Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - August 17, 1988 (92)C0*�NCIL COMM UNICAT`ON TO: THE CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL MEETING DATE: FROM: THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AUGUST 17, 1988 SUBJECT: PROPOSITION 5 ELECTION RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council, by motion action, lend its support for an election to determine the views of the citizens of San Joaquin County on the issue of eligibility for obtaining the County's share of gas tax funds for Mass Transit Guideway purposes designating San Joaquin County as a Proposition 5 County, thereby being eligible to apply for Mass Transit Guideway projects for Amtrak rail service improvements. In 1974, California voters approved Proposition 5, which allowed voters in any county to approve a ballot measure (by simple majority) under Article XIX, Section 4, to receive a proportionate share of state "guideway minimum" funds. Eleven urban counties have subsequently activated this provision, which by state law allows the use of state gas funds for "public mass transit guideway purposes". Had San Joaquin County become a Proposition 5 county, prior to this fiscal year, its estimated eligible share could have been approximately $1.2 million. Whenever a new county joins the other Proposition 5 counties, the amount available to each county diminishes. However, funds are only allocated based on submitted projects. The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors has committed support and endorsement to the priorities for rail service improvements of the Rail Steering Committee of the Caltrans Rail Task Force for the Amtraks "San Joaquin". The priorities of the Rail Steering Committee focus on: * Direct train service to Sacramento from Stockton * Switching to Southern Pacific tracks north of Fresno * Direct train service through the Altamont Pass to the Bay area * Direct train service to Los Angeles The first three priorities have direct and critical effects on San Joaquin County. These include track improvements, switching capabilities and multi -model stations. Article XX monies could allow for the development of these types of projects. Attached, marked Exhibit "A", is a copy of a letter and briefing paper/staff report concerning this matter which was received from Rail Steering Committee of Caltrans Rail Task Force Chairman, William Sousa. The letter advises that the Board of Supervisors needs to take action on this matter prior to August 12th. It is felt that although this information was not received in time to act on the matter earlier, it would be appropriate for the City Council, by motion action, to lend its support to this effort. ACV _ X Alice M. Reimche City Clerk AMR:jj COUNCO23/TXTA.02D ER SY• STEERING COMMIT')t EE OF CALTRANS' RAIL TASK FORCE MEMBERS REPRESENTING ALAMEDA COUNTY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FRESNO COUNTY KERN COUNTY KINGS COUNTY LOS ANGELES COUNTY MAD£RA COUNTY MERCED COUNTY SACRAMENTO COUNTY SAN SOAQULN COUNTY STANISLAUS COUNTY TULARE COUNTY July 22, 1988 Councilwoman Evelyn Olson COG Board Member 1306 Burgundy Court Lodi, California 95242 SUBJECT: PROPOSITION 5 ELECTION Dear Councilwoman Olson: Attached for your council's consideration is a briefing paper which relates the background of the rationale for recommending that the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors propose to the voters of San Joaquin County the issue of eligibility for Article :CIX, Section 4 - Mass Transit Guideway Funds. The issues can be summarized as follows: ° San Joaquin County has peen and continues to be strongly supportive of the Amtrak -San Joaquin passenger rail service. ° State supported rail service has been added as an eligible item for mass transit guideway funds. Eligibility for pursuit of these funds is contingent upon