250,000 per year is,spending between FY 1998/99 and 2002/2003. While this is a significant
increase over the'previo0s funding level, SLOCOG staff estimate that a further increase in
funding will be necessary, to accomplish the necessary road maintenance and rehabilitation
work identified in"the adopted Pavement Management System Plan.
Atascadero - The City has 140 miles of roads, 8 percent of all local roads in the region.
Currently (updated) estimates of road conditions, based on final .data from an inventory
completed in late 1996, are as follows: 17% of the roads in the City (24 miles) are in 'good' or
'best' condition, currently requiring no maintenance or rehabilitation; 23% (32 miles) are in 'fair'
condition, requiring crack sealing and patching; 15% (21 miles) are in 'poor condition, requiring
a thin (1")overlay; and 45/0 (63 miles)are in 'bad' condition, requiring a thick (2") overlay. .
The total current estimated cost of doing needed maintenance and rehabilitation work identified
on Table 2 ranges from nearly $6 million (Table 3) to about$15 million (Table 4). The proposed
road maintenance and rehabilitation budget for FY 1998/99 is about $550,000, of which about
$400,000 is carryover from the previous Fiscal Year due to the fact that a certain amount of
work could not be carried out because of weather conditions.
4
SLOCOG staff estimate that a significant increase in funding for road maintenance and
rehabilitation will be necessary to bring deficient roads in the City of Atascadero up to an
acceptable pavement-rating. •
Grover Beach - The City has 50 miles of roads, 3 percent of all local roads in the region.
Current estimated road conditions, based on an inventory completed in March, 1996, are as
follows: 61% of the roads in the City (31 miles) are in 'good' or `best' condition, currently
requiring no maintenance or rehabilitation; 10% (5 miles) are in `fair' condition, requiring crack
sealing and patching; 15% (8 miles) are in 'poor' condition, requiring a thin (1") overlay; and
14% (7 miles)are in 'bad' condition, requiring a thick(2")overlay.
The total estimated current cost of doing needed maintenance and rehabilitation work identified
on Table 2 ranges from nearly $900,000 (Table 3) to nearly $2.5 million (Table 4). The
proposed FY 1998/99 budget for maintenance and rehabilitation is between $150,000 and I
$200,000. City staff have estimated that a significant increase to $400,000 annually in funding
for road maintenance and rehabilitation will be necessary to bring deficient roads up to an
acceptable pavement rating within the next twenty years.
Morro Bay-The City has 48 miles of roads, 3 percent of all local roads in the region. Current
estimated road conditions, based on an inventory completed in April, 1997, are as follows: 45%
of the roads in the City (21 miles) are in 'good' or 'best' condition, currently requiring no
maintenance or rehabilitation; 17% (8 miles) are in 'fair'condition, requiring crack sealing and
patching; 10% (5 miles) are in 'poor' condition, requiring a thin (1") overlay; and 28% (13 miles)
are in 'bad' condition, requiring a thick (2") overlay.
The total estimated current cost of doing needed maintenance and rehabilitation work identified
on Table. 2 ranges from about $1.2 million (Table 3) to about $3.2 million (Table 4). The •
estimated City budget for this type of work was $80,000. Based on the current City budget for
pavement maintenance and the locally estimate of road conditions it will take 14 to 37 years to
accomplish all work identified in Tables 3 or 4. SLOCOG staff conclude that a significant 1
increase in funding for road maintenance and rehabilitation will be necessary to bring deficient
roads up to an acceptable pavement rating within the next twenty years.
Paso Robles - The Ci has 100 miles of roads, I
City 5 percent of all local roads in the region.
Current estimated road conditions based on an ongoing analysis are as follows: 45% of the
roads in the City (45 miles) are in "good" or"best" condition, currently requiring no maintenance !
or rehabilitation; 21% (21 miles) are in fair condition, requiring crack sealing and patching; 12%
(12 miles) are in medium condition, requiring a thin (1") overlay; and 22% (22 miles) are in 'bad f
condition, requiring'a thick (2") overlay.
