Presentation to Rural CountiesTask 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 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

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

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

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.

Initial Polls: Renewal Was Feasible

Business Poll, July 2001: Traffic most important problem: 24% + 7% for

related issues75% 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”

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

Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) Process

CEQA Review -- Countywide Plan Update~$175,000 costAssessed 3 alternatives: continue @ ~70%

capital, 50% capital, and program orientedFiled NOD for Plan EIR and final TEP

Performed comprehensive corridor evaluations

Equity: examined recommendations from 4 sub-areas of Contra Costa & “balanced” $

TEP Process (cont.)

Poll support for selected projects, programsMaintain 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%)

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

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

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

Actual, Projected Revenues 1988 $Contra Costa Annual Sales Tax Revenues, 1988$

-

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Program Year

$ M

illio

ns

Forecast Revenue

Actual RevenueEnd of FY 2004-05; Data Extrapolated Beyond This LIne

FY 1992: Beginning of Recession

Contra Costa Annual Sales Tax Revenues, Escalated $

-

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Program Year

$ M

illio

ns Forecast Revenue

Actual Revenue

End of FY 2004/05;Data Extrapolated Beyond This Line

FY 1992; Beginning of Recession

Bond Financing Example: 2% Net Interest “Cost”

Bonds Vrs. PAYG2004 $

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

$

Pay AY Go

Bond $

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

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

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”

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

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