a "simple majority" vote of the electorate, in any county. While these funds, technically do count against the "so-called" state highway county minimums, and could compete against state highway projects, as a practical matter, this in fact does not occur. ° If voters authorize San Joaquin County to pursue this source of funding, they would provide access to a new source of funic for rail guideway projects. -2 - Transportation Steering Committee PROPOSITION 5 ELECTION ° Eligible projects under the guideway definition could include: track and signal improvements to allow higher speeds; automatic switching grade crossing improvements and track connections and station improvements, as well as multi -modal station projects. These improvements would have positive affects for all of the cities within San Joaquin County. With the Board's knowledge of the Amtrak -San Joaquins, and the potential for a multitude of improvements to local train service these funds could provide, it is the Rail Steering Committee's recommendation that the Cities of San Joaquin County support and endorse the calling of an election to access this important new source of funds. In order to assure placement on the November ballot, the Board of Supervisors will need to take action on this matter by August 12th. Your support and endorsenient of this proposal is invaluable to its success. Very >tru yyours , JL ...._149 - WILLIAM 49,WILLIAM N, SOUSA Chairman, Rail Steering Committee of Caltrans Rail Task Force WNS:DAB:ss A 8G218TCS1 Attachment HENRY M. HIRATA o•.[C-p. .�vi•1.f V�c�.'i in�j COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN EUGENE OELUCCHI DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS C. -Ce 0CPU" 0MCCr0.THOMAS P. O. BOX Sato --1070 E. HAZELTON AVENUE R. fIINN STCCKTON• CALIFORNIA 95201 oa.urr 0 -[Oro. 12091 468•7CCC MANUEL IOPEZ OCPUr Dia CC1.0. RICHARD C. PAYNE 3C..- O..QCTO. A3 1023 - P ROPOSI''_`Io`l 5 ART_^TNG P;^E-4/T RnPtZm J Ju1v_20, 1938 it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors adopt the Resol`ation calling for an alection to determine the views of the ci__ze.ns of San Joacu-n County on the issue of eliaability for the County's share cf gad tax funds for bass Transit Gu:ceway our7oses desiCnat ng Sail Joacuin County as a Proposition 5 County, EIeII e11g^: 1e tC app.'y for Article SIY funding for Mass -_=ilsit Guideway C.0jects for Aa_:ak rail service improvements. RZISONS FOR _RE-OM:1_�7D�!:^T(, N: . BACKGROUND: As you are aware, the San Jc•acU_n County Board of Ssoerviaors _-aVe CCcouui tied 3::Cporz anal endor e.^.lent to the ori ori ties for rail Ser71ce 1,i^rcvaale.n.t3 Ot-_ Ra 11 Steer_ng C=.Ittee of the Ca__ran s Rail Task Force tr tin Aman "Sae Jcacuns i " (p__ 3'4-r87-1047). �A_ the May 1983 meetinc, it was brought to tea_ Ccclmlittees' attention, by ASsembly;Ian Jim Costa, that an opgortuni.ty for additional -funding for Amtrak and.mass transit.. guideway purposes had become available. That source of funding is available under Article {IX, Section 4 of tc:e State Constitution. The Committee voted to seek -the ability..=_om. the voters to ours -,le t:,ese finds within -their resp ot�.e 4urisdicticr:_. 'C7•�D^,C T'^T^.\ - — 'm•-. ��{=^L ±`. .. n^. TS 3T -- - _i�.�:S �_ EL !'T LITv FOR ARTICLE :{I:{ In 1971; California vote=s approved Proposition S, which.allowed %c tees in any County t;:,a::I_ OV a ballot measure ' (b_! Sl:ilple ma ority? under Article XIX, Section 4 to receive a proportionate share o: State "guideway r_-_:,ium" _-funds. Eleven urban Counties gage subsequently activate'di i to t'lis provision, which by Stagy_ law allows the use of cta e cas tax. funds for "public mass transit Cu_deiJay purposes." Eac!". Year the Legislature 3.