phil monroe mayor pro tem, coronado agenda · christy guerin councilmember, encinitas lori holt...

POLICY BOARD AGENDA

Friday, January 9, 2004 10:15 a.m. SANDAG

401 B Street 7th Floor Board Room San Diego, CA 92101

• PUBLIC COMMENT/COMMUNICATIONS • INITIAL DRAFT TransNet EXTENSION

EXPENDITURE PLAN AND KEY ORDINANCE PROVISIONS

PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES DURING THE MEETING

YOU CAN LISTEN TO THE SANDAG BOARD MEETING BY

VISITING OUR WEB SITE AT WWW.SANDAG.ORG

MISSION STATEMENT The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional decision-making.

SANDAG builds consensus, makes strategic plans, obtains and allocates resources, and provides

information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the region’s quality of life.

San Diego Association of Governments ⋅ 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101-4231

(619) 595-5300 ⋅ Fax (619) 595-5305 ⋅ www.sandag.org

Board Members

Ron Morrison, Chairman Councilmember, National City Mickey Cafagna, Vice Chairman Mayor, Poway Ramona Finnila Mayor Pro Tem, Carlsbad Steve Padilla Mayor, Chula Vista Phil Monroe Mayor Pro Tem, Coronado Crystal Crawford Councilmember, Del Mar Mark Lewis Mayor, El Cajon Christy Guerin Councilmember, Encinitas Lori Holt Pfeiler Mayor, Escondido Patricia McCoy Councilmember, Imperial Beach Barry Jantz Councilmember, La Mesa Mary Sessom Mayor, Lemon Grove Jack Feller Councilmember, Oceanside Dick Murphy Mayor, San Diego Jim Madaffer Councilmember, San Diego Corky Smith Mayor, San Marcos Hal Ryan Vice Mayor, Santee Joe Kellejian Mayor, Solana Beach Morris Vance Mayor, Vista Greg Cox Chairman, County of San Diego

Advisory Members

Victor Carrillo, Supervisor Imperial County Pedro Orso-Delgado, District Director California Department of Transportation Leon Williams, Chairman Metropolitan Transit Development Board Judy Ritter, Chair North San Diego County Transit Development Board CAPT Christopher Schanze, USN U.S. Department of Defense Jess Van Deventer, Commissioner San Diego Unified Port District Bud Lewis, Director San Diego County Water Authority Rodulfo Figueroa Aramoni Consul General of Mexico Gary L. Gallegos Executive Director, SANDAG

Welcome to SANDAG. Members of the public may speak to the Board on any item at the time the Board is considering the item. Please complete a Speaker’s Slip which is located in the rear of the room and then present the slip to the Clerk of the Board. Also, members of the public are invited to address the Board on any issue under the agenda item entitled Public Comments/Communications. Speakers are limited to three minutes. The SANDAG Board may take action on any item appearing on the agenda. This agenda and related staff reports can be accessed on SANDAG’s Web site at www.sandag.org under Meetings. Public comments regarding the agenda can be forwarded to SANDAG via the e-mail comment form also available on the Web site. E-mail comments should be received no later than noon on the Wednesday preceding the Friday SANDAG Board meeting. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) 595-5300 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) 595-5300, (619) 595-5393 (TTY), or fax (619) 595-5305.

SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit. Phone 1-800-COMMUTE or see www.sdcommute.com for route information.

2

Friday, January 9, 2004

SANDAG POLICY BOARD MEETING

INITIAL DRAFT TransNet EXTENSION EXPENDITURE PLAN AND KEY ORDINANCE PROVISIONS Introduction

At the September 12, 2003 Policy Board meeting, the Board discussed numerous issues and major policy assumptions to be used in the development of the draft Ordinance and Expenditure Plan for the TransNet Extension. Based on the direction provided by the Board at that meeting, a Framework for the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan was developed. The Framework was approved by the Board on October 24, 2003 and has been used by the Ad Hoc Working Group on TransNet as guidance for its work in developing the Initial Draft Expenditure Plan. The Ad Hoc Working Group on TransNet has met nine times since April, 2003 to provide direction on the voter opinion research that has been conducted for the TransNet Extension and to develop the draft Expenditure Plan. On December 19, 2003, the Ad Hoc Working Group approved the attached Initial Draft TransNet Extension Expenditure Plan and Key Ordinance Provisions for consideration by the Board of Directors at today’s Policy Board meeting. The Framework previously approved by the Board of Directors is included as Attachment 1 to the Ad Hoc Working Group’s report, along with the status of each of the components of the Framework. In addition to the Framework, the Working Group utilized the findings of the voter opinion research that has been conducted for the TransNet Extension, including the 1200-sample public opinion survey that was completed in July and the series of six focus groups that were conducted in October and November. Each focus group consisted of

registered voters selected from one of the six geographic sub-areas used for the development of the TransNet Extension Expenditure Plan.

Issues for Discussion

The approved Framework for the TransNet extension called for an Expenditure Plan that was based on a strategic, specific, and geographically balanced set of projects and programs focusing on congestion relief and other key issues identified in the voter opinion research. Has the Ad Hoc Working Group’s Initial Draft Expenditure Plan met that objective?

Does the Initial Draft Expenditure Plan strike the proper balance in terms of funding levels for the specific projects and programs that have been included?

Are there other specific projects or programs that should be included in the Expenditure Plan?

Do the key ordinance provisions included as part of the Ad Hoc WorkingGroup’s report adequately address the elements outlined in the approved Framework such as the 10-year plan review, the strengthened maintenance of effort requirements, and the oversight committee?

Are there issue areas that the Board would like to refer back to the Ad Hoc Working Group on TransNet for additional work or refinement?

Are there specific issue areas that the Board would like to spend more time discussing at the annual retreat?

4

The voter opinion research to date has found that traffic congestion is a key issue of concern with the voters and that there is a high level of support for specific projects and programs that offer congestion relief. There also was strong support for the bus rapid transit (BRT) and managed lane concepts that are the foundation of MOBILITY 2030, SANDAG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). To achieve the two-thirds vote threshold required for successful passage of the TransNet Extension, these congestion relief projects will need to be the primary focus of the new Expenditure Plan. It is important to note that the specific projects and programs identified in the Working Group’s Initial Draft Expenditure Plan are consistent with the adopted RTP. The TransNet Extension was one of the assumed revenue sources needed to implement MOBILITY 2030. The funding proposed in the Initial Draft Expenditure Plan for the congestion relief projects, including the managed lane and BRT improvements, as well as the funding proposed for transit operations, local streets and roads, regional arterials, grade separations, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and the smart growth incentive program, are all designed to address needs identified in the RTP. The Initial Draft Expenditure Plan includes a set of specific projects and programs that fully utilizes the $9.5 billion in revenue estimated to be generated by a 30-year extension of the ½% sales tax program. The addition of new projects or increased funding for one or more of the program categories would have to be offset by corresponding decreases in the funding identified for the specific projects and programs in the Initial Draft Expenditure Plan. Today’s discussion is intended to provide an opportunity for the Board to comment on the Initial Draft Expenditure Plan developed by the Ad Hoc Working Group on TransNet. Any direction provided by the Board at today’s meeting will be used by the Working Group to further refine the initial draft proposals

and develop the draft Ordinance and Expenditure Plan for consideration by the Board at the February 27, 2003 meeting. Summary of Comments to Date A variety of comments have been received to date on the projects and programs contained in the Initial Draft Expenditure Plan and Key Ordinance Provisions. In general, the focus of the comments has been on increased funding levels for the specific projects or programs of interest to the group or individual making the comment. There have been relatively few comments received related to adding new projects or programs not included in the Initial Draft Expenditure Plan. Based on public comments at the Working Group meetings, written comments received to date, and other informal discussions, the following is a summary of the comments received as related to the major components of the Initial Draft Expenditure Plan: • Congestion Relief Projects – Relatively

few comments have been received regarding adding new projects to the list of projects specified in the Initial Draft Expenditure Plan. A few modifications have been made to the pre-draft version of the Expenditure Plan from the November 21, 2003 Working Group meeting to address comments received and to incorporate findings from the focus groups.

• Transportation Capital Project

Environmental Mitigation – While the details of this program remain under development, comments have been received regarding the funding levels for this program. Comments have ranged from limiting the funding levels to the estimated habitat-related mitigation costs of TransNet-funded projects only to increasing the funding to cover a broader, more flexible set of mitigation projects and programs. One of the details still being discussed is the implementation of the mitigation bank proposal. While the concept has been well received, there are

5

issues that remain to be resolved relating to the acceptability of the approach to the resource and permitting agencies.

• Transit Programs – This program is

intended to maintain the level of transit funding for operations provided under the existing measure, with a small increase for service improvements. Comments have been received urging additional funding under this program to expand the basic bus and rail system, particularly for increased local community shuttle/circulator services, and to provide additional services for seniors and persons with disabilities. Others have commented that this program, when combined with the operating funding identified for the specific BRT projects in the Congestion Relief Projects category, represents too large of an allocation for transit purposes and that some of the funding should be shifted to highway and local street and road purposes.

• Local Street and Road Formula

Program – Several comments have been received about the reduced level of funding for this program as compared to the percentage allocated under the current program. Concerns have been expressed about the uncertainty of alternative funding from Proposition 42 and the impacts to the local street and road programs if those funds do not materialize as projected.

• Livable Communities Incentive

Program – Several comments have been received relating to increased funding for both the Bicycle, Pedestrian and Neighborhood Safety Program and the Smart Growth Incentive Program components of this overall program category.