The total estimated current cost of doing needed maintenance and rehabilitation work identified
on Table 2 ranges from about$2.5 million (Table 3) to about$6.7 million (Table 4). The last City
budget for this type, of work was about $340,000. Based on the current City budget for
pavement maintenance and the locally estimate of road conditions it will take 7 to 18 years to
accomplish all work identified in Tables 3 or 4.
SLOCOG staff estimate that a moderate increase in funding for road maintenance and
rehabilitation will be necessary to bring deficient roads up to an acceptable pavement rating 9
within the next twenty years.
Pismo Beach - The City has 33 miles of roads, 2 percent of all local roads in the region. !
Current estimated road conditions based on an average of the conditions in the cities that have
completed an inventory, are as follows: 43% of the roadsmiles 14
( ) are in 'good' or best
condition, currently requiring no maintenance or rehabilitation; 19% (6 miles) are in `fair'
5 �� !
i
condition, requiring crack sealing and patching; 11% (4 miles) are in `poor' condition, requiring a
thin (1") overlay; and 26°% (9.miles) are in 'bad' condition, requiring a thick (2") overlay. The
total estimated current cost of doing needed maintenance and rehabilitation work identified on
Table 2 ranges from about $900,000 (Table 3) to about$2.3 million (Table 4). The current City
budget for this type of work is about $60,000. Based on the current City budget for pavement
maintenance and the locally estimate of road conditions it will take 13 to 32 years to accomplish
all work identified in Tables 3 or 4.
SLOCOG staff estimate that a significant increase (approximately equal to what has been
proposed for the City of Grover Beach) in funding for road maintenance and rehabilitation will
be necessary to bring deficient roads up to an acceptable pavement rating within the next
twenty years.
City of San Luis.Obispo - The City has 110 miles of roads, 6 percent of all local roads in the
region. Current estimated road conditions based on an inventory completed in April, 1997, are
as follows: 28% of the rods (31 miles) are in 'good' or `best' condition, currently requiring no
maintenance or rehabilitation; 58% (64 miles) are in `fair' condition, requiring crack sealing and
patching; 8% (9 miles) are in `poor' condition, requiring a thin (1") overlay; and 6% (7 miles) are
in `bad' condition, requiring a thick (2") overlay. The city of San Luis Obispo has adopted a
maintenance standard that.varies from that used for this report. It requires that roads rated
`bad' be reconstructed rather than only receive a two inch overlay, roads rated 'poor' receive a
two inch overlay, roads rated `fair' receive a one inch overlay, and for roads rated `good' or best'
to receive a seal coat.
Based on the maintenance and rehabilitation standard used in this report, the total estimated
current cost of doing needed maintenance and rehabilitation work identified on Table 2 ranges
• from about $1 million (Table 3) to about $2.8 million (Table 4). Because the City uses a more
aggressive standard, the factual value of total needed maintenance and rehabilitation is much
higher. The adopted FY 11;998/99 budget for this type of work is $1.5 million.
County of San Luis Obispo - The County has about 1,284 miles of roads, 70 percent of all
local roads in the region, 'of which only about 1,000 miles are paved.. Current estimated road
conditions based on locally developed data and associated maintenance & rehabilitation costs
(low cost scenario per Table 1) are as follows: 59% of the roads in the County(590 miles) are in
`good' or 'best' condition, 'currently requiring no maintenance or.rehabilitation; 11% (110 miles)
are in 'fair' condition, requiring crack sealing and patching; 7% (70 miles) are in 'poor condition,
requiring a thin (1") overlay; and 23% (230 miles) are in `bad' condition, requiring a thick (2")
overlay. The County actusily a one and one-half(%") overlay as its standard.
The total estimated current cost of doing needed maintenance and rehabilitation work identified
on Table 2 ranges from about $21 million (Table 3) to about $55 million (Table 4). This
February (1998), the County Board of Supervisors accepted the findings of an updated road
condition inventory which had just been completed by County Engineering, and adopted a
Pavement Management Flan (PMP) to guide the future maintenance of'County roads. The
staff recommendation was to provide $3 million annually to carry out the program. The Board
adopted an overall standard of maintenance for County roads. The proposed County budget is
expected to provide a total of about $2.5 million for preventative maintenance in the FY 98/99
budget as a one-time measure. It is unknown at this time whether there will be a continuation
of this level of funding in the future.
