Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-03-2016 Item 10 County Wide Transportation Investment Plan Meeting Date: 5/3/2016 FROM: Darryl, Grigsby, Public Works Director Prepared By: Jake Hudson, Transportation Manager SUBJECT: COUNTY WIDE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive and comment on a report and presentation by San Luis Obispo Council of Governments’ Staff regarding a County Wide Transportation Investment Plan; and 2. Conceptually approve the draft Transportation Investment Plan proposal and safeguards as approved by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) Board on April 6, 2016. Background On May 3, 2016 the Council will receive a presentation from SLOCOG staff regarding the SLOCOG Board’s approval to place a ½ cent Sales Tax on the November ballot for transportation related purposes. Tax revenues traditionally used for improvement, operation, and maintenance of public transportation infrastructure has been sharply declining over the past decade. There are several factors involved, including significant improvements in auto fuel efficiency, the non -inflationary structure of the Gas Tax, and a decline in the upward trend of total Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). In 2013 the American Society of Civil Engineers graded the nation’s road infrastructure at a D. They also estimated the economic impact of America’s failing infrastructure by 2020 at $1,060 on each family per year with a loss of 877,000 jobs, and a drop in U.S. exports by $28 billion. The funding landscape for transportation infrastructure is continuing to worsen. On March 30th, 2016 the California Transportation Commission announced that as a result of significant declines in the price-based excise tax the Commission made the difficult decision to delete $754 million in currently programmed State Transportation Improvements (See attachment B). They also made the finding that no new projects can be justified at this time, when agencies are forced to delete already programmed projects. To address these issues people in many areas have enacted self-help tax initiatives to help fund various transportation programs and projects at the local level. There are many Counties and Cities in California that have chosen to tax themselves for transportation services and not rely solely on the State and Federal funding sources that are not reliable. 10 Packet Pg. 77 At its meeting in April, the SLOCOG Board received presentations from its consultant on the results of outreach and polling. After receiving the information on the extensive outreach efforts and favorable polling results, the Board approved the informational conceptual investment plan and directed staff to work with member jurisdictions to develop the final Transportation Investment Plan, Ordinance and Safeguards for evaluation to place on the November 2016 ballot for voter consideration. In its current form, the proposed Measure (estimated at $25 M/yr County-wide) includes the following provisions: 1. 50% of the Funding to Local Agencies for Roadway Improvements o San Luis Obispo share is approximately $2 M/year 2. 25% of the Funding for Regional Projects o San Luis Obispo project East-West connections in the southern portion of the City (such as Prado to Broad, Prado Overpass, Tank Farm Road, etc.) 3. 15% of the funds for Regional Bike and Pedestrian projects o San Luis Obispo would have candidate projects in the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan 4. 10% of the funds for Transit o San Luis Obispo would have candidate projects and services for SLO Transit 5. Sunset: 9-year duration, 6. Safeguards such as an Oversight Committee & Reporting responsibilities, 7. No provisions for amendments to the Transportation Investment Plan, 8. A dedicated funding sources for Local Road Repairs and Transportation Improvements which is based on a formula (ensures local jurisdictions receive projects and benefits from this funding), 9. The four major funding programs are: Local Road Repairs and Transportation Improvements, Regional Projects, Bike & Pedestrian Safety and Connectivity, and Public Transportation. FISCAL IMPACTS There are no immediate impacts from the action to conceptually support the County-wide Transportation Investment Plan or supporting placing this matter on the ballot in November. The City would receive about $2 million per year over the 9 year life of the measure should it be passed by the voters. Additionally there are many traffic congestion relief, bike, pedestrian and transit projects that would be eligible for funding if this measure passed. ALTERNATIVES The Council may choose not support a County wide transportation investment