• Private Developer Funding/Impact

Fees – A number of comments have been received regarding how to address the issue identified in the approved Framework related to strengthening the

requirements related to private developer funding. Additional voter research is being conducted in this area. This is another program element that is still under development.

• Oversight Committee – This has been a

topic of considerable discussion at the Working Group meetings. Comments have been raised regarding the roles and responsibilities of the oversight committee and the selection process for the oversight committee members. Discussions are ongoing regarding refinements to this proposal. The Working Group did approve the draft proposal for the oversight committee contained in Attachment 2 to the Working Group’s report.

Next Steps in the Expenditure Plan Development Process The next step in the TransNet Extension process is to develop the draft Ordinance and Expenditure Plan language to be considered by the Board. Based on direction received by the Board in January, the Working Group will be refining the initial draft Expenditure Plan and developing the draft Ordinance language for an “accept for distribution” action at the February 27, 2003 Board of Directors meeting. The schedule calls for a 45-day review period, with the first reading of the Ordinance at the April Board meeting and the second reading and adoption at the May Board meeting. In addition, the staff and consultants are developing a proposal for an expanded public education effort to communicate the accomplishments of the existing TransNet program and to describe the specific project and program costs and benefits associated with the TransNet Extension ballot proposal. This proposal will be presented for the Board’s consideration as early as the January 23, 2003 meeting.

Attachments

San Diego Association of Governments

AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON TRANSNET

6

December 19, 2003 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3Action Requested: APPROVE

INITIAL DRAFT TRANSNET EXTENSION EXPENDITURE PLAN AND KEY ORDINANCE PROVISIONS

Introduction At the October 24, 2003 meeting, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Framework for the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan to provide direction to the Ad Hoc Working Group on TransNet in developing the draft Expenditure Plan. The Framework is included in Attachment 1, along with the current status of each of the major components. Based on the approved Framework, the results of the voter opinion research to date, and the ongoing discussions of the Working Group, an initial draft Expenditure Plan has been developed containing a specific list of major transportation congestion relief projects, as well as funding proposals for other major program areas. The Expenditure Plan pre-draft reviewed by the Working Group at its November 21, 2003 meeting has been revised based on the input received at the Working Group meetings. The project lists and cost estimates have been refined and the ranges presented in the previous draft for some of the program categories have been replaced with specific funding recommendations. These refinements to the draft Expenditure Plan have been made to bring the total funding requirement of the projects and programs contained in the Expenditure Plan into balance with the $9.5 billion in TransNet funds estimated to be available from a 30-year extension. The project and program costs shown below include a preliminary amount for a separate transportation project environmental mitigation program. The details of this program are still under development. As the environmental mitigation program is refined, the project costs reflected in the attached tables may need to be refined as well to avoid any potential double counting of mitigation costs. As has been discussed at previous Working Group meetings, there are numerous tradeoffs to be considered in determining the allocation of funding to the specific projects and program categories contained in the initial draft Expenditure Plan. Recommendation It is recommended that the Working Group approve the initial draft TransNet Extension Expenditure Plan for presentation to the SANDAG Board of Directors at their January 9, 2004 Policy meeting. The Working Group will continue to refine the Expenditure plan, resolve remaining issues, and respond to any items referred to the Working Group by the Board of Directors.

Attachment

7

Initial Draft TransNet Extension Expenditure Plan Components The following represents a listing of potential projects and programs to receive funding under the TransNet Extension. The funding levels for the various projects and programs have been revised from the November 21, 2003 version in order to bring the overall program into balance with respect to the funding estimated to be available. If significant changes are made to the funding levels for one or more components of the Expenditure Plan, then other projects and programs included in the initial draft Expenditure Plan will need to be adjusted accordingly to maintain the financial balance. The dollar amounts shown below for each of the major Expenditure Plan components represent the total estimated expenditure of TransNet funds over the 30-year extension. The percentage that these expenditures for each component represents out of the total $9.5 billion in TransNet revenues estimated to be available also is included. 1. Congestion Relief Projects: $6,072 million (63.9%) As identified in the voter opinion research, a key to the successful passage of the TransNet Extension is the identification of specific improvements that have an impact on congestion relief. The Framework for the TransNet Extension approved by the SANDAG Board calls for an Expenditure Plan based on a strategic, specific and geographically balanced set of transportation projects and programs. Earlier this year, the Working Group approved a set of projects drawn from the adopted 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to be evaluated in the voter opinion research process. Based on the results of this process, specific highly supported RTP projects in each of the six geographic sub-areas have been identified. The staff has updated the costs associated with each project and has packaged a set of integrated highway and transit improvements for each major corridor, as shown in Tables 1-15 (see pages 18-27) and Figures 1-7 (see pages 28-34). In most of these corridors, the proposed projects represent a multimodal approach to congestion relief, with the proposed highway improvements designed to provide priority treatments for carpools as well as a new system of bus rapid transit (BRT) services. The project lists include the capital costs of highway and transit improvements, as well as the operating costs needed to provide the proposed transit service improvements to the end of the TransNet Extension in 2038. As shown on Table 1, the total cost of these 46 specific corridor improvements is estimated to be $10.41 billion. If we assume a 50% TransNet - 50% state/federal/other match rate for these major capital projects, then the amount of TransNet funds required to support this capital program would be $4.715 billion. The 50/50 match rate cannot be assumed for operating expenses for the specified BRT and rail improvements due to limitations placed on using most state and federal funds for operating purposes. With the $980 million in estimated operating expenses added to the $4.715 billion in TransNet funds required to support the capital projects shown on the attached tables and figures, the total TransNet funding requirement is $5.695 billion, or 60% of the total TransNet Extension funding. Transportation Capital Project Environmental Mitigation: Staff is continuing to refine estimates of habitat-related mitigation costs for major transportation projects and to discuss the proposed mitigation bank concept with a number of agencies, organizations and interested parties. Cost estimates have been developed for the estimated habitat-related mitigation costs for projects in the

8

TransNet Extension initial draft Expenditure Plan, as well as for all the major projects included in the adopted 2030 RTP. There also have been ongoing discussions regarding how to address the funding gap for the local funding requirements of the region’s habitat plans for land acquisition, management and monitoring, and endowment costs. The estimate for this local funding gap is over $1 billion. There are a number of issues to be resolved including what is the appropriate share of this local funding gap to be covered by the TransNet Extension as compared to other potential local funding sources, what share of available funding should be devoted to land acquisition costs as opposed to ongoing management and monitoring activities, and what level of funding should be included for projects designated to be constructed with environmental enhancements. For the initial draft Expenditure Plan, an estimated $377 million in habitat-related mitigation costs for the projects included in the Congestion Relief project list have been included in the total $6,074 million total shown for this category. As this program is refined, this cost estimate may need to be revised. Based on the amount of funds allocated to the mitigation program and the definition of the types of mitigation to be included in the program, the specific project costs for the major Congestion Relief projects may need to be refined to eliminate any potential double-counting of mitigation costs. If the funding allocated to this environmental mitigation program is increased, then the funding will need to be reduced from one or more of the projects in the draft Congestion Relief Program and/or from one of the other draft Expenditure Plan categories. The Working Group will be considering the details of the environmental mitigation program as they are developed. 2. Transit Programs: $1,235 million (13%) The current TransNet Ordinance was amended earlier this year to allow up to 40% of the one-third of total annual TransNet revenues provided for transit purposes (or up to 13% of the total annual revenue) to be used for operating purposes. These revenues are currently available to provide operating subsidies for the existing bus and trolley system, as well as funding for the senior, disabled, and youth monthly transit pass discount programs and for ADA paratransit operating subsidies. A set-aside of 13% of the total TransNet Extension revenues would be required to continue these TransNet-funded programs at the same level as currently provided, with some funding available for service improvements. Based on the information provided by the transit operators at the time the Ordinance amendment was approved in the spring of 2003, the TransNet operating funding level (up to 40% of the transit third of the program) was projected to be sufficient to balance the operator’s budgets through 2008 assuming modest revenue enhancements and productivity increases. At the 13% level, it is estimated that a small amount of excess revenues would be available for implementation of additional fare subsidy programs, additional services targeted to senior and disabled riders, additional circulator/shuttle and local bus services for the general public not included in the specific Congestion Relief project list, and other miscellaneous capital needs. The set-aside for transit programs should be flexible to allow for both operating and capital needs in the future. Importantly, the operating costs of the major new transit services identified in the list of specific transportation improvements referenced above (mainly BRT projects) have been included as part of the total implementation costs of the corridor projects and would not be coming out of this funding identified for transit programs. At the December 5, 2003 meeting, the Working Group reviewed proposals from SANDAG’s Subcommittee on Accessible Transportation (SCAT) for improved services for seniors and persons

9

with disabilities for funding from the TransNet Extension, as well as findings from the focus group process. Based on these proposals, the following programs are recommended to be eligible for funding out of this transit program component with the appropriate funding levels to be determined:

Continue the reduced price monthly transit pass programs for seniors, persons with disabilities, and youth: The current TransNet program requires that reduced-price senior/disabled monthly transit passes be provided at a 75% discount off the regular monthly pass. Approximately 400,000 senior/disabled passes are sold per year. Monthly passes for youth (18 and under) are required to be provided at a 50% discount. The amount of TransNet funds used to subsidize the discounted monthly pass program has been capped by MTDB at $5.5 million a year. NCTD does not use its share of TransNet funds to subsidize the passes. The current TransNet program requires that such a discounted pass program be established, but the transit operators have flexibility in deciding how to subsidize the program. One of the incentives to encourage seniors and persons with disabilities to continue to use public transit is the senior/disabled pass because it provides a low-cost option for those still able to use public transit. It is recommended that the monthly pass programs continue to be a requirement of the TransNet program.