^.d the California -2- ABI023-PROPOSITION S SRT_ =_TNG PAPER/STAFF REPORT july 20, 1933 Transportation CCnmission (CTC) allocate State funds to fund rail transit orojects in the eleven Counties where this enabling proposition has been approved. A3 1023: in September of 1987, Governor Deuk.nejian sidled into law Assembly Bill 1023, authored by Assemblyman Costa. AB 1023 primarily focused on improving public transportation to State prisons. However, it also ejoanded the definition of -public mass transit guideway projects under Article XIX to include as elicibie, rail lines. This provision allows rural counties served by the San Joauui n r-tzrltrak line to become a "Guideway County" and be eligible " to receive a proportionate_share of �State cL_de�ay minimum" =uiCc. This JCu_d include ii.ip-uCaal SiaslOn projects, as :veil as track and signal improvements to allow higher speeds. k1so included as being elia4ble _o'r thi3 funding are grade crossing impro°+eme_nts, and track connections. This expansion of the law is subject to exist-na law which requires voter aegrovai of a proposition to establish eligibility to pursue this funding source. THE FUNDING ISSUES: Once a County qualifies by a Vote of the electorate,. it is e- _pie for a carta_n por-c n 'o_ the revenue dedicatad to gS:iaewa-rs. _if' -y percent e= the amount is distributed based on 11080 census population and is referred to as "guide`.JaY county ;,Minimums". The remainder is distributed by the California 1'ransportation Commission on a discretionary basis. Once eligible, should San .;cacuin County desire to pursue the use. of these -funds, the foliowi n^, steps would then be neves arv: A r JeC:: must be propCS.. cand adopted. The county, a city orvt:^.-Ytransit di' -riot or 3. y combinaticn, t ereof, could apply. 2. e Regional Trans ortati:n Planning Agency must approve the _' na,ncial plan for .he ^rcgosed project and submit itto the CTC and Caltrans. J.CIL � t✓1.1 ®r..•. 1i71S n3_ X923-PRCPOSI•rIC-�j 5 R=E^_TNG PAPSR!S,A= . REPCR"_' 20, 1953 y _ _ ,e .ci-- Ce tefmi_^.e5 t hat t^_.C pla=t meets i?ecessafy Crl `erla. n `I`_^.e portion off projec_s funds allocated shall the. be incl_.^'. ed i n t`n—_ %'-'-? ba=sed u--cn the e I i a i hle cc)unty's percent of population. Tore -nan one Oroject is submitted by count,■ the California 'V ansno=taticn Commission (CTC) shall deter -line .?he priority of roposed projects base: on regional transportat_cn needs. UNDING QGFh^:ONS ^e _unds se_ aside, (pursuant to Section 199.(c) of the Street and ,. zhha•. Code), -f cm time S=ate 'r'ighway Account shall be deemed exDC ndit:lres on the hi-,hway system :or purposes raiati nC to the "'`0=`_..^. -south'" fcr hula and hi g , a'T county minimums. They shall be ?de.^.t_-fie3 separ_=_=_Ly in the budast r sort submit, -ted to the Lecislature. This last .sentence +is :Cay to an understanding of "guideway county minimums". Each year the Deoartm:.ent of Transportation recom:.mends in the _=�_iminary State _ 3 _ Highway ud,_m_ a potion o+th.. State r_g. pay Accaunt r c .ec o meet t a p ped f -^ds, which it deems n ssa=-% to ,. �h needs cc guideways =oiects for the com.irig yea=. The Governor, the Legislature, the CTC and finally, the Governor again in his zinal budge` d8t8r':irk' that amount. As C= Ih;s wr;`i=-, .t ie Governor has narrowed the Lecisla=_vel_v _ ropose: $75 million to $64 million. fcr 1983-39. Had San Joaquin Ccunty become a Proposition 5 county prior to this -fiscal year, our estimated eligible share could have been aDcroximately $1.2 million. Whenever a new county joins the Ct.^:`r Pr000s:t on 7 ccunties, the amount available to each county ^iTini_ :mss. However, :'1.^:CS ar?Cn__ allocate -3 based on submitted Oroa. Thiz '_Tear, -or =xarnnlo, '5evera1 count: -s have no protects. Th, S' .m F__c:. means that the funds avail3sJle to a.:!athat ea county may be greater than their population allocation would dict -ata. ,vh11 e i _ is `ec.