6
o o 0 0 0 0 o o W
\ O d' r N N CD co d' LO d. N a�
CO
_O
co
U)
N r N Co N O 0) co c0)
LO r%. 0
m C Cc
O V ` C
c o
o C) co C'7 Co Cfl CO r M 00 , 0 C
CO e- r CV r T- r -M-
C/)
M(n --
co,
Z3 LC) �' CO O O 0 coO
o e•- e- T- LO M T- No CO m
=..
r- L
/� ♦A - 0t
!•' V W m6i M V
�i c 4F
Z N \ 0 0 0 0 0 o c o o LO .��0 w
O d o CO CN O V- C- CA N ti r ��.. m N CD
w N r r- e- r
r .~.. w N
Z Z d• M tf) .Co O N ti r' o •� .F
W O 3 � 000) a �
'a a a�
ca o o 0 o .n
Z o LO O o 0 0 o r CO L '� O
A/ o r r r r r Co I` CA e„ & r Q• 0
,L,i�, ^
co
6a o
Co Qo" a — p
'\ i _ M co 0) C
O o � Noo �nr �rrn � r-CO) o �, 00L ,�,
rn
C
n d. O p -0
V o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V � C)
M �t r co N co N co N co co N � Q C Co
O r
^ co V m Co
co
R co N- N O LA coOO p a -�
O �"� 0 o
C.1 ._ m o V _ ,.
Z ''"''
.�, �, co
o 0 0 0 0 o N CO L O ''
O d• C� CO Co co N CO CD p LO M OL - O
^ a � •�
O `�'� tQ O co N m .E ccuu
^ .� U) p 0 O tom• N O N
CL O O O dp' � M r O LO LO .�,
CO '� r r O j 0 cu
t!)
c CU. N N
S M
O > z ... ^ N ^ M N N ++
O _C O O O
N N ^ v L
♦� O O v ,C N �, '° ca a L
o
OmU O ao o > a� m
.F. .F,
cu .
L. N L o
Z Z L = O 4- O O y N � O CD W 'o CU o o .°= ai
cf) Q °- Z
rc\iai � �cit� ��
• _ 'a
o m In d- co 07 co ° co
M d' T- N N N N C
N
cn
L
co co m co
,�
O 0)
ca
o 0 0 ~ O
CO CD co_ M o
CU
r
Lo 00 Of)
W d ~ O .a N
0 i _ -�
Z N cIL
u
cu
WE � �
[L �' ;SII *_'
W co .v -�-'
0 � w 3 � °'I! cc
• cD � � � 0CO
0 � 0 0 0000 � �
LL d CO tet' "t dM' CC) L NV p C
O C -a >
� L
r�� O N 00 N co N d' T- M 0)LO co -�
V (D Z �I y
ZCU
> O
O N o 0 0 -0-1-0 0 0 0 N .,>_.
\ \ \ \ \ \ LO E
0 C tet' A M CO N o0 O N
C1 C) C
d
ci -a .c- � a
r0 N C) co
.� d. LO
co ce)
L- .�• a� o 0Ict 0 00 o c� o qIT a) ° p
cf)
a�
0 Z O y ' CD
cu Ocu CD
0
m
d > 0 "aO (L)O . jO (D
v �
0> O co C
C) 0 O •f
Uo
ILCt- w ��
F" v+ Z N M
N O O O O O O •
00 d' O Co 00 O O O CO
N 00 dw O c- 00 N 0 NI--
O 4) N CMo f`- �co a
� O LO M M Z cr Q
L- C. O 00 �cc) N O t cn
W N 19 r- CV � � N M
o .Q
ff
Co LO M M N r- 0 Co cu 00 co 00 a0 o Lo o +-
O O 0 N
�•. O O O O O O O � �
LL, to Co CD O Cfl N O O O Q 0 cu
�`C L o) '� O C3i 00 O Y
C.1 v > 000 o) LO O O c' � N 0) ° J N
CC LU z O Q' t' ca
C W ''-' '° c N c c
O Q, o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c a)
n/ Q V t� CIS
LJ _ 2 >, cuom
afli oE �
D >1OOo0000Q
Q W mo � ooho °° C �, o N o
a, •
,c a) 00 co 0oCY) Ln ao co � COClq o > o
o T- 00 c'7 r •d- �- C 7 -
L.L.
