1 / 20

Presentation to Rural Counties Task Force October 6, 2005

Presentation to Rural Counties Task Force October 6, 2005. Overall Background and Insights from Contra Costa’s November 2004 Sales Tax Renewal. Transportation Financing Challenges. Prop 42 & SHA diversions over $3.5 B Projects in STIP repeatedly delayed

tyme
Download Presentation

Presentation to Rural Counties Task Force October 6, 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Presentation to Rural CountiesTask ForceOctober 6, 2005 Overall Background and Insights from Contra Costa’s November 2004 Sales Tax Renewal

  2. Transportation Financing Challenges • Prop 42 & SHA diversions over $3.5 B • Projects in STIP repeatedly delayed • Tremendous uncertainty for future STIPs • Local Streets & Roads funding inadequate • Transit capital needs are also under-funded • The only thing that is sure – local sales tax

  3. Essential Core Elements • Recognize Guardino Decision for 2/3 vote has “raised the bar” • Respect for Organization in the Community • Polling & Focus Groups – “lay of the land” • EIR necessary based on legal opinions • Maximize support, minimize opposition • Listen to the voters -- “ID” high priority investments

  4. Background: Contra Costa County & Our Measure C Sales Tax • County Population: 1 million • Area: 720 square miles; ~1,318 people/sq. mi. • 2001 Private non-farm employment: ~330,000 • Transit Modal Share: 2-3% of all trips; ~10% of work trips (BART is major carrier) • 3 or 4 “Distinct” sub-areas: Central, East, West, SW • Sales tax measure failed in 1986 -- 46% yes • 20 year Measure C sales tax passed in 1988 -- 58% yes

  5. Key Renewal Issues • Growth Impacts Continue to be Critical: • Role of 1988’s “Growth Management Program” • Contra Contra Costa grew approximately 25% in last 15 years, slated for ~25% growth over next 20-25 years • Growth Tensions between the cities & Co. • Diverse Desires and Expectations • Capital investments versus transit, school bus operating programs • Freeways and arterials versus transit-oriented development, bicycle-pedestrian trails, open space, etc.

  6. Initial Polls: Renewal Was Feasible • Business Poll, July 2001: • Traffic most important problem: 24% + 7% for related issues • 75% support forecast, + or – 3.5% • Subsequent Authority Poll, March 2003: • Transportation Issues most critical: 45% • Renewal support: 75% support, with ~56% “strong” and 19% “lean” yes • Renewal Appeared to Be “Ours to Lose”

  7. Expenditure Plan Committees • New CCTA Expenditure Plan Committee (EPC): • Five Authority members • Project & program issues • Formal Recommendations to Authority. • Existing Planning Committee (5 members): • Addressed existing and prospective GMP program • Addressed parameters for “TLC” program • Make GMP and TLC parameter recommendations • Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC): • ~25 Representatives of Interest Groups • Independent comments & recommendations to CCTA

  8. Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) Process • CEQA Review -- Countywide Plan Update • ~$175,000 cost • Assessed 3 alternatives: continue @ ~70% capital, 50% capital, and program oriented • Filed NOD for Plan EIR and final TEP • Performed comprehensive corridor evaluations • Equity: examined recommendations from 4 sub-areas of Contra Costa & “balanced” $

  9. TEP Process (cont.) • Poll support for selected projects, programs • Maintain local streets & roads, 77% (44%) • Signal synchronization, 75% (45%) • Caldecott Tunnel 4th Bore, 72% (51%) • Route 4 freeway widening, 71% (46%) • Route 4 Bypass, 67% (42%) • Elderly & Disadvantaged Transit, 79% (42%) • Improve transit connections, 76% (42%) • BART/rail expansion, 73% (46%)

  10. TEP Process (cont.) • Safer Routes to Schools, 76% (43%) • Neighborhood traffic safety, 70% (33%) • Ped/bike safety/access, 67% (31%) • “Smart Growth”, 63% (34%) • Local/feeder bus service, 65% (29%) • A “rump” group of the “Advisory Committee met “offline” to seek consensus between business & environmental/other advocates • Chairperson Amy Worth provided essential leadership • EPC considered input, approved draft TEP

  11. TEP Considerations • Ultimately, plan had to be “balanced” • Equitable funding to the four county sub-areas • Final TEP largely reflected diverse interests of each • Major capital projects, local streets & roads, transit components, other programs • Efforts sought to avoid organized opposition that could cost even 3 to 5% • Advisory committee recommendation was politically infeasible, but probably shifted debate • No one got all that they wanted

  12. TEP Financial Considerations • Financial plans for key projects • Include capacity for project financing costs • Estimated debt costs of 15% to 35% of funds advanced • Level of capital funding in program caps debt service and amount that can be borrowed for advancement • Projects will be “charged” cost of financing • Cost determined by interest rate – inflation rate. • Contingency for uncertainty - test if politically feasible

  13. Actual, Projected Revenues 1988 $

  14. Bond Financing Example: 2% Net Interest “Cost”

  15. Contra Costa Politics • County threatened opposition without link to an urban limit line (ULL), “Smart Growth” • ULL most difficult issue • Taxpayers Association almost opposed • Splinter group of Taxpayers Assoc. did ultimately oppose • Fragile coalition of diverse interests • Elected & business leadership -- Essential

  16. Negotiations/Consensus • Kept everyone at table throughout long process by not rejecting proposals • April meeting provided some direction, but decision delayed to May 2004 • Adoption took place over two Authority meetings, totaling ~14 hours • Ballot deadline forced closure – probably no one was happy with final TEP, but at 1:15 a.m. May 27, 2005 it passed 11-0

  17. Roles for Business & Agencies • Business Support is Essential • Recognize the need for balance based on local factors • Provide leaders to support the public process • Participate throughout • Lead the election campaign • Cooperation of Local Agencies • Participate in developing the plan • Recognize the need for balance • Help build a political consensus • “Off-line” discussions involving elected officials and interest groups may be critical part of process • Provide campaign “leaders”

  18. Public Information • Legal counsel provided guidance regarding what the law allowed, and reviewed materials • Prior to Measure “J” being placed on the ballot, Authority mailed information brochure describing Measure C investments and the “proposed” Measure J Program • Authority prepared 4 sub-area maps showing projects for public distribution

  19. The Campaign • Business community mobilized • Key elected officials and business/interest groups provided leadership, led campaign • Some interest groups threatened opposition after “consensus” • Leaders worked to neutralize threats • Editorials, mailings, media buys • Measure passed with ~ 70.5% approval

More Related