Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout02 February 7, 1998 Special Committeecq RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMESSION SPECIAL COMMITTEE MEETING 1:00 P.M. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1998 UNIVERSITY VILLAGE (Map Attached) CHANCELLOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM 1201 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, ROOM #207, RIVERSIDE 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. INTRODUCTIONS. 3. SUMMARY OF FIRST MEETING OF JANUARY 31, 1998 (Adding views omitted from facilitator's memorandum). 4. FACILITATOR'S COMMENTS. 5. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS ON TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS AND FUNDING INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AND DECISIONS: A. IS THERE A CONSENSUS OF OPINION THAT TRANSPORTATION NEEDS HAVE ARISEN IN PARTS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY THAT WERE NOT ADDRESSED IN MEASURE "A" ? IF SO, WHAT ARE THEY, AND HOW IMPORTANT ARE THEY? IN LIGHT OF THE POWER THAN SB 45 VESTS IN THE COUNTY, WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT HOW ALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE FOR FUTURE UNEXPECTED PROJECTS? B. IS THERE A CONSENSUS THAT THERE ARE SUFFICIENT UNMET TRANSPORTATION NEEDS CURRENTLY ON THE TABLE IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY THAT WILL REQUIRE THE ATTEMPT TO PASS A NEW MEASURE "A" BY 2/3 VOTE? WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT THE NEED FOR CONSENSUS DECISION MAKING? C. IS THERE A CONSENSUS OF OPINION THAT THE PROJECTS OUTLINED IN MEASURE "A" MUST REMAIN AT THE TOP OF THE PRIORITY LIST IN FUTURE TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING? HOW DOES THE EXISTENCE OF NEW, UNANTICIPATED PROBLEMS IMPACT THIS POINT OF VIEW? D. IS THERE A CONSENSUS OF OPINION THAT THERE ARE LEGITIMATE AND SPECIFIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY THAT SHOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE ALLOCATION OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING? IF SO, WHAT ARE THEIR BOUNDARIES? WHAT KIND OF PROJECTS EXIST IN THESE COMMUNITIES FOR WHICH FUNDS SHOULD BE AGGREGATED? E. IS THERE A CONSENSUS OF OPINION THAT THERE ARE LEGITIMATE OVERARCHING ISSUES THAT IMPACT RIVERSIDE COUNTY AS A WHOLE THAT SHOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE ALLOCATION OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING? IF SO, WHAT ARE THESE ISSUES? F. SHOULD AN EFFORT TO ORGANIZE A NEW MEASURE "A" BE ORGANIZED NOW? (f,'3(CO SPECIAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA FEBRUARY 7, 1998 PAGE 2 G. IN ORGANIZING UNDER SB 45, SHOULD RIVERSIDE COUNTY ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE EXISTING MEASURE "A" PRIORITIES AND THE NEW NEEDS THAT HAVE ARISEN SINCE THE MEASURE PASSED? IF YES, HOW? IF NO, SHOULD THESE ISSUES BE LEFT TO THE PASSAGE OF A FUTURE MEASURE "A"? H. IN ORGANIZING UNDER SB 45, HOW CAN RIVERSIDE COUNTY RESOLVE THE CONFLICT BETWEEN SCARCE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS, THE NEEDS OF COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST, THE NEED FOR ADDRESSING UNANTICIPATED TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS, AND THE NEEDS OF THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE? HOW SHOULD FORMULAS ENTER INTO THE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM? SHOULD THERE BE A ROLE FOR DISCRETIONARY FUNDS? IS THERE A ROLE FOR SUPER -MAJORITIES TO PROTECT COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST, IF DISCRETIONARY FUNDS ARE SET ASIDE? I. WHAT PROJECTS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THIS YEAR'S RTIP? J. SHOULD A STUDY GROUP BE FORMED TO RECOMMEND CHANGES IN THE MAKEUP OF THE RCTC BOARD IN LIGHT OF ANSWER TO QUESTIONS F & H? 6. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, ISSUES TO BE DISCUSSED NEXT MEETING. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS (NOT RELATED TO AN AGENDA ITEM). 