CL U Cc
rJ x 0 0 0 0 o 0 0
W F-- X M ti co rn o rn Ln r. 3 L F- ca
V .J o W o 0 0 0 0 00 0 a) 4-
z ■ ■ W O O Q. V Cl)
U U
= '3 ~ 023 = t o co 00 o 00 0 c 0 c c'
00 ♦O♦ � U Uj N CO O Lo I` t It N CO a) e- Q NO
� V z Cl) d. � � 6- CN 00 T- M C6 U .0 0
r V N
C +co a C6
CO d O d0' O 0o M O d0' •E °� CO 0
O CD Ln d- r. C7 O LO ° °
c- r CD
C NL
C O 2 d v C -°p v -0 o- °
MJ o � m M M
o0covvF-
L Q � � � aU .
CL o � � � �
� � � Z -
__ _ r. �; M � Ui
N OI N O O O O O O co
• N �cYf1'I r, �o /C/.0� d' CAO Nt
�4 CO C
00 00 V/ N I` V
Lf) lfi M r- In N C
O O f CD CO tNCLIN
N ^ CO C` CO'7 00 N M
M dN
W r N Cy (fl N ck N LO 0) c. C cu
O W
•F.� oLq
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T-
E X \ � \ \ \ \ � \ CD a) f1. _
h r to C) I` CD C) N ,p O
c W col 00 LO I` I` ti It M .�., p •O 1
criL ca G
■L 0 a)
O', 00 O O O O O C O Q. U)
A O'I O O O O O u .0
_ O, O O O O O O O (V C •Q. N I
V W V O �I ~ cu
000 ti d• ONO LO =C
V > U) CO o r I` m � Q U U C 'C3
Z .0 �. N 0 'd' >1 :c 0 m -�' C
L r- N In r r O N
E1Ef36PFf609- Ef3 O N O
It
Z m 0 C U 0 )
W V W O Q. of o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ c co U
F a� m Q C
H �( M' 00 M O N M N I-• a) �" a) _l m
C c W r r d' N N N d• �- E Cfl •a C
Z Q V N co CU
>+ •3
6L .tZ 0, O O O O O CD C m o p -0 m
W ❑ W rn r- c�a x' 0000000 c oLO c CU
• O
Cl)
s > COI Imo•, O CO d N r NLO
O D
v � W a ~ O 619. 60- 693 r' ° u) :E La) 0) p
v W
LL _ } CL +� c a c N E
O (� O f2 0l o 0 0 0 0 0 o O
.I W f— X �, C t3- mm CD
ca
UJ
0 cu
MEMOS J W o N 0 0 .>
v •••• F" C) O O O m m U cn v_, •p v,
o OOoo •° m a�
co W
■� V . Co Loi CO O r Ln C'7 LO C'7 OLO NO O N V
0 CL r r r M ~ IN N 1,;t 01 T3 E m N
cn fl
07 U 0 4-' m Q.
cr m f1
�
O Cn d' N -00 0 0 >,
a. Z .� O (:D O o CO ,~ 00 M ° 0 U .� Co
V �"' COI r 0 d' r. co r C ' a N U
L ` m ° +�+ C > •M
MM a) C rn O
W = •� .� .rr .rr m O C
CL cu
3 p
40 :3 0 w A)
er
'J O c_n fn aD L. p
� L. ° O m °'cn > ami a °
a� Z -�' QC 0 4.0 p ,fir° N „J f- co N N °
.Q QyO ❑ ,' QLIQC7 a � iLiUv Li0wCtLtp
CO y,
.'