program. Based on SLOCOG’s market research, without unanimous agency support a self-help initiative would not likely pass. 10 Packet Pg. 78 Attachments: a - County Wide Trans Invest Plan b - AASHTO News Release 10 Packet Pg. 79 ADDENDUM: A-1B-4 10.a Packet Pg. 80 At t a c h m e n t : a - C o u n t y W i d e T r a n s I n v e s t P l a n ( 1 3 2 0 : C o u n t y w i d e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I n v e s t m e n t P l a n ) ADDENDUM: A-1B-5 10.a Packet Pg. 81 At t a c h m e n t : a - C o u n t y W i d e T r a n s I n v e s t P l a n ( 1 3 2 0 : C o u n t y w i d e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I n v e s t m e n t P l a n ) With Gas Tax Receipts Falling, California Cuts Project Funding $754M Over Five years 2016-02-01 AASHTO Journal, 29 January 2016 With revenue falling from the state's motor fuel taxes, the California Transportation Commission approved a transportation program for the next five years that cuts $754 million from projected available funding. A commission announcement said that "marks the largest scaling back of the state's transportation program since the creation of the current funding structure nearly 20 years ago." The action came after Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature could not agree on a new revenue plan for road and bridge investments last year. The commission's Jan. 21 decision also came as Brown, in his State of the State address that day, renewed his call for lawmakers to decide on a new infrastructure funding plan. "We have no choice but to maintain our transportation infrastructure," Brown said. "Yet, doing so without an expanded and permanent revenue source is impossible. That means at some point, sooner rather than later, we have to bite the bullet and enact new fees and taxes for this purpose. Ideology and politics stand in the way, but one way or another the roads must be fixed." Brown also said California has a "staggering" deferred infrastructure maintenance backlog of $77 billion, and "most of that is in our roads, highways and bridges." The 11-person California Transportation Commission is an oversight body responsible for programming and allocating funds for highway, passenger rail and transit improvements throughout California. It also advises and assists the state's transportation secretary and the Legislature in formulating policies and plans for California's transportation programs. The panel said it made the programming decision "after careful review of current and projected financial information from numerous sources," and emphasized that this will require withdrawing funds it previously committed to some projects. 10.b Packet Pg. 82 At t a c h m e n t : b - A A S H T O N e w s R e l e a s e ( 1 3 2 0 : C o u n t y w i d e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I n v e s t m e n t P l a n ) "The action that the commission is being forced to make given the shortfall in projected revenue will have a dramatic effect on transportation projects being proposed for construction across the state. Typically, transportation projects are funded from multiple sources. The total impact of the defunding of projects will likely run into the billions." It said the effects go "beyond just meeting the transportation needs of Californians, as every $1 billion in highway and transit investment supports 13,000 jobs, not to mention higher costs associated with project delays." Commission Chair Lucy Dunn said: "What this means is that almost every county in California that relies on this source of funding for projects that improve traffic and air quality will have to cut or delay projects indefinitely. "The commission adopted the most optimistic scenario we could make in good conscience," she said, "in the hope agreement will be reached on a number of reforms and new funding increases currently under consideration by the Legislature. But failing that, I fear we will be faced with even more draconian cuts next year." It incorporated the big funding reductions in the latest State Transportation Improvement Program document for future state highway, intercity rail and transit improvements. The financial outlook revisions, it said, "are the result of anticipated additional reductions in a portion of the gasoline excise tax, which is the major source of state funding for the program. While just a few years ago the price-based part of the gas tax yielded 18 cents a gallon in revenue, last year it had dropped to 12 cents. Now the commission projects that it will "fall another 2 cents a gallon for the coming fiscal year and that stabilization of this source may take longer than expected." The STIP document is updated every two years, and the commission is required by law to estimate the amount of funding expected to be available for it. "In August of this past year," it said, "the commission approved a funding estimate for the 2016 program based on previous revenue forecasts that eliminated the capacity to add any new projects to the program. More recent projections, however, point to a worsening financial picture and a significant drop in the dollars expected to be available for projects in the 2016 plan. This will require the commission to rescind funding previously committed to projects." This entry was posted in General News, Legislative / Political, News. Bookmark the permalink. 