Freeze the current cash fare for seniors and persons with disabilities for 10 years: One of the

concepts discussed at the recently completed focus groups was a freeze in the senior/disabled cash fare at the current level ($1.00 in the MTS area and $.75 in the NCTD area) for the first 10 years of the TransNet Extension. The focus group participants responded very favorably to this proposal as a way of protecting those on fixed incomes from periodic increases in transit fares due to inflation over time. The cost of this program has been estimated at approximately $200,000 in the first year (FY 2009), increasing to about $900,000 by the tenth year. The cost could vary depending on the growth in senior/disabled ridership and the rate of inflationary increases in the transit fare structure. This senior/disabled cash fare guarantee would provide an additional financial incentive for seniors and persons with disabilities to use public transit and would complement the discounted monthly transit pass program.

Increase the TransNet funding provided for ADA paratransit services: Currently, 1% of the

transit one-third allocation from TransNet helps to fund the ADA paratransit services for those unable to use public transit. TransNet is providing $700,000 this fiscal year, combined with $4.7 million in Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 4.5 specialized transit funds and about $2.5 million in TDA general public transit funds, to support the ADA paratransit service. This service is valuable to persons with disabilities who are able to use it for necessary medical and other trips. The ADA services currently cost approximately $9.0 million per year and carry over 450,000 annual trips. By federal law, the boundaries for ADA paratransit service extend ¾ of a mile from public transit routes. Those areas without any public transit service are not covered by ADA paratransit service. The SCAT proposal was to increase the TransNet funding for this program to a minimum of $2.5 million per year. This would provide more than a tripling in the level of TransNet funding support for these services and would relieve the pressure on the use of TDA funds, allowing these funds to be used for additional bus and rail services for the general public.

10

Provide Grants to Nonprofit Organizations and Public Agencies for Specialized Services: The SCAT proposal was that $2 million in TransNet funds be used each year to provide grants to nonprofit community organizations and local jurisdictions, through a competitive mini-grant process, to provide transportation services to seniors and persons with disabilities. Many seniors and persons live outside the areas served by transit, as noted above. Recent Unmet Transit Needs Hearings have indicated that this population group is in need of additional services. Community nonprofit services are less expensive than fixed route transportation and could serve areas that cannot be served efficiently by public transit.

Continue and expand transit service improvements: These funds would also be used to

continue funding for transit operations covered under the current TransNet program and to provide additional bus and rail services, including local circulator/shuttle routes. As the major BRT and rail improvements specified in the Congestion Relief project list are implemented, opportunities would exist to reassign the resources being used to provide service to those corridors and use them to enhance local shuttle and feeder services to the new higher speed routes. These funds would be eligible to be used for capital projects as well.

3. Local Programs: $1,710 million (18%) It is recommended that an ongoing formula program to local jurisdictions for local street and road maintenance, rehabilitation, and other transportation improvements be continued. Currently, one-third of the total TransNet revenues is allocated for local street and road improvements and $1 million per year is allocated for bicycle facility improvements. In developing an Expenditure Plan for the future, an important factor to consider is that the full share of revenues from Proposition 42 is scheduled to begin flowing to local jurisdictions for local street and road purposes beginning in FY 2009 – the same year as the TransNet Extension would become effective. It is estimated that the local jurisdictions in the region would receive approximately $46 million per year from Proposition 42 for local street and road purposes beginning in FY 2009, which is the equivalent of 20% of the estimated TransNet revenues in the same year. The TransNet Extension local programs would have three components:

Local Street and Road Formula Program – $950 million (10%): This funding level, combined with the anticipated revenues from Proposition 42 and the other local programs described below, would exceed the current level of funding being provided through TransNet to local jurisdictions for maintenance, rehabilitation, and capital improvements to the local street and road system and for bicycle facility improvements. Eligible uses under this program are recommended to be restricted to maintenance, rehabilitation, traffic operations, and capital improvement activities. It also is recommended that the program be made more flexible by allowing other transportation programs, such as local circulator/shuttle services, to be eligible for funding.

Regional Arterials/Grade Separations – $380 million (4%): Improvements to the Regional

Arterial System (RAS) are an important component of the RTP; however, voter opinion research has indicated that specific RAS-type projects do not have the same name recognition as the major highway and transit corridor improvements (I-5, I-15, etc.). Rather than including specific regional arterial projects in the list of major Congestion Relief projects in the measure, it is recommended that a set-aside be established for improvements to the RAS

11

system to provide congestion relief, improved safety, traffic signal coordination, BRT integration, and other benefits. The RTP identified $700 million in improvements for the regionally significant transportation network component of the overall RAS, with an assumed $500 million set aside in regional funding to be matched by local jurisdictions. A competitive grant program in this range, along with a share of future STP, STIP, or other regional funding, would meet this regional commitment. This program also would be leveraged by requiring a match from regional development impact fees or other local revenues to fund a greater share of the overall RAS needs. The RTP also included funding to cover high-priority rail grade crossing projects at heavily traveled arterial crossings. Through a competitive grant program, a portion of these funds (up to 25%) could be used to provide funding for rail grade crossing projects in addition to the specific grade crossings included in the Congestion Relief project list. The competitive grant process envisioned for selecting the regional arterial and grade separation projects to be funded would be based on established criteria. Discussions regarding such criteria are underway through the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) process.

Livable Communities Incentive Program – $380 million (4%): There is a set-aside in the current

TransNet program of $1 million per year for bicycle facility improvements. It is recommended that a new Livable Communities Incentive Program be established consisting of two categories. The first is the Bicycle, Pedestrian and Neighborhood Safety Program, which would be a continuation of the TransNet bicycle projects expanded to include pedestrian and related traffic safety projects to support SANDAG’s recent efforts to promote walkable communities. This program would include walkability improvements such as sidewalk improvements, pedestrian safety projects and street crossings, “Safe Routes to Schools” projects, pedestrian and bicycle safety and encouragement programs, and traffic calming projects, as well as regional bikeway projects and local bikeway safety and connectivity improvements.

The second program is recommended to provide on-going funding for the Smart Growth Incentive Program that was identified as a program to be developed in the 2030 RTP. The RTP recommended establishment of a pilot program at $5 million per year for a five-year period. The Smart Growth Incentive Program would be a competitive grant program available to all jurisdictions for projects that help to integrate transportation and land use, or that help to revitalize community centers to make them more conducive to mixed land uses, transit, walking, and bicycling. This program would support projects that help the region realize the smart growth goals and policies that are described in the RTP, and are further defined in the forthcoming Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP). A key RCP recommendation is to identify smart growth opportunity areas where compact, higher density, mixed use, pedestrian-oriented development is planned or exists now. In order to provide effective incentives for smart growth, it is recommended that this program support a broad array of transportation and related infrastructure improvements, much like the federal Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) program. Among the project types that could be funded are community planning efforts related to smart growth, enhancements to streets and public places, and support of infrastructure needed to support development in smart growth opportunity areas. It is recommended that the funding be split equally between these two programs. The funding should be utilized to match or leverage additional funding from related state and federal funding programs to further the objectives of these programs. These TransNet-funded

12

programs should complement other programs like the state Safe Routes to Schools program and the federal TEA program. In addition, the Smart Growth Incentive Program could be structured to leverage private development investments in smart growth opportunity areas.

4. Financing Costs: $380 million (4%) A set aside for financing costs was not included in the current measure, but it is a real cost component that needs to be considered if debt financing is to be used to accelerate the implementation of key elements of the overall TransNet Extension program. This is an initial estimate based on the debt financing experience with the current TransNet program. By 2008, the total debt issued under the current TransNet program is estimated to be about $1.2 billion, of which approximately $350 million represents the estimated financing costs. If we are more aggressive with the bonding component, these costs could be higher. If the program is implemented more on a pay-as-you-go basis then the financing costs would trend toward $0. 5. Administration: Up to $95 million (up to 1%) The existing 1% cap for administrative expenses is assumed to continue. These funds are intended to cover the SANDAG staff salaries and benefits necessary for the general administration of the TransNet program. Any costs associated with a specific project would continue to be charged against funding identified for that project. 6. Oversight Committee: $7.5 million (0.1%) The cost of the oversight committee function is assumed to be $250,000 per year escalated for inflation over the life of the measure. The roles and responsibilities of the oversight committee and related administrative procedures are discussed below under draft Ordinance provisions. Summary of Initial Draft Expenditure Plan Components A total of $9.5 billion in revenue is estimated to be available from the TransNet program for a 30-year extension (in today’s dollars). Based on the costs for the various Expenditure Plan components listed above, the TransNet funding requirement utilizes the entire $9.5 billion, as shown in the table below. As discussed, the costs include a preliminary estimate for the transportation project environmental mitigation program based on the habitat-related costs for the projects identified in the initial draft Expenditure Plan. However, discussions related to this program are continuing. The specific project cost estimates may need to be refined as well based on the size and scope of the environmental program to eliminate any potential double-counting of mitigation costs. Additional adjustments may need to be made to the funding levels for the various projects and programs to accommodate the final funding level recommended for the environmental program.