>
Attachment B
MEMORANDUM
DATE: JANUARY, 1998 •
TO: JOINT CITY COUNCILS MEETING
FROM: BOB REED, CHAIRMAN, SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
COMMITTEE
On June 5, 1997 at a special joint meeting of all the City Councils in the region a resolution
proposed by the City of Grover Beach to explore placing a Yz cent sales tax measure on the
November-1998 ballot to be used for street and road purposes was approved. A committee was
established consisting of one elected official and the Administrator from each City and the County.
The committee held a total of three meetings to review the options for additional funding for
transportation purposes, and made a determination at the last meeting not to proceed any further
on this issue at this time.
In the course of the three committee meetings all possiblesources of supplemental revenue, and
related issues were reviewed by the committee. Following a detailed discussion of the options
and issues at the first meeting, the committee decided at its second meeting to focus in on an
increase in the sales tax in subsequent meetings. This decision was due to the limited potential
from most funding sources, and legal difficulties which could be expected from the other sources.
At its third (and last) meeting, the committee decided not to proceed with any further meetings to
seek an increase in the sales tax on a countywide basis at this time. This decision was made on
the basis of the understanding that the necessary circumstances to successfully proceed with an
election were not present, and due to the lack of participation by the County in the committee •
deliberations.
The original decision to establish a committee to evaluate options for a countywide effort to
increase funding for local street and road purposes was based largely on the findings in a study
on Local Street and Road Maintenance Needs prepared by Council of Governments staff. This
study found that there is a significant backlog of road maintenance and rehabilitation needs, and
that current local revenues are not adequate to pay for all the needed work. Following are.
summaries of the information presented at the three committee meetings.
Steering Committee Meeting#1 (August 215)
Agenda - This meeting was focused on a general review of the problem of providing adequate
funding for local street and road maintenance, the legal requirements to increase funding,'and
public attitudes and opinions.'
Problem Definition -The "problem" is made up of two parts. The first is the estimated extent of
local street and road maintenance needs, and the second is the availability of funding to address
the need. The Countywide Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation Needs report, presented to
the SLOCOG Board in June, 1997, showed that there is a $50 to $140 million "backlog" of
additional maintenance needed to bring local streets and roads up to"good"or"best"condition.
The committee reviewed the Annual Report of Financial Transactions Concerning Streets and
Roads, compiled by the State Controllers Office in order to see how local jurisdictions using their .
street and road funding. This report shows that for the four year period between Fiscal Year
91/92 and 94/95:
• A total of$81 million in'expenditures was reported for all jurisdictions.
• Of that total, $47 million was for"maintenance" purposes.
• For FY 94/95 this report shows that over$10.8 million, about half of all fundsad
m e available
to all jurisdictions in th6 region was made available to the County of San Luis Obispo for street
and road purposes.
• The remainder, about$10 million,was divided up among the seven cities.
The committee reviewed several other tables on the uses of all Federal, State and local funding
sources. It was noted that;
• Of 35 sources of funds for transportation purposes, only twelve can be used for local street
and road purposes,
• Of those twelve only four can be used for road maintenance.
• Of these, two sources, gas tax subventions, andTransportation Development Act (TDA)
funds, are allocated by formula from the State.
• The only other funding sources is the Surface Transportation Program (STP).
It was noted that of the $10.8 million in STP funds projected to be allocated to the region over the
six years of the next surfane transportation act, $7.8 million (71%) will be allocated directly to the
cities and county, with the remaining $3 million (29%) to be allocated on a competitive basis. All
• available funding was found to be maximized.
Legal Issues - The committee was presented with a review of the legal issues pertaining to an
increase in the sales tax or other tax. This included a review of the history of State legislation and
voter propositions since Proposition 13, that have limited the ability of local jurisdictions to
increase their taxes. These issues included Proposition 62 (1986), which established the
requirement for.a two-thirds approval of the electorate for special taxes and majority for general
taxes, and.the Guardino Decision of 1995 by the State Supreme Court which invalidated a sales
tax approved by a majority',but less than two-thirds of the voters in Santa Clara County in a 1992
election. The major conclusion drawn by the committee from this presentation was that a"special
tax" (proposed for a specific purpose) requires a two-thirds vote of approval and a "general tax"
which requires only a majority vote and which cannot identify a particular purpose.
