|
Proposed New Vehicle Registration Fee for Santa Clara County
John Ristow, Program and Highway Administration Deputy Director, reported that the Proposed New Vehicle Registration Fee for Santa Clara County item was actually a follow-up to an Ad-Hoc Working Group meeting held the week of January 31, 2005, by the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group (SVMG).
Mr. Ristow referred to the SVMG Ad-Hoc Working Group and noted that the proposal is to submit legislation for Santa Clara County that would add a five-dollar ($5) vehicle registration fee to vehicles registered in Santa Clara County. The proceeds would go to congestion relief and other transportation projects. The sponsor of the bill is currently Senator Joe Simitian. He noted that the Ad-Hoc Working Group would develop an expenditure plan indicating how the proceeds may be used.
Mr. Ristow directed attention to the Board Memorandum and noted that the SVMG Ad-Hoc Working Group proposed the following expenditure plan: 1) $4 million – Caltrain capacity improvements, 2) $4 million – Freeway Litter Control and Landscape Replacement Program. He noted that the remaining proceeds would be split 1/3-1/3-1/3 into the following categories: 1) $16 million – Category 1: County Expressways, 2) $16 million - Category 2: Local Streets and Roads-Direct Subvention, 3) $16 million - Category 3: Local Streets and Roads-Competitive Pool.
Mr. Ristow noted that overall the proposed bill would last for eight years and generate approximately $56 million.
Mr. Ristow noted that the SVMG Ad-Hoc Working Group did not reach a consensus on the expenditure plan. He directed attention to the Board Memorandum, which indicated that there are still remaining issues to be discussed. He noted that the intent was to bring it back to TAC to review the issues. Mr. Ristow noted that should the legislation go through it would be up to VTA Board of Directors to approve the expenditure plan.
Member Curtis expressed concern regarding the timeline. Kurt Evans, Government Affairs Manager, noted from a legislative perspective the timeline is that Senator Simitian has until February 18, 2005, to formerly introduce the bill. The first Policy Committee hearing would be held probably in mid-April 2005. Mr. Evans noted that the bill probably would not make it all the way through the legislative process until August 2005, for the Governor’s consideration in September 2005, and the bill would take effect, assuming it has been signed into law, on January 1, 2006. Mr. Ristow noted that Senator Simitian requested that the cities submit their resolutions by the end of March 2005.
Mr. Ristow noted that at the last SVMG Ad-Hoc Working Group Meeting he informed the Working Group that he would provide TAC with, for illustrated purposes, further information so that representatives of each one of the cities and the County of Santa Clara could understand what types of projects might be available and what the breakdown buy-out of pro rata share would be for the annual direct subvention.
Mr. Ristow directed attention to the document distributed entitled Vehicle Registration Fee Estimate for $2 million, noting it was for illustrated purposes. He noted the table shown breaks down the $2 million based on a population amount.
Mr. Ristow directed attention to the following documents distributed, noting that the documents were copied from the Valley Transportation Plan 2030 (VTP 2030): 1) VTP 2030 – Santa Clara Expressway Tier 1A Projects, 2) VTP 2030 – Santa Clara County ITS Projects, and 3) VTP 2030 – Local Streets and County Roads Program.
Member Curtis referred to an e-mail that talked about the possibility of including traffic calming projects.
Member Qualls noted that the good thing is having the bulk of the funds being split between three categories, noting that it gives everybody something and an opportunity to get something more. He commented that the cities, County of Santa Clara, and VTA should support Senator Simitian and SVMG 100 percent.
Member Batra expressed concern regarding an issue with the Water District wherein the State of California has taken away monies and suggested when working with Senator Simitian that the language is made tight enough that the State cannot take away monies. Mr. Ristow noted that under this legislation the State would only allow VTA to impose the fee.
Member Kass took his seat at 1:56 p.m.
Member Dey asked that Member Murdter present the offer he made to satisfy the City of Gilroy’s concerns. Member Murdter referred to trying to make the expenditure plan equitable and suggested that the County of Santa Clara would agree to use all of its Direct Subvention Money on South County road projects as well as limit its County applications under the Competitive Pool to South County projects as a way of putting a little bit more into the program for South County cities. Also, in future years, the potential for expressway-type projects coming out of the South County Circulation Study to be eligible under the expressway pot. Upon query of Member Murdter, Ms. Gonot provided a brief update on the status of the South County Study. Member Curtis referred to expressways and expressed concern regarding places west of San Jose.
Member Tripousis took his seat at 2:05 p.m.
Laura Stuchinsky, SVMG, referred to the pro rata share and noted that the cities could use their share of the funds toward a county expressway project within their jurisdiction. She requested that the proposed expenditure plan be amended to include the wording.
Mr. Ristow noted that the next SVMG Ad-Hoc Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 17, 2005.
Member Qualls commented on the concerns that have arisen due to the fact that SVMG is meeting with Public Works staff regarding the proposed new vehicle registration fee. Member Tripousis noted that a presentation was made at a City of San Jose Building Better Transportation Subcommittee and he indicated staff received a push back about the issue in regards to the decision-making process.
Mr. Ristow referred to the next SVMG Ad-Hoc Working Group Meeting scheduled on February 17, 2005, and noted that consensus reached at that meeting would be contained in a memorandum and the memorandum would be forwarded to TAC and all other VTA Advisory Committees as an action item in March 2005.
Upon query of Member Rowe, Mr. Evans noted that the VTA Board of Directors should take action on the item prior to the bill being heard at the first Policy Committee to be held in mid-April 2005. Mr. Ristow noted that the Board of Directors Meeting would be held on March 30, 2005.
Mr. Evans referred to the bill and noted that the Legislation would authorize VTA Board of Directors to impose the surcharge for the broad categories in expenditures and then the expenditure plan would have the details as to “x” amount goes to Category 1 expenditures and under Category 1 expenditures here are the specific projects, which allows the flexibility at the local level to craft the expenditure plan in such a way that it meets everybody’s needs.
Member Tripousis asked what we have to accomplish that would not preclude Senator Simitian from moving the bill forward given the broad nature of the bill language. Mr. Evans noted that Senator Simitian is asking for the cities and the County to adopt the resolution in support, so that Senator Simitian could go forward when moving the bill through the legislative process. He noted it is probably an easier job for TAC as staff members to work with their councils.
Member Kass referred to the VTA Board of Directors’ adopting a resolution supporting the expenditure plan and the legislation. He queried once VTA has taken the position would the resolution then go back to the individual councils. He expressed concern regarding the VTA Board of Directors having questions and/or concerns and noted that the councils may want to adopt their resolutions prior to the VTA Board of Directors. Ms. Gonot noted that the cities would have to adopt the resolutions prior to VTA Board of Directors. Member Kass expressed concern regarding the short timeframe.
Member Batra noted that the issues have been heard and suggested that staff come up with a process or timelines and then e-mail them to TAC. He noted it would be advisable to have a sample standard resolution that should go to the councils.
Member Kass recommended that each TAC Member send Ms. Stuchinsky, via e-mail, the date that each city council meeting would be held.
Member Qualls recommended that another reminder be sent out regarding the February 17, 2005 SVMG Ad-Hoc Working Group Meeting and that the reminder include a statement indicating that it would be helpful for each city to propose a date when going to their councils.
On order of Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Proposed New Vehicle Registration Fee for Santa Clara County was discussed.
| 
Rider's Links 