8. NEXT MEETING - SET DATE AND TIME. 9. ADJOURNMENT. ECAP economic and political analysis 3142 Cactus Circle Highland, CA 92346-1739 (909)425-8952 Phone (909)425-0601 Fax john_husing@eee.org TO: Members of the RCTC Advisory Group FROM: John Husing SUBJECT: Facilitators Summary DATE: February 4, 1998 At the risk of over -simplification, permit me to first summarize the factual discussion held last Saturday. Next, a summary of the various "decision -making issues" that emerged has been at- tempted. Finally, I have offerred an agenda for that meeting. It will be held at 1:00 p.m. meeting next Saturday. The location will be the UCR Extension office in the executive conference room. Note, UCR Extension is on University Avenue just west of Route 60. It is not on the UCR cam- pus, which is east of the freeway! 1. Factual Discussion The factual discussion revolved around two issues: Measure "A" and SB 45. Measure "A" 1. Revenues • Revenues from the Measure "A" 1/2 cent sales tax have exceeded forecasts despite the recession. • Revenues from State & Federal Sources have exceeded forecasts and have met but not exceeded the 50% match anticipated by Measure "A". • Costs have still exceed. Revenues causing a shortfall in the funding to finish the Meas- ure "A" program of transportation improvements promised to the voters. 2. Costs • Inflation has not been a major factor in driving up costs of Measure "A" projects • Changes in Design Specifications did drive up costs 0 There have been no major changes in design specifications emanating from lo- cal jurisdictions 0 Major changes in design specifications did come from Caltrans. To illustrate: Caltrans worked with local leaders to help scope the Measure "A" projects be- fore the measure was passed. These were expected to meet standards that would allow projects to remain within existing Right of Ways. From: John HUsing lo: Nattie Uaie. L/4/41 I Ime. I U.44.40 MNI dye L UI0 After the measure passed, a change in Caltrans leadership led to the agency re- quiring standards that forced projects out side of existing Right of Ways. The result was unanticipated land purchases, costly environmental and other proce- dures, and delay. 3. Measure "A" Shortfall Means Some Projects Cannot Be Completed • In the Western Riverside Area, three Measure "A" projects cannot be completed with existing projected funding • In the Coachella Valley Area, the shortfall means that items off the Priority List of ar- terial projects eligible for Measure "A" funding, cannot be completed with the existing projected funding. 4. Projects Needed Beyond Measure "A" • The view of the future assumed in 1988, when Measure "A" was designed, is different from the reality of 1998. • Measure "A" did not anticipate needs that have subsequently arisen 0 WRCOG has listed some $5 billion in needed projects 0 CVAG could well define additional projects • Private sector real estate projects cannot bear the brunt of the level of funding required to meet these needs without placing a very large burden of future generations of home buyers. 5. Household Forecast (SCAG) • Western Riverside County 1994-2020 forecast: households up 395,000 (210%). • Coachella Vah^y 1994-2020 forecast: households up 69,000 (171%). Senate Bill 45 SB 45 represents a permanent change in the way the California allocates transportation funds and represents an alteration in the balance of power between statewide and countywide interests. 1. Permanent Change In Way State Allocates Transportation Funds To Counties • 75% of State transportation funds 0 Divided 60%-40% among Southern & Northern Counties 0 In Southern Counties, the share of these 75% funds is divided by County • 75% of allocation based upon county Population • 25% of allocation based upon county center line highway lane miles • 25% of State transportation funds 0 Allocation retained by California Transportation Commission (as opposed to Caltrans ?) 0 Belief that their are statewide interests ensuring the ability to move goods and people "to and through" the various regions of the state 0 Retains some state flexibility to meet statewide needs within three categories: From: John Husing To: Nattie Date: 2/4/98 Time: 10:24:26 AM Page 3 of 5 • 2.25% of funds to inter -city rail • 12.75% of funds to interregional projects • 10.00% of funds to projects ensuring state's economic development 2. Alters Balance of Power • Money for Riverside County projects now sent to County by formula • Removes state discretion on how these funds are to be allocated to projects 0 RCTC was required to submitted county's "best" projects for competition for state funding • The Buck Stops In Riverside County 0 Authority for making decisions is now at the RCTC level 0 Responsibility for good decision making is now at the RCTC level 2. Decision Making Issues Discussion Each of the 29 participants in the meeting offerred their views on what standards or points of view the RCTC should adopt in making decisions about Riverside County's transportation funding. Below I have taken the risk of summarizing these points of view. I apologize for any view left out or insufficiently developed, and will offer time at the beginning of the next meeting for anyone to amend this summary. 