Initial Draft TransNet Expenditure Plan Summary

(in millions of 2002 dollars)

Percent of Total TransNetExpenditure Plan Component Total Requirement

Congestion Relief Projects 63.9% $6,072 Highway/Transit Capital Projects 49.6% $4,715* Project Specific Transit Operations 10.3% $980 Capital Project Environmental Mitigation** 4.0% $377

Transit Programs 13.0% $1,235

Local Programs 18.0% $1,710 Local Street & Road Formula Program 10.0% $950 Regional Arterial/Grade Separation Program 4.0% $380 Livable Communities Incentive Program 4.0% $380

Financing Costs 4.0% $380

Administration 1.0% $95

Oversight Committee 0.1% $7.5

TOTAL TransNet Funding Requirement 100.0% $9,500

TOTAL TransNet Funds Available 100.0% $9,500

* The TransNet requirement of $4,715 reflects 50% of the $9,430 total capital cost ofthe identified congestion relief projects. TransNet funds are assumed to leveragesignificant federal, state, and other funding.

** The funding proposal for the Transportation Project Environmental Mitigation Programis being refined. Issues to be resolved include whether the size of the programshould be based on all major projects in the RTP or just those identified in the TransNetExpenditure Plan, whether the mitigation costs should be limited to direct mitigation of the transportation projects or include indirect costs as well, what level of funding should bedevoted to land acquisition costs as opposed to ongoing management and monitoringactivities, and what level of funding should be included for projects designated to beconstructed with environmental enhancements. The $377 million cost shown reflectsthe estimated cost of mitigating the habitat-related impacts of the capital projects in the initial draft Expenditure Plan. If the funding allocated to the environmental programincreases, funding will need to be reduced from one or more of the projects on the Congestion Relief Program list and/or from one of the other draft Expenditure Planprogram categories.

13

14

Draft Ordinance Provisions In addition to the projects and programs identified in the Expenditure Plan, the Ordinance for the TransNet Extension will contain a number of provisions outlining requirements and administrative procedures for implementing the TransNet program over the 30-year extension. The key Ordinance provisions as outlined in the approved Framework and as discussed by the Working Group to date include the following: 10-year Plan Reviews: It is recommended that the Ordinance contain a provision requiring a comprehensive review by the SANDAG Board of Directors of all components of the Expenditure Plan every 10 years. This formal review would consider the status of the program to date, the performance of the projects and programs that have been implemented, and potential revisions to the Expenditure Plan to improve the program for the next 10 years. Any amendments to the Ordinance and Expenditure Plan would require a two-thirds vote of the SANDAG Board of Directors. Maintenance of Effort: The Framework for the new TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, as approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors at the October 24, 2003 meeting, included a revised, stronger maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. The MOE requirement is one of the voter safeguards to be included in the measure to guarantee that the funds to be generated by the sales tax extension will be used for the new services and projects proposed in the ballot measure. The MOE requirement specifically is intended to ensure that TransNet funds are used to augment, not supplant other revenues used for the same purposes. The current TransNet Ordinance language requires that each local agency receiving TransNet funds for local street and road purposes “shall annually maintain as a minimum the same level of local discretionary funds expended for street and road purposes as was reported in the State Controller’s Annual Report of Financial Transactions for Streets and Roads – FY 1984-85.” A three-year averaging option was available for jurisdictions that believed that FY 1984-85 was an extraordinary year. The requirement also applied to any local discretionary funds expended for highway and transit purposes as well. If any agency does not meet its annual MOE requirement, then its share of TransNet funds would be reduced by the amount by which the agency failed to meet its MOE required level. Those funds would then be redistributed to the other remaining eligible agencies. Several issues have arisen over time related to the MOE requirement. One issue is that the MOE requirement was established based on FY 1985 data with no escalation factor so that the level of effort is not being maintained over time in terms of the buying power of the dollars being contributed. A second issue relates to the wide disparity in the MOE level by jurisdiction with 6 jurisdictions having no MOE requirement at all. The MOE requirement is proposed to be strengthened by updating the base years and adding an escalation factor as described below: Recommended Requirement for Local Jurisdictions: The MOE language in the current TransNet Ordinance should be updated to establish a new base level using the average level of local discretionary funding allocated to local street and road purposes over the three fiscal years completed prior to the passage of the TransNet Extension. The established MOE level shall be

15

subject to adjustment at least every three years based on the rate of change in the Construction Cost Index as developed by Caltrans. The current TransNet program also includes a MOE-type requirement dealing with the use of TransNet funds for transit operations. Of the share of TransNet transit funds made available for transit service improvements, the Ordinance specifies that such services are limited to new services or extended or expanded services. “Services in existence prior to the effective date of the ordinance shall be funded through other funding sources. Revenues may be allocated to such existing services only in an amount equal to any reductions in state and federal annual funding levels for operating support below Fiscal Year 1986-87 levels.” SANDAG subsequently established policies to further define these levels. The draft Expenditure Plan for the TransNet Extension includes a significant share of TransNet funds for transit operations, making a stronger MOE requirement for transit operations more important to ensure that the revenues go toward the service improvements envisioned in the Expenditure Plan. Based on the way the draft Expenditure Plan is structured the transit MOE requirements will need to address two issues. One issue relates to the need to dedicate a share of TransNet funds to the operation of the specific bus rapid transit (BRT) and rail improvements identified in the project list. The second issue relates to need to control cost increases on the services being funded under the current TransNet program that will be continuing under the new measure. Recommended MOE Requirement for Transit Operators: For the TransNet funding allocated to operate the specific new transit service improvements identified in the list of Congestion Relief Projects, appropriate language should be added to the Ordinance to make it clear that such funding is available only for the operation of the specified new or expanded transit services and not for funding of the existing services. For funding allocated to operating subsidies for ongoing or continuing services and programs, the Ordinance should include a requirement that transit operators achieve certain efficiency standards in order to qualify for the receipt of these operating funds. It is proposed that requirements be included in the Ordinance similar to those currently being used for the receipt of State Transit Assistance (STA) funds for operating purposes. Each operator receiving TransNet funding would have to control its total operating cost per revenue vehicle hour so that the increase from one year to the next does not exceed the rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the same time period. If this standard is not achieved, the operator would not be eligible to receive any additional TransNet funds in the following year above the amount received in the prior year. This requirement would be monitored through the annual fiscal and compliance audits. Similar to the local jurisdiction MOE requirement, the transit operators would have the option of calculating the requirement as a three-year average in the event that the single year in question was an unusual year for some reason. Certain exceptions also could be allowed, as is currently the case with the STA requirement, with exclusions allowed for large cost increases due to external events outside of the transit operator’s control, such as increased insurance premiums, fuel cost increases, or new state and federal mandates, and for start-up costs for new services for the first two years of operation. Private Developer Funding/Impact Fees: SANDAG’s voter opinion research to date has indicated that one of the important issues to be addressed in the development of the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan is to ensure that the sales tax extension is not viewed as a bailout for private development. The current TransNet measure includes a prohibition against using sales tax funds to replace any private

16

developer funding that has been or will be committed to any of the projects in the expenditure plan. The approved Framework for the TransNet Extension includes a strengthening of the requirements related to private developer funding. In the past, building industry representatives have opposed consideration of increased development fees, including fees to cover a share of the costs of regional transportation infrastructure needs. They have argued that fees in the region are already quite high, increasing them would work against efforts to produce affordable housing and, in some cases, impact fees are already collected to fund regional facilities (primarily major arterials). Others have argued that regional transportation impact fees, or equivalent exactions, are needed to make sure that new development is paying its own way by contributing to regional level transportation facilities and not just local road facilities in the immediate location of the development. The Working Group has reviewed information summarizing the various fees currently being collected by local jurisdictions around the region for transportation purposes and in total. A range of options for implementing a regional impact fee also has been discussed, including a flat fee or minimum level fee as compared to a variable fee structure. The Working Group considered the experience of other regions with respect to impact fees and reviewed administrative options for implementation of fees. Recommendation regarding Impact Fees: It is recommended that additional voter research be conducted to explore this issue in more detail to determine the most appropriate way of addressing strengthened private developer funding requirements as part of the TransNet Extension. Staff also will continue to work with representatives of the building industry and bring back a proposal on impact fees and private developer funding at the January meeting. Oversight Committee The Working Group has discussed in detail various components of a proposal for an independent oversight committee, including proposed membership and selection procedures, major roles and responsibilities, and other funding and administrative procedures. At its December 5, 2003 meeting, the Working Group approved the draft oversight committee proposal with specified changes. The proposal is included as Attachment 2, with the changes requested by the Working Group shown in bold italics. The purpose of the oversight committee is to provide an increased level of fiscal accountability for expenditures made under the TransNet program, in addition to the independent fiscal audits currently required, and to provide oversight on the performance of SANDAG and the other implementing agencies in delivering the projects and programs included in the TransNet Extension. Based on the Working Group’s direction to date, members of the oversight committee should be nominated and appointed in a public process that is transparent and open. The attached proposal is based on the premise that the characteristics and qualifications of the members should be consistent with the roles and responsibilities of the oversight committee. The proposed membership of the oversight committee is based on a blend of professional skills and experience needed to enable the committee to provide positive, constructive recommendations to improve the program over time.

17

The proposed selection process for oversight committee members uses a two-step approach. The first step provides for the review of the qualifications of individuals interested in serving on the oversight committee by a technical screening committee to ensure independence in the evaluation of the candidates. The second step provides for the final selection of the members of the oversight committee from the qualified candidates recommended by the technical screening committee by a selection committee of local elected officials to ensure accountability in the selection process. Recommendation regarding an Oversight Committee: It is recommended that the TransNet Extension Ordinance include provisions for an oversight committee based on the proposal as shown in Attachment 2. Staff should continue to work with interested parties on appropriate refinements to the proposal.