^.r, C?.liv true, that tele allocation to each county iS part o=�che to -al 83-89 San Joacu_n County Highway ST_? mini:sul aTcu:z-_ c_ $49 ,:.:!Lion, guidawaT projects do not as a practical :*latter ccmceca against highway projects. Guideway projeC-s are t:elalopec a. i ent.4-flied saoarately %rpm highway } proiec s•Both apnea-, `aoaratei.v, before the TC for amoroval. Would require an i.-cteyratiCC OL project lists to competltiVelV Orio_itize the 1. This .^.ces not, in practice, occur. T;:e expanded deLinit_or o: "guideways" as identified by Caltrans, -K- ABI023-?REPOSITION 5 BRI_FING PAPER/STAFF REPORT j'_ 'I 210, 1933 ."._„_udes rag iways, overneaG _— eI ifiea Catenary/trolley systemsm ana ca. - i e/?oitdola systems, essentially only those modes in which motion is controlled by a trac.t. ?O='NmTAL PROJECTS: The priorities of the Rail Steering Committee focus Oil: °Direct train service to Sacramento from Stcc ton. X °SwiIicainq to Sout .ern ?ac ific tacks n o r t of FreSMQ• °Bire^t trait: service through the Altamont Mass -to the Bay area. °Direct train S2rJiCe to os Angeles. The first three Driorities list`: have direct and critical a-E-fects On San Joaauin CC`inty. These include track improvementsm switc;.inC cao_abilities and .-.inti-modal stations. :article XIX :*genies could allow for t':e deve_opment of ties` ty?es of oroects. Cr,?r for San Joaquin C^ ..t'I to beCO^t? d "Prep 5" CC ;nt_I, to curs;:e this new funding source, tile Board of Ct1Dc-rvisors must approve proposing this question to the voters. Au,ggust 12 is the final date in order to be assured of placement on the November ballot. FISCAL IMPACT: Mote' Ccs This re^✓✓Orr c`i-lines a .:ie` :CC Uti `. ;Xich, lr 1 C1 a TIOte Cr the people, Cast •Joa?'.iin Ccu _ .' 1 be aiicj i ble to pursue a new revenue Source. 2. Net County Cost: Orie Time Oniv: A one time only, net ceunt�_� cost, for tate coat of includirg .s ballot measare on taea cameral election ballot in November, esti mated to *-e acoroximataly 520,000. IM REIN+; OF. THIS I JOE$ IMPROWM D THfE H ( ITION OF TM -5- AB1023-PROPOSITION 5 BRIEFING PAPER/STAFF REPORT ,;,Zv.1; 20, 1933 ACTION FOLLCWTNG APPROVAL: If the Board authorizes the calling of an election to determine voter aoeroval of pursuing Mass Transit G°uideaal,r funds, the Following action bill be necessary: The elections division will ;Ce directed to provide all the necessary services to consolidate the conducting of this election, with the general election to be held in November, 1988. 7LB _bab A SE297TCCG 7 8 CITY COUNCil- JAMES :V PINKERTON Jr, Ntavor JOHN R (Randy) SNIDER Mavor Pro Tempore DAVID Nt Hi :CH NIAN E V E LYN Nt OLSON FRED &t REID CITY OFLODI CIT'-.' HALL 221 WEST PINE STRFE F ALL E3OX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209) 334-5634 rELECOPIER (209) 333 67,45 August 22, 1988 Supervisor William N. Sousa Chairman Rail Steering Committee County Courthouse 222 East Weber Avenue Stockton, CA 95202 Subject: Proposition 5 Election Dear Supervisor Sousa: THOMAS A PETERSON City Manager ALICE. M REP ICHE City Clerk 11013 NUNAT I Citv Attorney This letter will confirm action taken by the Lodi City Council at its regular meeting of August 17, 1988 whereby, following receipt of your July 22, 1988 letter, the City Council by motion action lent its support for an election to determine the view of the citizens of San Joaquin County on the issue of eligibility for obtaining the County's share of gas tax funds for Mass Transit Guideway purposes designating San Joaquin County as a Proposition 5 County, thereby being eligible to apply for Mass Transit Guideway projects for Amtrak rail service improvements . The City Council was not able to act on this, prior to August 12, 1988, because August 17, 1988 was the first meeting since your letter was received. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call this office. Very truly yours, Alice M. Reimche City Clerk AMR:jj