1. A Project View: "Keep the faith" with the voters ... Measure "A" Projects In 1988, over 3/4 of voters approved Measure "A". They agreed to pay higher taxes in order to see a specific set of transportation projects completed. Several speakers noted the importance of "keeping faith with the voters". To many this ap- peared to mean ensuring that the completion of projects set forth in Measure "A" remain top priority in future project decisions. 2. A Regional View: "Keep the faith" with the voters ... "Return to Source" In the overwhelming passage of Measure "A", voters anticipated seeing a return of sales tax revenues to the geographic source of those revenues. This is important as within Riverside County there are communities of interest that must be recognized, and for which the voters wanted transportation funding aggregated and distributed. Several people thus expressed the view that transportation monies needed to be returned to the geographic areas that generated them. This they believe was necessary to keep the faith with the voters since Measure "A" included the pledge to return 1/2 sales taxes back to the commu- nity's of interest from which those sales taxes were derived. 3. An Unmet Needs View: New Problems have arisen since Measure "A" was passed Since 1988, transportation issues have arisen that were not anticipated by Measure "A". Four specific examples were cited: The Temecula-Murrieta area has grown largely due to an unexpected movement of population and firms north from San Diego. The Eastside Reservoir is being built near Hemet -San Jac- into, and is expected to draw some 2 million or more visitors a year. Indian gaming has unex- pectedly increased the flow of tourist traffic into several parts of the county. The Pass Area is expected to see unprecedented levels of residential construction in the next real estate cycle. Several individuals cited the importance of incorporating solutions to these unexpected trans- portation problems into Riverside County's future transportation decision making. 4. A One Community View: Riverside County has unifying interests Some participants put forth the view that Riverside County has overarching transportation needs that are of importance to all county residents, rather than to specific communities. These needs are akin to those for which the state maintains control of a share of the transpor- tation funds to ensure that people and goods are able to move "to and through" its various re- gions. Several examples were cited: County wide job creation and prosperity will be impaired if goods cannot flow from the vari- ous areas of Riverside County to market. Tourism will be inhibited if congestion makes it dif- ficult for drivers to move through the county's urban areas to its recreation centers. If a sec- tion of road becomes unsafe, it is in the entire county's interest to see it fixed. 5. A Flexibility View: We are not clairvoyant With most transportation decisions now delegated from the state to the local level, a corollary to the issue of existing unrecognized transportation needs, is the idea that it is impossible to completely know the future. Some speakers made a case for maintaining some level of RCTC decision making flexibility in funding projects to deal with transportation needs that today are unrecognized. 6. A Long Run View: Funding is far short of need The latest housing information anticipates extraordinary growth in Riverside County. That growth will flow from west to east, eventually encompassing major portions of the county. Today's rural areas are tomorrow's bedroom communities and source of commuters. Witness for instance the conversion of sections of San Bernardino County's Mojave Desert into subur- ban areas. Several speakers discussed the unmet long term projects and funding needs that such growth implies. They spoke of the need to come up with a long term funding mechanism and deci- sion structure that can addressed these needs. 