CapitalCost*

OperatingCost

2 $1,410 $200 $0

3 $2,080 $170 $0

4 $1,710 $240 $300

5 $1,670 $110 $530

6 $450 $30 $0

7 $550 $0 $0

8 $240 $0 $0

9 $30 $0 $0

10 $700 $100 $0

11 $180 $0 $0

12 $80 $90 $0

13 $280 $40 $0

14 $25 $0 $0

15 $25 $0 $0

$9,430 $980 $830

(See FIGURE 1) $10,410

CHANGES TO NOVEMBER 21, 2003 PRE-DRAFT VERSION SHOWN IN BOLD

Note: Costs in millions of 2002 dollars and rounded to the nearest $10 million, with the exception of the matching funds included for the Coronado Tunnel and Border Access improvement projects.

**The figures in this column represent the additional state and federal funds needed to complete the project as described in the 2030 RTP in cases where a project of reduced scope is proposed.

SR-67

MID-CITY SAN DIEGO TO DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO

GENESEE AVENUE

SR-52

SR-76

SR-94 / SR-125

I-8 (New Project)

SR-78

Table

TOTAL: ALL CORRIDORS

I-15

CORONADO TUNNEL

Border Access Improvements

TOTAL CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

* Of the total capital cost of $9,430 million, TransNet funding is assumed to leverage 50% from federal, state, and other sources, reducing the TransNet requirement to 50% - or $4,715 million.

State/Fed. funds**

TABLE 1: SUMMARY BY CORRIDOR

I-805

I-5 (INTERNATIONAL BORDER TO I-805)

I-5 (I-805 TO VANDEGRIFT BLVD)

Page 1 9:24 AM, 12/31/2003

CORRIDOR ANALYSIS FOR TRANSNET EXTENSION

TABLE 2: I-15 CORRIDOR

(SEE FIGURE 2)

Project Number

Route/Facility From To Existing Improvement "Mobility 2030" ImprovementCapital

CostOperating

Cost

1 I-15 SR 163 SR56 8F 8F+4ML/MB 8F+4ML/MB $220

2 I-15 Centre City Pkwy SR 78 8F 8F+4ML 8F+4ML $120

3 I-15 SR94 SR 163 6F/8F 8F+2HOV 8F+2HOV $200

4 HOV 2 HOV I-15 SR 78 -- E to S, N to W E to S, N to W $200

5 HOV 2 HOV I-15 SR 94 -- S to W, E to N S to W, E to N $150

6 SR94 I-5 I-15 8F 8F+2HOV 8F+2HOV $80

7

BRT Rt 610 via I15/SR94CAPITAL

Escondido Trans Ctr

Downtown San Diego --

No Kearny Mesa Transitway; uses HOV lanes on I-15 between Qualcomm and SR 52.Builds/upgrades 6 BRT stations, upgrades downtown stations, builds DARs in 4 locations.

Build Kearny Mesa Transitway for BRT only $360

7

BRT Rt 610 via I15/SR94OPERATIONS

Escondido Trans Ctr


10 min peak / 15 min offpeak service by 2030 5 min peak / 10 min offpeak service $120

8

BRT Rt 470 via I15/Mira Mesa BlvdCAPITAL

Escondido Trans Ctr Sorrento Mesa --

Escondido to Sorrento Mesa;Uses Rt 610 stations and DARs. Temecula to Sorrento Mesa $80

8

BRT Rt 470 via I15/Mira Mesa BlvdOPERATIONS

Escondido Trans Ctr Sorrento Mesa --

15 min peak only service from Escondido by 2030

15 min peak / 30 min off peak (from Escondido) and 30 min peak / 60 min offpeak (from Temecula) service by 2030 $80

$1,410 $200 $0

BRT capital costs include new and/or improved stations, direct access ramps (DARs), vehicles, right of way, and arterial priority measures.

TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR:

TransNet Extension

State/fed funds*

Page 2 9:24 AM, 12/31/2003


TABLE 3: I-805 CORRIDOR

(SEE FIGURE 3)

Project Number


CostOperating

Cost

9 I-805 SR 905 SR 54 8F 8F+2HOV, Reversible 8F+4ML $15010 I-805 SR 54 I-8 8F 8F+4ML 8F+4ML $45011 I-805 Mission Valley Viaduct 8F 8F+4ML 8F+4ML $25012 I-805 I-8 I-5 8F 8F+4ML 8F+4ML $38013 I-805 and SR 54 interchange improvements (E to S) $10

14

BRT Rt 628via I805/SR94CAPITAL Otay Mesa


Builds fewer DARs along I-805 reflecting changes to highway improvement;Builds 13 stations and DARs in 4 locations.

Builds direct access ramps and stations for I-805 BRT services $490

14

BRT Rt 628via I805/SR94OPERATIONS Otay Mesa


10 min peak / 15 min offpeak service by 2020

5 min peak / 10 min offpeak service by 2030 $100

15 SR94 HWAY I-805 I-15 8F 8F+2HOV 8F+2HOV $70

16

BRT Rt 680 via I805/I15/SR52CAPITAL San Ysidro Sorrento Mesa --

Builds 1 new station; uses DARs and stations built by routes 610 and 628. Same improvement $60

16

BRT Rt 680 via I805/I15/SR52OPERATIONS San Ysidro Sorrento Mesa --

15 min peak only service by 2015; 10 min peak only service by 2030

5 min peak / 10 min offpeak service by 2030 $70

17 SR 52 I-15 I-805 6F 6F+2HOV 6F+2HOV $7018 HOV 2 HOV I-805 SR 52 -- W to N, S to E W to N, S to E $150

$2,080 $170 $0


Costs for a HOV to HOV connector at I-805 and SR 94 were deleted.

TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR:

TransNet Extension

State/fed funds*

Page 3 9:24 AM, 12/31/2003


TABLE 4: I-5 CORRIDOR (International Border to I-805)

(SEE FIGURE 4)

Project Number


CostOperating

Cost

19 I-5 SR 905 SR 54 8F 8F+2HOV 8F+2HOV $130

20 I-5 SR 54 I-8 8F 8F+2HOV 8F+2HOV $600 $300

21 Blue Line Trolley Improvements

Conversion to low-floor vehicles, enhanced stations, signal upgrades, extended platforms, grade separations in Chula Vista

Additional vehicles, enhanced stations, grade separations in Chula Vista $280

21 Blue Line Trolley Improvements 7.5 min peak / 7.5 min offpeak by 2020 Same improvement $60

22MidCoast LRTCAPITAL Old Town UCSD/UTC --

Extension of light rail transit from Old Town Transit Center to UTC via I-5 and UCSD Same improvement $670

22MidCoast LRTOPERATIONS Old Town UCSD/UTC -- 15 min all day service by 2020

7.5 min peak / 15 min offpeak service by 2020 $90

23Super LoopCAPITAL UTC UCSD --

Signal priority, queue jumper lanes, other arterial improvements, vehicles, stations Included in overall Green Car network $30

23Super LoopOPERATIONS UTC UCSD -- 10 minute all day service by 2010 Same improvement $90

$1,710 $240 $300


State/fed funds*

TransNet Extension

TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR:

Page 4 9:24 AM, 12/31/2003


TABLE 5: I-5 CORRIDOR (I-805 to Vandegrift Blvd)

(SEE FIGURE 5)

Project Number


CostOperating

Cost

24 I-5/I-805 Merge 16F 16F+4ML 16F+4ML $30

25 I-5 SR 56 Leucadia Blvd 8F 8F+4ML 10F+4ML $400 $130

26 I-5 Leucadia Blvd Vandegrift 8F 8F+4ML 8F+4ML $370

27 HOV 2 HOV I-5 I-805 -- N to N, S to S N to N, S to S $180

28 FWY 2 FWY I-5 SR 56 -- W to N, S to E W to N, S to E $140

29 FWY 2 FWY I-5 SR 78 -- W to S, S to E W to S, S to E $150

30

I-5 CORRIDOR: COASTER/BRT (El Camino Real)CAPITAL Improvements --

Corridor transit improvements that would include some combination of projects from the following: Coaster: Vehicles, stations improvements including parking, double tracking and other improvements, Del Mar tunnel; and BRT (El Camino Real): Vehicles, stations, signal priority and other arterial improvements along El Camino Real, direct access ramps on I-5 south from Encinitas

Coaster: Vehicles, stations improvements including parking, double tracking and other improvements, Del Mar and University City tunnels; and, BRT (El Camino Real), vehicles, stations, signal priority and other arterial improvements along El Camino Real, direct access ramps on I-5 south from Encinitas $400 $400

30

I-5 CORRIDOR: COASTER/BRT (El Camino Real)OPERATIONS Improvements --

Coaster: Up to 20 min peak / 30 min offpeak service by 2030; I-5/El Camino Real BRT (El Camino Real): Up to 15 min peak / 30 min offpeak service by 2020

Coaster: 20 min all day service by 2030; BRT (El Camino Real): 10 min all day service by 2020 $110

$1,670 $110 $530


I-5 (Leucadia Blvd to Vandegrift) - costs for two Direct Access Ramps in the Carlsbad and Oceanside areas for HOV's and future transit services at $50M each were deleted.

State/fed funds*

TransNet Extension

Page 5 9:24 AM, 12/31/2003


TABLE 6: SR-52

(SEE FIGURE 6)

Project Number


CostOperating

Cost

31 SR 52 I-15 SR 125 4F 6F+2ML (Reversible) 6F+2ML (Reversible) $170

32 SR 52 SR 125 SR 67 -- 4F 4F $240

33BRT Rt 660 viaSR52/I-805CAPITAL

El Cajon Sorrento Mesa --

Low-cost SR-52 BRT express service, no East County direct access ramps;upgrades 2 stations and builds DAR in Nobel Drive location

SR-52 BRT express service with East County direct access ramps.