Public Attitudes and Opinions - The committee was presented with a review of the results of
surveys taken by the San'I Luis Obispo Council of Governments in 1990 and one taken by the
Regional Rideshare Agency in 1997. The 1990 survey by Townsend & company was initiated
by the Council of Governments at a cost of $30,000. This survey was intended to provide
information on public attitudes toward a possible November, 1990 ballot measure proposing a
half cent increase in the sales tax to pay for a.range of transportation system improvements
throughout the region. This survey found moderately strong public support for a variety of
possible projects, however the consultants advised against proceeding because it did not show
a sufficient level of support to assure passage based on their experience. Based on this
advice,the SLOCOG Board decided not to proceed with a ballot measure.
The 1997 survey by META Information Services was initiated by San Luis Obispo Regional
Ridesharing as a tracking survey of voter attitudes regarding various transit and ridesharing
programs as a follow-up to a similar survey in 1995.
2
l�
1
These included transportation behaviors, interest in potential ridesharing services, and
formation of a transit district. For the 1997 survey, staff for the Region Transit Agency
(SLORTA) and the Council of Government were given an opportunity to add questions of
particular interest to our agencies. Questions were included in the survey on potential support •
for a sales tax increase to pay for various transportation system improvements, including local
street and road maintenance.
Following are comparisons of major findings of these two surveys:
• The 1990 survey found that 52% of voters would support a % cent sales tax increase
measure for important county projects (highway, road, transit and other types); the 1997
survey found that 60.7%would support such a measure.
• The 1990 survey found that 68% of the voters would support a 1/2 cent increase in the
sales tax to pay for road and highway improvements; the 1997 survey found that 59.4%
would support such a measure.
The 1990 survey found that 76% of the voters would support a half cent sales tax to pay for
street and road maintenance when it was part of a measure including a number bf other kinds
of projects; the 1997 survey found that 70.5% would be in favor of such a general purpose
measure if it funded a number of other project types. The 1997 survey also found that if a
special tax was proposed for only street and road repair and maintenance it would be supported
by 52.4%.
Steering Committee Meeting#2 (September I V)
Agenda - This meeting was focused on a more extensive and detailed review of the legal
requirements for increasing local revenue, statewide efforts to increase funding, and local and
regional options to increase funding..
Legal Requirements The focus of discussion on legal issues for this meeting was an
explanation of Proposition 218 (1996), the Bradley-Bums Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law,
and the status of the Santa Clara County sales tax increase measure. The committee was
provided with excerpts from a publication of the State Legislative Analyst explaining the
proposition. It is clear from this analysis that the process of raising taxes is more difficult than
before, and that the two-thirds vote for a special tax is required.
Review of the Bradley-Bums Uniform Sales and Use Tax Law focused on the legal and
administrative constraints faced by individual cities seeking an increase in the sales tax. Further
discussion of the legal.issues focused on the fact that the 1996 Santa Clara election was being
challenged in court.
County Counsel, Jac Crawford reviewed the issues associated with the court challenge of the
Santa Clara election, focusing on the legal differentiation between a general and special tax. He
urged the committee to take a "wait and see"attitude to seekinga countywide
and recommended to
until after the court makes a dterminationon the Santa increase
challenge.
Statewide Efforts-This committee reviewed of a proposed ballot measure for the 1998 election
proposed by the California Caucus for Cities and Schools. For the measure to be placed on the
ballot 700,000 signatures must first be gathered. If approved, this initiative would give cities
and counties the option to redistribute up to one cent of the present sales tax from the state on
a per capita basis. This initiative is intended to replace funds taken by the state in recent years.
3 � i�
The California Caucus initiative would do the following:
1. Allow the governing Iboard of any city, city and county, or county, by adoption of an
• ordinance by a two-thirds.vote, propose to the Ivoters a redistribution of existing sales tax
revenue.
2. Provide that the method of redistribution would be by a reduction of the state sales tax and
imposition of a local soles and use tax approved by a majority vote of the electorate.