10.b Packet Pg. 83 At t a c h m e n t : b - A A S H T O N e w s R e l e a s e ( 1 3 2 0 : C o u n t y w i d e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I n v e s t m e n t P l a n ) © 2016 - TSP2 10.b Packet Pg. 84 At t a c h m e n t : b - A A S H T O N e w s R e l e a s e ( 1 3 2 0 : C o u n t y w i d e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I n v e s t m e n t P l a n ) 5/9/2016 San Luis Obispo Council of Governments Self-Help County Status 2016 2 CONCERNS The Gas Tax 3 STATE & FEDERAL FUNDS Sacramento has cut funding for local agencies – despite lobbying efforts by cities and counties throughout the State. No legislative solution on the horizon. Shift has been to fund projects for agencies that provide matching funds. 4 SELF HELP COUNTIES 20 counties (81% of CA population) are known as Self Help Counties 15 counties, investigating to be Self Help Self-Help Counties invest $4.5B in funding for transportation projects – compared to $1B in State highway improvement funds (in a good year) 5 SELF -HELP FOR SLO COUNTY Generates $25 million per year based on ½ cent sales tax – half of which is paid by visitors. Funds would be used for LOCAL projects and LOCAL priorities – Sacramento has NO ability to take funds. Allows SLO to compete for State grants and leverage funds - increasing revenues. Clearly defined list of projects and programs. Citizen oversight ensures projects and programs in the Plan are actually funded and/or completed. 6 RESIDENTS WANT: Local street and road repair and improvements. Bike and Pedestrian projects that connect communities. Increase in transit services, services for senior and persons with disabilities, and point to point services. 7 CONCEPTUAL INVESTMENT PLAN SLOCOG BOARD APPROVED IN CONCEPT: Duration of 9 years ½ Cent = $25M/yr. 9-Year = total $225M $112.5M $56.2M $33.8M $22.5M 8 SAFEGUARDS AND MANAGEMENT •Administrative costs set at maximum of 1%. •Development continues to pays its fair share via impact fees. •Funds will not replace current local investments in maintenance but will enhance them. •Annual audits, annual reporting and independent taxpayer oversight committee 9 CONCEPTUAL INVESTMENT PLAN 25% Regional (Highway) Projects Including funding for: Shell Beach/Pismo Beach congestion relief on 101 Congestion relief in south SLO City area –227 –Prado North County Highways (101 and 46) congestion relief $56.2M 10 CONCEPTUAL INVESTMENT PLAN 15% Bike & Pedestrian Connectivity Including funding for: City-to-Sea Trail Atascadero/Templeton Connector Morro Bay/Cayucos Connector Chorro Valley (SLO-Cuesta) Edna Valley (South Airport) $33.8M 11 CONCEPTUAL INVESTMENT PLAN 10% Public Transportation 6% Transit –$400k SLO Transit –$500k RTA (runs to SLO) 3% Seniors, Veterans, Persons w/ Disabilities Mobility 1% Transportation Demand Management categories $22.5M 12 CONCEPTUAL INVESTMENT PLAN 50% Local Control with at least 10% Community Enhancements & 4% Safe Routes to School $112.5M 13 WHAT THIS MEANS TO SLO CITY $2,036,897 a year for local control $18,332,072 over 9 years + regional projects “Local” projects suggested through public engagement include: –“Major” Roadway Repair & Maintenance: Madonna, Foothill, Los Osos Valley Road, Grand Ave –Broad Street Corridor Improvements –Bike and Pedestrian Improvements –Safe Routes to School projects Regional projects suggested include: –Congestion Reduction in south San Luis Obispo with improved east west connections including an overcrossing at US 101 and Prado road (combined Local Control and Regional Projects funding). 14 NEXT STEPS APRIL/MAY: All jurisdictions review materials and provide feedback and comments, including BOS MAY 4: Special SLOCOG Board meeting to review/address comments, and direct staff to finalize Measure materials JUNE 1: SLOCOG Board Approve Plan to send to all jurisdictions for final approval JUNE: Back to all jurisdictions for final approval of Expenditure Plan, including BOS July 13: SLOCOG Board Adopt Plan, Ordinance, and Call for Election July 19: County Board places on Nov. 2016 Ballot