$40

33BRT Rt 660 viaSR52/I-805OPERATIONS

El Cajon Sorrento Mesa -- 15 min peak only service by 2020 10 min peak only service by 2020$30

$450 $30 $0

TABLE 7: SR-94 / SR-125

(SEE FIGURE 6)

Project Number


CostOperating

Cost

34 SR 94 and SR 125 Interchange W to N, S to E W to N, S to E $110

35 SR 94 Jamacha Rd Steele Canyon 2C 4C 4C $20

36 SR 94/SR 125 I-805 I-8 8F 8F+2HOV 8F+2HOV $350

37Orange Line TrolleyCAPITAL

Improvements --Conversion to low-floor vehicles, enhanced stations, signal upgrades, extended platforms. Current headway. Additional vehicles, enhanced stations $70

$550 $0 $0

TransNet Extension

State/fed funds*

TransNet Extension

State/fed funds*

TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR:

(I-805 to I-5 segments included in I-15 and I-805 corridors for transit services)

TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR:

(I-15 - I-805 segment included in I-805 corridor for transit services; I-805/SR 52 HOV2HOV Connector included in I-805 corridor for transit services)

Page 6 9:24 AM, 12/31/2003


TABLE 8: SR-67

(SEE FIGURE 6)

Project Number


CostOperating

Cost

38 SR 67 Mapleview St Dye Rd 2C4C - To be constructed with environmental enhancements 4C $240

$240 $0 $0

TABLE 9: I-8 CORRIDOR (NEW PROJECT)

(SEE FIGURE 6)

Project Number


CostOperating

Cost

39 I-8 Second St Los Coches 4F 6F 6F $30

$30 $0 $0

State/fed funds*

TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR:

TransNet Extension

State/fed funds*

TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR:

TransNet Extension

Page 7 9:24 AM, 12/31/2003


TABLE 10: SR-78

(SEE FIGURE 7)

Project Number


CostOperating

Cost

40 SR 78 I-5 I-15 6F 6F+2HOV 6F+2HOV $500

FWY 2 FWY I-5 SR 78 Included in I-5 North Coast Corridor

HOV 2 HOV I-15 SR 78 Included in I-15 Corridor

41

SR 78 Corridor SPRINTER/BRT (Palomar Airport Rd) CAPITAL

Improvements --

Corridor transit improvements that would include some combination of projects from the following: SPRINTER: double tracking, North County Fair extension, some grade separations; andBRT (Palomar Airport Rd): vehicles, signal priority and other arterial improvements; builds 18 stations

SPRINTER: double tracking, North County Fair extension, some grade separations; andBRT (Palomar Airport Rd): vehicles, signal priority and other arterial improvements; builds 18 stations

$200

41

SR 78 Corridor SPRINTER/BRT (Palomar Airport Rd) OPERATIONS

Improvements --

SPRINTER: Up to 15 min all day service by 2030; andBRT (Palomar Airport Rd): up to 15 min peak / 30 min off peak service by 2020

SPRINTER: 10 min all day service by 2030; and, BRT: 10 min all day service by 2020

$100

$700 $100 $0BRT capital costs include new and/or improved stations, direct access ramps (DARs), vehicles, right of way, and arterial priority measures.

Major east-west transit service improvements are assumed for the corridor with the primary option being increased service on the Sprinter or BRT service in the Palomar Airport Rd./San Marcos Blvd. corridor.

TABLE 11: SR-76

(SEE FIGURE 7)

Project Number


CostOperating

Cost

42 SR 76 Melrose Dr I-15 2C

4C - (Mission Road to I-15 segment to be constructed with environmental enhancements) 4C $180

$180 $0 $0

State/fed funds*

State/fed funds*

TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR:

TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR:

TransNet Extension

TransNet Extension

Page 8 9:24 AM, 12/31/2003


TABLE 12: MID-CITY SAN DIEGO TO DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO

(SEE FIGURE 7)

Project Number


CostOperating

Cost

43

BRT Showcase Rt 611via El Cajon&Park BlvdsCAPITAL

SDSUDowntown San Diego

--

Signal priority, queue jumper lanes, other arterial improvements, vehicles; builds 13 stations and upgrades to downtown stations

Same improvements

$80

43

BRT Showcase Rt 611via El Cajon&Park BlvdsOPERATIONS

SDSUDowntown San Diego

-- 10 min peak / 15 min offpeak by 20305 min peak / 10 min offpeak service by 2030

$90

$80 $90 $0


TABLE 13: GENESEE AVENUE

(SEE FIGURE 7)

Project Number


CostOperating

Cost

44BRT Rt 621 viaGenesee Ave

Downtown San Diego

UTC --

Signal priority, queue jumper lanes, other arterial improvements, vehicles; builds 13 stations, upgrades downtown stations, builds DARs in 1 location; no Sorrento Mesa Transitway

Same improvements with addition of Sorrento Mesa Transitway

$280

44BRT Rt 621 viaGenesee Ave

Downtown San Diego

UTC -- 10 min peak / 15 min offpeak by 20355 min peak / 10 min offpeak service by 2030 $40

$280 $40 $0


TransNet Extension

TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR:

State/fed funds*

TransNet Extension

State/fed funds*

TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR:

Page 9 9:24 AM, 12/31/2003


TABLE 14: CORONADO TUNNEL

(SEE FIGURE 7)

Project Number


CostOperating

Cost

45 SR75/SR 282 Glorietta Blvd Alameda Blvd --Tunnel ConstructionMatch Only

Referenced in Mobility 2030 $25

$25 $0 $0

TABLE 15: Border Access Improvements

(SEE FIGURE 7)

Project Number


CostOperating

Cost

46Border Access Improvements

--ConstructionMatch

Misc. improvements consistent with RTP$25

$25 $0 $0

Misc. Improvements to Improve Access in the Border Area.

TransNet Extension

State/fed funds

TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR:

TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR:

TransNet Extension

State/fed funds

Page 10 9:24 AM, 12/31/2003

P AC I F I C

OC

EA

N

P AC I F I C

OC

EA

N

North CountyWest

North CountyEast

North City

East County

SouthCounty

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

Escondido

CampPendleton

County of San Diego

Vista

SanMarcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

PROPOSED TRANSNETPROJECTS

November 2003

Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes

General Purpose Lanes

Freeway Connectors

HOV to HOV Connectors

0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

Central

0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

Central


January 2004

Figure 1

See Table 1

Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes


General Purpose Laneswith EnvironmentalEnhancements

Freeway Connectors


76

1-D

905 115

125

54

805

805

8055

5

5

282

16394

6752

52

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

94

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

15

75

28

P AC I F I C

OC

EA

N

P AC I F I C

OC

EA

N

North CountyWest

North CountyEast

North City

East County

SouthCounty

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

Escondido

CampPendleton

County of San Diego

Vista

SanMarcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity


OVERALL NETWORK

I-15 CORRIDORTransit

Managed/HOV Lanes


General Purpose Laneswith Environmental Enhancements

Freeway Connectors


Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes



Freeway Connectors


0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

Central

January 2004

Figure 21

3

5

6

7

8

2

4

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

See Table 2

1 2 3

4

5 6 7 8

I-15 (SR-163 – SR-56)

I-15 (Centre City Parkway – SR-78)

I-15 (SR-94 – SR-163)

I-15 / SR-78 (HOV – HOV)

I-15 / SR-94 (HOV – HOV)

SR-94 (I-5 – I-15)

BRT (Escondido – Downtown San Diego)

BRT (Escondido – Sorrento Mesa)

TOTAL COST:

$220

$120

$200

$200

$150

$80

$480

$160

$1,610

PROJECT COST($ Millions)

I-15 CORRIDOR

29

1-D

905 115

125

54

805

805

8055

5

5

282

163

94

6752

52

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

94

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

15

75

P AC I F I C

OC

EA

N

P AC I F I C

OC

EA

N

North CountyWest

North CountyEast

North City

East County

SouthCounty

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

Escondido

CampPendleton

County of San Diego

Vista

SanMarcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity


Overall Network

I-805 CorridorTransit

Managed/HOV Lanes


Freeway Connectors


Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes


Freeway Connectors


0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

November 2003


OVERALL NETWORK

I-805 CORRIDORTransit

Managed/HOV Lanes



Freeway Connectors


Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes



Freeway Connectors


0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

Central

January 2004

Figure 3

14

13

9

10

16

17

18

15

11

12

16

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

See Table 3

9 10 11

12

13 14 15 16

17

18

$150

$450

$250

$380

$10

$590

$70

$130

$70

$150 $2,250


I-805 (SR-905 – SR-54)

I-805 (SR-54 – I-8)

I-805 (Mission Valley)

I-805 (I-8 – I-5)

I-805 / SR-54 (Interchange)

BRT (Otay Mesa – Downtown San Diego)

SR-94 (I-805 – I-15)

BRT (San Ysidro – Sorrento Mesa)

SR-52 (I-15 – I-805)

I-805 / SR-52 (HOV – HOV)

TOTAL COST:

I-805 CORRIDOR

1-D

905 115

125

54

805

805

805

5

5

5

282

163

94

6752

52

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

94

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

15

75

30

P AC I F I C

OC

EA

N

P AC I F I C

OC

EA

N

North CountyWest

North CountyEast

North City

East County

SouthCounty

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

Escondido

CampPendleton

County of San Diego

Vista

SanMarcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity


Overall Network

I-5 (International Borderto I-8) Corridor

Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes


Freeway Connectors


Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes


Freeway Connectors


0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

Central

November 2003


Overall Network


Managed/HOV Lanes


Freeway Connectors


Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes


Freeway Connectors


0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

November 2003


OVERALL NETWORK

Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes



Freeway Connectors


Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes



Freeway Connectors


0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

January 2004

Figure 4

21

23

20

19

22

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

See Table 4

19 20 21

22

23

$130

$600

$340

$760

$120

$1,950


I-5 (SR-905 – SR-54)

I-5 (SR-54 – I-8)

Blue Line Trolley Improvements

Mid-Coast LRT

Mid-Coast Super Loop

TOTAL COST:



31

76

1-D

905 115

125

54

805

805

8055

5

5

282

163

94

6752

52

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

94

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

15

75

P AC I F I C

OC

EA

N

P AC I F I C

OC

EA

N

North CountyWest

North CountyEast

North City

East County

SouthCounty

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

Escondido

CampPendleton

County of San Diego

Vista

SanMarcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity


Overall Network

Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes


Freeway Connectors


Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes


Freeway Connectors


0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

Central

November 2003

(I-805 to Vandegrift Blvd.)