3. Provide that the rate of the local tax would be allowed to reach either %z% in increments of
one-tenth cent or one percent in increments of two-tenths cent over five years.
4. Require that no reduction in the state sales tax shall result in reduction in the amount of the
state's obligation to schools.
5. Require the state to; continue to meet its funding obligations according to the State
Constitution without affecting the revenue received by cities and counties from state and
local taxes.
6. Require that the provisions of the act be liberally construed to enable its purpose of
providing voters with the option to redistribute sales and use taxes from the state to local
government on a per capita basis to augment existing revenues.
Local & Regional Options
The committee reviewed summaries of various options which could be pursued to increase
funding, including: the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT); Local Option Gas Tax; Countywide Sales
Tax; and Assessment Districts.
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) - The committee reviewed excerpts from the SLOCOG 1997
Regional Profile which showed the amounts and distribution of revenue for jurisdictions in the
region from 1985 through 1;1996. It was noted that in Fiscal Year 95/96 a total of$10.4 million in
revenue was generated from all jurisdictions in the region. If in FY 95/96 all jurisdictions in the
region had increased their tax to 10% Arroyo Grande would have had a 3.5% share of the TOT
collected in the region and revenues would have increased by more than $153,000 to a total of
$383,230; Atascadero would have increase its share by a tenth of a percent and would have
collected nearly $120,000',more in revenue; and the County would have increased its share by
nearly 1.6% and captured nearly$300,000 more in revenue.
Local Option Gas-Tax-The committee reviewed an analysis of this option. Such an increase is
considered a special tax; requiring a two-thirds vote of the electorate for approval. No'such
increase has every succeeded.
In addition, a bill (AB 59$, Brown) has been introduced in the State Legislature which would
authorize the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to seek a 10 cent increase in the-
gas tax for imposition in the nine county San Francisco Bay Area. California currently imposes
an excise (gas) tax of 18 cents per gallon on fuel used in highway vehicles. In addition, the
Federal fuel tax is 18.3 cents per gallon,fora total of 36.3 cents per gallon.
It was noted that a one cent increase in the tax would annually produce a total of$1.196.000.
By comparison, a half cedt increase in the sales tax is estimated to annually produce a total of'
about$11 million annually. The gas tax would have to be increased by 9 cents to produce the
same amount of revenue es a half cent increase in the sales tax.
4 �`�
Countywidey ,
Sales Tax Measure - The committee was presented with a detailed review of the
options and issues associated with attempting to seek an increase in the sales tax as either a
general or special tax. Key points are as'follows:
Between 1984 and 1990 the voters of nineteen •
counties approved sales tax increase
measures for transportation purposes. Of these, fifteen were approved with less that a two-
thirds vote.
• In 1986, Proposition 62 was approved by the voters; it required a two-thirds voter approval
for special taxes and a majority vote for general taxes.
9 In 1987 SB142 (Deddeh) enacted the Local,Transportation Authority and Improvement Act
which authorized any county board of supervisors to create or designate a local
transportation authority, and authorized it to impose a retail sales tax of up to 11%with a two-
thirds vote of the authority and subsequent approval of a majority of the voters.
• The issue of majority versus two-thirds vote for special taxes was further clarified in 1995,
when'the State Supreme Court, in the Guardino decision, invalidated a sales tax approved
by a majority but less than two-thirds of the voters in Santa Clara County in a 1992 election.
• In 1996, Santa Clara County.successfully received voter approval of a .5 % increase in the
local sales tax for general purposes (a major portion of which is likely to be expended o'n
transportation system maintenance and . improvements based on the results of the
companion advisory measure):
a) The Santa Clara County strategy included two complimentary measures (A & B), the
first of which was an "advisory expenditure plan", and the second which actually raised •
the sales tax by .5%.
b) Measure A, the advisory expenditure plan, won by 73%; Measure B, which raised the
sales tax by.5 % for general purposes passed by 52%.
c) The Santa Clara measures were presented .to the voters without an `official' promise
linking the two measures, thereby minimizing the possibility of successful legal
challenges based on state law concerning imposition of special taxes.