7. A Political View: Future transit initiatives will require a 2/3 vote Under new state laws and court decisions, if a son (or daughter) of Measure "A" is to be passed it will require passage by a 2/3 vote of the public. Some speakers spoke of the need for maintaining a strong countywide political consensus in creating a system for allocating and making decisions about Riverside County transportation funds. 8. An Efficiency View: Negotiating cost containment with Caltrans Caltrans has caused much of the shortfall in Riverside County's ability to meet its Measure "A" agenda by forcing design changes that moved projects outside of existing right of ways. In a world in which funding is not unlimited, some speakers spoke of the need to fmd a method of bringing pressure on Caltrans to allow Riverside County to design projects that meet acceptable instead of highest level design standards. February 7, 1998 Suggested plan for distribution of RIP funds I would suggest that the Coachella Valley receive their share of RIP money (return to source based on Measure A language, 26.39%) each year, with the understanding (agreement) that 10% of that amount would be placed in a discretionary pot for purposes of countywide road improvement based on safety/through-county improvement. The west end and Palo Verde would likewise agree to donate 10% each to this pot from their RIP funds. All parties would refund their 10% at such time as an agreement is reached by all parties in a joint West County/Coachella Valley/Palo Verde Valley meeting as to what project(s) would be funded each year. That would allow all parties donating to the fund to assure the parameters are met. I would suggest the following basic parameters: None of the discretionary money could be spent on rail. Expenditure of discretionary money would be limited to those roads which provide a through -county path. Priority would be based on safety. The agreement that comes out of this process needs to stand on its own, i.e. contain the same language contained in Measure A as to distribution of "Funds for transportation purposes" under section VIII, Return to source. Since this is a plan which would potentially benefit the western end of the County more than the eastern end, it is suggested that the $4.214 which had been agreed to be deducted from Coachella Valley's RIP funds this year from Highway 86 past expenditures be canceled. Finally, that the $14. a 91 funds which are taken off the top of the county RIP for Rideshare, TEA, etc., be spread o e same return to source basis. Respectful' 5 imitted, SPECIAL COMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 7, 1998 UCR CHANCELLOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM SIGN IN SHEET NAME ORGANIZATION PHO,E NO -1 6 `t — S 51,0 Jam-- , 0,; u• Bec,..44.......41 .--W---- 4/0--- -."-(4 4AC0(i 7 el ci 7 k 73 e-cd✓s -Ss Ac.) -(4)-4. 6.✓ it) C. �c 1.443 Mkka 9L(4, vt A - SJ t CcnQ,p �loS 4 (e2,1 — k145 frk 17/W/EL- W,QGo' 75'7 66—e-/ b (A) ) .--6 \\..t._ \3Q1-\ G. rj T \ $43 C- cit), c. -7L cG-7L L o.«� rhU,.,,, 5-- JJL+ 6 rt- L LtE---t, -5,m_ 1,_) ; )c .0 C CS IA -3-,$),- }3i' .F (,,,, adr, ay. '�- c e. _ 6 Fs6 0 SS AL6nit,--- iy),, C3% -a,„( Vic 5 A mac. m c �� > 6?7 82 -� � J (Ai %,-1--41-61'0\ 0 (?-4 2.- los'? `1(7 a J466-04Alf il- 10,44 l� 1. l $1/ 6AA) /WA) 6"/ti a -CA bSif- 685 v ' ')., - .IS me z.- =1 n tj ..12 L Zagr3 030 \ 3; // i2 6ez-6( /7 -7- 79 W SPECIAL COMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 7, 1998 UCR CHANCELLOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM SIGN IN SHEET NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE NO .,.fit !v► #74-77— c ; ;-/ a F c tl-t_ I gle-: y 4- 3?-ci -C 5-7 sgiu Cog�Ly N‹ 3"11 -ids 'J') ivi. -y )2fTL <A -kJ T'., t- ,iy .7 yliy ,a L< (21 re -tnVt 72k- 1-'iS 27 ? l C) 0 ti,,,,, t_ ') C- —7-�-Z :5- k -7,_51.;? 36 )3 9 A �.& 1/15(61i< Ri '�s- / r'�5 �/ /� 2.5--7 d 4 V 6 `' F% 09e9, --d ifhd 7 Li Sii N yQ lit-cTI S 6 ( cs 44 t< ‘s- 7 z•(- Le r t ??'k /<///(, / ihi bes4 i7e;.i3 -04/f &eJme--g. gi-4?- 7 __, 6:2 5>.r =ros-o ,C(1" e____ / akz l3a C c- ,1„\ `" o -S C j`i 0'C Riu( 5 °1 t-13- 4106 ---1A e.E,ur-c.( (AP' L7 j c7d--- c ac ,_ ,- .A_As it-- L!. 'i /Q.`c• . 7 91 - 3-5"'GG e Q6,451i c4) 'I ✓t1 ✓ Y i 3 - 3 BI-) e �/�l-sh/,�1A,(v,�,, wxCU B Z.77- 4/3S - g4k 477 --134S- 4.4.- /VW C/l 2-1_1ti.�41- 4,1-4// iS - . (C4'M SI 6644.9 el 4//3- 3c5. J/7 , - e,4' "I 7;e:;)6 qt(riZed.,' - _ 27..r', /CSI b vVR,Co ir-- 37 f ,,,,24c.„,,......