OVERALL NETWORK

Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes



Freeway Connectors


Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes



Freeway Connectors


0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

January 2004

Figure 5

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

See Table 5

24 25 26

27

28 39 30

I-5 – I-805 Merge

I-5 (SR-56 – Leucadia Blvd.)

I-5 (Leucadia Blvd. – Vandegrift Blvd.)

I-5 / I-805 (HOV – HOV)

I-5 / SR-56 Connectors

I-5 / SR-78 Connectors

North-South Transit Improvements: COASTER / BRT (El Camino Real)

TOTAL COST:

$30

$400

$370

$180

$140

$150

$510

$1,780


I-5 CORRIDOR(I-805 to Vandegrift Blvd.)

26

27

3030

29

24

2528

I-5 (I-805 TO VANDEGRIFT) CORRIDOR

1-D

905 115

125

54

805

805

8055

5

5

282

16394

6752

52

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

94

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

15

75

32

P AC I F I C

OC

EA

N

P AC I F I C

OC

EA

N

North CountyWest

North CountyEast

North City

East County

SouthCounty

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

Escondido

CampPendleton

County of San Diego

Vista

SanMarcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity


Overall Network

SR-52 CorridorTransit

Managed/HOV Lanes


Freeway Connectors


Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes


Freeway Connectors


0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

Central

November 2003


Overall Network


Managed/HOV Lanes


Freeway Connectors


Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes


Freeway Connectors


0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

November 2003


OVERALL NETWORK

EAST COUNTY CORRIDORSTransit

Managed/HOV Lanes



Freeway Connectors


Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes



Freeway Connectors


0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

January 2004

Figure 6

33

34

38

39

31

37 35

36

32

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

See Tables 6, 7, 8 & 9

31 32 33

34

35 36 37 38

39 I-8 (2nd Street – Los Coches)

$170

$240

$70

$110

$20

$350

$70

$240

$30

$1,300


SR-52 (I-15 – SR-125)

SR-52 (SR-125 – SR-67)

BRT (El Cajon – Sorrento Mesa)

SR-94 / SR-125 Connectors

SR-94 (Jamacha – Steele Canyon)

SR-94 / 125 (I-805 – I-8)

Orange Line Trolley Improvements

SR-67 (Mapleview – Dye Rd. )

TOTAL COST:

EAST COUNTY CORRIDORS

76

1-D

905 115

125

54

805

805

8055

5

5

282

16394

6752

52

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

94

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

15

75

33

P AC I F I C

OC

EA

N

P AC I F I C

OC

EA

N

North CountyWest

North CountyEast

North City

East County

SouthCounty

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

Escondido

CampPendleton

County of San Diego

Vista

SanMarcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity


Overall Network

Additional CorridorsTransit

Managed/HOV Lanes


Freeway Connectors


Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes


Freeway Connectors


0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

Central

November 2003

Figure 7PROPOSED TRANSNETPROJECTS

Overall Network


Managed/HOV Lanes


Freeway Connectors


Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes


Freeway Connectors


0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

November 2003


OVERALL NETWORK

ADDITIONAL CORRIDORSTransit

Managed/HOV Lanes



Freeway Connectors


Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes



Freeway Connectors


0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

January 2004

Figure 7

43

45

42

40

41

41

44

46

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

See Tables 10 – 15

40 41 42

43

44 45 46

$500

$300

$180

$170

$320

$25

$25

$1,520


SR-78 (I-5 – I-15)

East-West Corridor Transit Improvements: SPRINTER / BRT (Palomar Airport Rd.)

SR-76 (Melrose – I-15)

BRT (SDSU – Downtown San Diego)

BRT (UTC – Downtown San Diego)

Coronado Tunnel (Construction only)

Border Access Improvements

TOTAL COST:

ADDITIONAL CORRIDORS

76

1-D

905 115

125

54

805

805

8055

5

5

282

16394

6752

52

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

94

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

15

75

34

35

Attachment 1

Framework for the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan

(Approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors on October 24, 2003) KEY COMPONENT APPROACH Status

Timing The TransNet Extension ballot measure will be scheduled for the November, 2004 General Election.

Still on schedule

Approach The ballot measure will be designed to meet the existing two-thirds vote requirement.

Key Assumption

Sales Tax Rate The current ½ percent transportation sales tax will be extended.

Key Assumption

Length of Extension The tax will be extended by 30 years from 2008 to 2038.

Key Assumption

Process The development of the Ordinance and Expenditure Plan and the related voter opinion research will be based on six geographic sub-areas with direction provided through the Ad Hoc Working Group on TransNet.

This is the process being followed.

Expenditure Plan Basis The TransNet Extension will be focused on a strategic, specific, and geographically balanced set of projects and programs focusing on congestion relief and other key issues identified in the voter opinion research. The Expenditure Plan will focus on the capital and operating costs of major congestion relief projects and services and other highly rated regional and local transportation programs, such as transit fare discounts and improved transportation services for seniors.

Draft Expenditure Plan has been developed on this basis. Over 60% of the draft plan is for major congestion relief projects.

10-year Plan Reviews The TransNet Extension will include a review process to allow for program reevaluations and potential modifications every 10 years. This review would provide an opportunity to refine the program based upon any changes in regional priorities over the 10-year period. A change to the program would require a super-majority vote of the Board.

Included as a draft Ordinance provision.

Maintenance of Effort The “maintenance of effort” (MOE) requirements in the existing TransNet measure will be strengthened and broadened in the new measure to provide additional voter safeguards. These provisions are intended to ensure that TransNet

Included as a draft Ordinance provision.

36

funds are used to augment, not supplant other revenues used for the same purposes. MOE provisions help to guarantee that the funds generated by the sales tax extension will be used for the new services and projects included in the ballot measure.

Impact Fees The existing TransNet program requirements regarding private developer funding will be strengthened to make it clear that the sales tax revenues are not being used to replace transportation infrastructure funding which should be provided by new development. Local jurisdictions should be required to establish a minimum level of regional transportation impact fees, either as new fees or as a reallocation of existing fees, to qualify for receipt of TransNet funds. The impact fee concept should be developed in coordination with the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) process.

Issue still under discussion. This could be a potential Ordinance provision.

Environmental Mitigation The TransNet Extension will include an environmental mitigation component based on a mitigation bank concept that facilitates early, large-scale acquisition and management of habitat consistent with planned regional preserves. This approach would be based on estimated costs of mitigation for major projects in the measure’s expenditure plan, with an emphasis on habitat acquisition and related ongoing monitoring and management costs. By establishing a legally binding mitigation bank, tangible benefits would be provided for habitat acquisition and protection by allowing accelerated acquisition of larger amounts of critical habitat than would otherwise by possible through project-by-project mitigation. A key transportation objective of this program would be to pre-mitigate for future transportation project implementation thereby reducing future construction costs and accelerating project delivery. It needs to be cautioned that this program is only workable to benefiting the region’s interests if advance agreement can be reached with the federal and state permitting agencies. In addition, this mitigation program should be coordinated with the RCP process.

Included in draft Expenditure Plan as part of the major Congestion Relief Project category. There are a number of issues related to this program that are under discussion. Additional refinements to the program may be made.

Oversight Committee An independent tax oversight committee will be established to strengthen the voter safeguard provisions of the new measure. This oversight

Included as a draft Ordinance provision. Initial

37

committee will be responsible for the independent fiscal audit process to ensure that the funds are being spent on activities authorized by the Ordinance and will make an annual report on fiscal compliance and other recommendations for improvements to the program. The committee will conduct periodic performance audits focusing on the agency’s performance in terms of project cost control and schedule adherence. The committee also will review any proposed amendments to the Ordinance and play a key role in the 10-year program review process.

draft proposal for the oversight committee was approved by the Working Group at its December 5, 2003 meeting.

Incentive Programs The TransNet program will include a set aside for smart growth/livable community incentive programs including bicycle projects, pedestrian/walkable community improvements, transportation enhancements, and other projects and programs consistent with concepts being developed through the RCP. The program will be structured as a competitive grant program based on specific evaluation criteria. The funding level will be significantly higher than the $1 million per year set aside for bicycle facilities in the current TransNet program.

Included in the draft Expenditure Plan under the “Local Programs” category.

Matching Funds The TransNet expenditure plan will assume significant leveraging of other local, state, and federal funds to match TransNet funding on major improvements. While certain programs will be funded off the top without consideration of matching funds, the TransNet funds to be devoted to major transportation improvements will be assumed to leverage a significant amount of other local, state and federal funds so that, in total, the TransNet share will be 50% of the total costs of these major projects.