d) The sales tax increase measure has been challenged and a decision is expected by
May, 1998'
Assessment Districts-'Torn Sullivan, Grover Beach Interim City Manager, reviewed establishing
a countywide assessment district for local street and road maintenance. He noted that
Proposition 218 made this option much more difficult, and noted that other difficulties with
preparation of cost estimates makes it impractical for application on a countywide basis for street
and road maintenance. He recommended against further evaluation of this option. The
committee agreed not to pursue it at this time. Mayor Cathy Novak of Morro Bay motioned to
focus on the local option sales tax and the return of the state sales tax as proposed in the
proposition by the California Caucus for Cities and Schools at a future meeting; seconded by
Mayor Pete Dougall of Arroyo Grande and approved.
Steering Committee Meeting#3.(October 23rd) Final Meeting
Agenda The focus of this meetingincluded: a review the results sof thefirst two committee
meetings; the final status of relevant State legislation; conduct a telephone conference call with 11
5w
a
II
Max Besler, a principal With a major public relations firm which has managed the development
and promotion of several significant sales tax measures throughout the state of California; and
determine a course of action. Committee delegates from four of the seven cities in the region
were present,including:Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay,and San Luis Obispo.
Telephone Conference - Staff arranged for a teleconference to provide the committee
members with the professional perspective of a private consultant on the process of carrying
out a sales tax measure)campaign, and the likelihood of success. Committee staff reviewed the
work Mr. Besler had done for Santa Clara County on their last successful sales tax increase
measure. The committee was presented with what Mr. Besler had previously identified as the
necessary components pf a successful sales tax increase campaign including: the participation
and support of the Cournty Board of Supervisors,• a public opinion survey establishment of a
private sector support group with funding: and adequate funding to carry out a campaign. The
committee discussed the likelihood of successfully putting all the necessary components
together, and by consensus decided it would not be necessary to hold the conference call at
this time. .
Board of Supervisors Representation - Committee Chairman Bob Reed explained that he
had sent a letter to Supervisor Ruth Brackett requesting a representative to the committee,
However, the Board expressed no interest in pursuing the proposed sales tax measure.
Legal & Legislative Update - The committee received an update on Assembly Bill 1362, on
local government finance, which, if it had not been vetoed by the Governor, would have made
the decision of the State Supreme Court in the Guardino Decision inapplicable to any tax first
imposed by an ordinance or resolution adopted prior to December 14, 1995. The committee
also received a presentation on the status of the appeal of the Santa Clara County sales tax
• measure. It was noted that the Santa Clara County Counsel had informed staff that they were.
very optimistic about the chances of the committee to succeed in the matter.
Revenues & Expenditures Staff reviewed information from a study by the Surface
Transportation Policy Project(STPP) which indicated that four times as much money is spent
annually nationwide to repair vehicles damaged by potholes then is spent to fix roads. It was
further noted that the study found that since the growth in the sale of motor vehicle fuels
(gallons) is essentially flet the tax on fuel would have to be increased by 30 cents per gallon to
produce revenue equal to the equivalent amount in 1967.
Determine Course of/Action - Committee Chairman Bob Reed stated that in his opinion the
committee should,go back to the (original) idea of pursuing a half-cent sales tax increase for
transportation purposes; He noted that the voters should be given the opportunity to approve
the measure or not::- Sol ch an action would still require the support of the Board of Supervisors
to move forward however. Atascadero Mayor Johnson noted that the committee did not
appear to have the support of all seven cities in order to go to the Board of Supervisors, and
suggested taking the spatter back to the next Mayor's meeting for more discussion. A
suggestion was made to have a delegation of the committee meet with Board Chair Ruth
Brackett to seek a firm position on the sales tax measure. The committee discussed several
other issues of concem!that would have to be considered in pursuing a sales tax measure. A
consensus. of the committee was then reached to bring up the issue at the next mayor's
meeting to see if their was a consensus to take the issue to the Board of Supervisors.
The meeting was then adjourned.
Notes prepared by Mike Harmon Associate Transportation Planner assigned to staff
Committee.
6 ,� �