HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 0620 CC REG ITEM 11BBERNARDO M. PEREZ
Mayor
SCOTT MONTGOMERY
Mayor Pro Tem
ELOISE BROWN
Councilmember
CLINT HARPER, Ph.D.
Councilmember
PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr.
Councilmember
LILLIAN KELLERMAN
City Clerk
MOORPARK ITEM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DISCUSSION:
M E M O R A N D U M
The Honorable City Council
STEVEN KUENY
City Manager
CHERYL J.KANE
City Attorney
PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P.
Director of
Community Development
R. DENNIS DELZEIT
City Engineer
JOHN V. GILLESPIE
Chief of Police
RICHARD T. HARE
City Treasurer
Craig Phillips, Administrative Assistant C p
June 8, 1990 (City Council Meeting 6- 20 -90)
Half Cent Sales Tax Support
The transportation system continues to age, and funding is
inadequate to meet the demand for maintenance and expansion.
The Federal and State governments have encouraged local
agencies to contribute toward solving their own
transportation problems. Counties that have a local funding
mechanism are given project. priority over counties that lack
such funding.
The Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) has
developed a Traffic Reduction and Growth Management Ordinance
and Expenditure Plan. The Traffic Plan is based on a half
cent sales tax that is anticipated to generate an estimated
$25 Million per year. A majority (60 percent or $15 Million)
would be spent as matching funds for State and Federal grants
that will construct regional projects. The remainder (400
or $10 Million) would be spent for local streets and transit.
Details of potential projects and the funding split are
listed in the Traffic Ordinance which was previously provided
to the Council.
The VCTC took the necessary steps on June 8, 1990 to place
the Traffic Ordinance before the voters in November. To
assure passage of this crucial plan that has been developed
through extensive public involvement, it is important to
indicate the City's approval A transmittal letter from
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021
(805) 529 -6864
The Honorable City Council
June 8, 1990
Page 2
Susan Lacey, Commission Chair, summarizing the importance of
the plan and the status of public support, was previously
provided to the Council.
Staff Recommendation
Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
CP:sc
5214.tem
Attachment
;tit;
June 7, 1990
MEMO TO: VENTURA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
6/8/90 - Meeting
FROM: GINGER GHERARDI)r
SUBJECT: PROPOSED NOVEMBER SALES TAX ELECTION
RECOMMENDATIONS
VENTURA COUP
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSI
950 County Square Drive Suite
Ventura, CA 9:
(805) 654 --
Item #10 (b) (8051642 -:
ACTION FAX (805) 642 -1
• Seek City Council resolutions approving the Ventura
County Transportation Commission Traffic Reduction and
Growth Management Ordinance and Expenditure Plan.
• Request the Ventura County Board of Supervisors to
place the measure on the November ballot, upon approval
of a majority of cities representing a majority of the
population.
BACKGROUND
Enclosed is a copy of the Ventura County Transportation
Commission Traffic Reduction and Growth Management Ordinance and
Expenditure Plan in its final form. The plan, which was
developed through an extensive public outreach and consensus
building process, proposes that a 1/2 cent sales tax increase be
put before the voters in November- to pay for much needed local
street, highway and transit - related improvements.
A recent privately funded poll indicates that there is widespread
public support for the proposed measure and the allocation
formula contained in the expenditure plan. The passage of
Propositions 111/108/116 on Tuesday is a good indication that the
public is willing to support a modest tax increase for needed
transportation projects.
It is very clear that without both a local sales tax increase and
the state gas tax increase, much needed transportation projects
in the County will not be built. Ventura County needs a number
of transportation projects and programs that cost approximately
$1.35 billion. Under Proposition 111, we are only guaranteed
$320 million in County Minimum funding over the next twenty
years. Much of that money money will need to be spent on
maintenance and rehabilitation, rather than needed new
construction.
Self -help counties, those with a local sales tax, have
traditionally received more than their County Minimum share of
Proposed Sales Tax
June 7, 1990
Page Two
funding because of their ability to match state dollars, while
most other counties have received less. Proposition 111
contains a $2 billion state /local partnership program based on a
50/50 match. Unless Ventura County has a local source of funds
to provide the match, we will not be able to participate in this
program. In other words, our gas tax monies will be collected
for this program, or in our case donated to the program, but we
will get vitually nothing back.
If Ventura has a local match, staff estimates that we could
obtain at least an additional $130 million dollars in projects,
thus bringing the total county share of state revenue up to $450
million. Currently there are nineteen self -help counties,
representing 800 of the state's population that have some form of
local transportation sales tax.
The projected shortfall in needed transportation funding for
Ventura County is $900 million. A one -half cent sales tax will
raise at least an additional $500 million, still leaving us with
a shortfall, but allowing us to make significant progress towards
meeting our transportation needs in this County.
Attached to this memo is the RTIP bid pot list that was approved
by the Commission in March. It i.s very unlikely that Ventura
will receive all of the projects on the bid pot when the
California Transportation Commission approves its program in
September. In addition, there are a number of vitally needed
projects on our approved list that. are below the RTIP cut line.
If we do not choose to go forward in November we will probably
have to wait two years for another opportunity (at a subsequent
general election). Possible action at the Federal level with
respect to the budget deficit coi)?_d impact our chances to be
successful at a later date.
The staff feels that the sales tax measure is winnable in
November and recommends that the commission proceed by soliciting
resolutions from the cities and asking the County to put the
measure on the ballot in November. Assuming that this occurs,
the Ordinance and Expenditure Plan will be on the Commission
agenda in July.
' RTIP LIST
(in millions)
EXISTING PROJECTS
1. 126 Widening Cost Increase $ 2.294
2. 23/118 Connector Cost Increase 15.784
------------------------------- ..------------------------------
Sub Total Bid Cost Increases $ 18.078
NEW PROJECTS
3.
101 /Johnson /Vineyard
22.0
4.
101 /Seaward Interchange
4.5
5.
1/ Pleasant Valley IC
11.0
(Trade For Rice /10]_)
6.
101/34 Lewis Interim Ramps
5.0
7.
118 /Tapo /LA County Line Widening
22.0
8.
23 Widening
15.0
9.
118 Widening Moorpark /Santa Clara
45.0
----------------
Sub Total New Proiects
- - - - --
$124.5
TOTAL BID POT SUBMITTAL
$142.578
10.
118 Princeton /Tapo Widening
20.0
11.
Carmen /101 IC
3.5
12.
Borchard /101 IC
3.5
13.
Victoria /101 IC
5.2
14.
Casitas Bypass
30.0
TOTAL PRIORITIES
$204.778
agendas:rtip