Key assumption used in the development of the draft Expenditure Plan.

Public Education SANDAG will expand its public education efforts to communicate the accomplishments of the existing TransNet program and the specific project and program costs and benefits associated with the TransNet Extension ballot proposal.

While not a direct part of the draft Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, it is a key part of the process. A public education/ information plan will be developed in early 2004 to accompany the draft Ordinance/ Expenditure Plan.

38

Attachment 2

DRAFT

INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE FOR THE TRANSNET PROGRAM

Purpose of the ITOC The Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) is intended to provide an increased level of accountability for expenditures made under the TransNet Extension, in addition to the independent annual fiscal audits required under the existing TransNet program. The ITOC should function in an independent, open and transparent manner to ensure that all voter mandates are carried out as required in the Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, and to develop positive, constructive recommendations for improvements and enhancements to the financial integrity and performance of the TransNet program.

Membership and Selection Process

1. Membership: There shall be seven ITOC voting members with the following characteristics:

A professional in the field of municipal finance and/or budgeting with a minimum of ten years in a relevant and senior decision making position in the public or private sector.

A licensed architect, civil engineer or traffic engineer with demonstrated experience of ten years or more in the fields of transportation and/or urban design in government or the private sector.

A professional with demonstrated experience of ten years or more in real estate, land economics, and/or right-of-way acquisition.

A professional with demonstrated experience of ten years or more in the management of large-scale construction projects.

A licensed engineer with appropriate credentials in the field of transportation project design or construction and a minimum of ten years experience in a relevant and senior decision making position in the government or private sector.

The chief executive officer or person in a similar senior-level decision making position, of a major private sector employer with demonstrated experience in leading a large organization.

A professional in biology or environmental science with demonstrated experience of ten years or more with environmental regulations and major project mitigation requirements and/or habitat acquisition and management.

Ex-Officio Members: SANDAG Executive Director and the San Diego County Auditor

The criteria established for the voting members of the ITOC are intended to provide the skills and experience needed for the ITOC to carry out its responsibilities and to play a valuable and constructive role in the ongoing improvement and enhancement of the TransNet program.

39

Applications will be requested from individuals interested in serving on the ITOC through an open, publicly noticed solicitation process.

2. Technical Screening Committee: A technical screening committee will be established to review applications received from interested individuals. This committee will consist of three members selected by the SANDAG Executive Director from high-level professional staff of local, regional, state or federal transportation agencies outside of the San Diego region, or from local academic institutions (CSU-San Marcos, SDSU, UCSD), or a combination thereof. The committee will develop a list of candidates determined to be qualified to serve on the ITOC based on the criteria established for the open position(s) on the ITOC. The technical screening committee will recommend two candidates for each open position from the list of qualified candidates for consideration by the Selection Committee. The recommendations shall be made within 30 days of the noticed closing date for applications.

3. Selection Committee: A selection committee shall be established to select the ITOC members from the list of qualified candidates recommended by the technical screening committee. The selection committee shall consist of the following:

Two members of the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors

The Mayor of the City of San Diego

A mayor from the Cities of Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, or National City selected by the mayors of those cities.

A mayor from the Cities of El Cajon, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, or Santee selected by the mayors of those cities.

A mayor from the Cities of Carlsbad, Del Mar, Encinitas, Oceanside, or Solana Beach selected by the mayors of those cities.

A mayor from the Cities of Escondido, Poway, San Marcos, or Vista selected by the mayors of those cities.

The selection of ITOC members shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of recommendations from the technical screening committee. All meetings of the selection committee shall be publicly noticed and conducted in full compliance with the requirements of the Brown Act. Should the selection committee be unable to reach agreement on a candidate from the qualified candidates recommended by the technical screening committee, the selection committee shall request the technical screening committee to recommend two additional qualified candidates for consideration.

Terms and Conditions for ITOC members

ITOC members shall serve a term of four years.

ITOC members shall serve without compensation except for reimbursement for authorized travel and other direct expenses related to the work of the ITOC.

40

If and when vacancies in the membership of the ITOC occur, the nominating body for that member(s) shall nominate an appropriate replacement within 90 days of the vacancy to fill the remainder of the term.

In no case shall any member serve more than eight years on the ITOC.

Term limits for ITOC members should be staggered to prevent significant turnover at any one time. The initial appointment process should be based on this staggered term limit concept.

ITOC Responsibilities The ITOC shall have the following responsibilities: 1. Conduct an annual fiscal and compliance audit of all TransNet-funded activities using the

services of an independent fiscal auditor to assure compliance with the voter-approved Ordinance and Expenditure Plan. This annual audit will cover all recipients of TransNet funds during the fiscal year and will evaluate compliance with the maintenance of effort requirement and any other applicable requirements.

2. Prepare an annual report to the SANDAG Board of Directors presenting the results of the

annual audit process. The report should include an assessment of the consistency of the expenditures of TransNet funds with the Ordinance and Expenditure Plan and an appropriate set of recommendations for improving the financial operation and integrity of the program for consideration by the SANDAG Board of Directors. The ITOC shall share the initial findings of the independent fiscal audits and its recommendations with the SANDAG Transportation Committee, SANDAG staff and implementing agencies, as appropriate, 60 days prior to their release to resolve inconsistencies and technical issues and to determine the extent to which SANDAG would agree or disagree with the ITOC’s draft report and recommendations. Once this review has taken place, the ITOC is directed to make any final amendments it deems appropriate to its report and recommendations, and adopt its report for submission directly to the SANDAG Board of Directors and the public. The ITOC shall strive to be as objective and accurate as possible in whatever final report it adopts. Upon completion by the ITOC, the report shall be presented to the SANDAG Board of Directors at its next regular meeting and shall be made available to the public.

3. Conduct triennial performance audits of SANDAG and other agencies involved in the

implementation of TransNet-funded projects and programs to review project delivery, cost control, schedule adherence and related activities. The review should include consideration of changes to contracting, construction, permitting and related processes that could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the expenditure of TransNet revenues. These performance audits shall be conducted using the services of an independent performance auditor and should include a review of the ITOC’s performance. A draft of the ITOC’s report and recommendations regarding the performance audits shall be made available to the SANDAG Transportation Committee, SANDAG staff, and implementing agencies, if appropriate, at least 60 days before its final adoption by the ITOC to resolve inconsistencies and technical issues and to determine the extent to which SANDAG would agree or disagree with the ITOC’s draft report and recommendations. Once this review has taken place, the ITOC is directed to make any final amendments it deems appropriate to its report and related recommendations, and adopt its report for presentation directly to the SANDAG Board of Directors and the public. The ITOC shall strive to be as objective and constructive as possible in the text and presentation of the

41

performance audits. Upon completion by the ITOC, the report shall be presented to the SANDAG Board of Directors at its next regular meeting and shall be made available to the public.

4. Provide recommendations to the SANDAG Board of Directors regarding any proposed

amendments to the Ordinance and Expenditure Plan. 5. Provide recommendations as part of the 10-year review process. This process provides an

opportunity to undertake a comprehensive review of the TransNet program every 10 years and to make recommendations for improving the program over the subsequent 10 years. This review process should take into consideration the results of the TransNet-funded improvements as compared to the performance standards established through the Regional Transportation Plan and the Regional Comprehensive Plan.

6. Participate in the ongoing refinement of the transportation system performance measurement

process used in development of the Regional Transportation Plan. 7. Review and comment on the programming of TransNet revenues in the Regional

Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). This provides an opportunity for the ITOC to raise concerns regarding the eligibility of projects proposed for funding before any expenditures are made. In addition to a general eligibility review, this effort should focus on significant cost increases and/or scope changes on the major corridor projects identified in the Ordinance and Expenditure Plan.

8. Review proposed debt financings to ensure that the benefits of the proposed financing for

accelerating project delivery, avoiding future cost escalation, and related factors exceed issuance and interest costs.

In carrying out its responsibilities, the ITOC shall conduct its reviews in such a manner that does not cause unnecessary project delays, while providing sufficient time to ensure that adequate analysis can be completed to allow the ITOC to make objective recommendations and to provide the public with information about the implementation of the TransNet program.

ITOC Funding and Administration 1. All costs incurred in administering the activities of the ITOC, including related fiscal and

performance audit costs, shall be paid annually from the proceeds of the TransNet sales tax beginning with the first fiscal year during which funds from the extension of the tax become available. The funds made available to the ITOC shall not exceed $250,000 annually, as adjusted for inflation annually for the duration of the program. Any funds not utilized in one fiscal year shall remain available for expenditure in subsequent years as part of the annual budget process.

2. The expenditures of the ITOC shall be audited annually as part of the same fiscal audit process

used for all other TransNet- funded activities. 3. Given the thirty-year duration of the TransNet tax extension, the ITOC shall continue as long as

funds from the current authorization remain available.

42

4. An annual ITOC operating budget shall be prepared and submitted to the SANDAG Board of Directors for its approval 90 days prior to the beginning of each fiscal year.

5. All ITOC meetings shall be public meetings conducted in full compliance with the Brown Act. 6. SANDAG Directors and staff will fully cooperate with and provide necessary support to the

ITOC to ensure that it successfully carries out its duties and obligations, but should limit involvement to the provision of information required by the ITOC to ensure the independence of the ITOC as it carries out its review of the TransNet program and develops its recommendations for improvements.

7. ITOC members and their designated auditors shall have full and timely access to all public

documents, records and data with respect to all TransNet funds and expenditures.

8. All consultants hired by the ITOC shall be selected on an open and competitive basis with solicitation of proposals from the widest possible number of qualified firms as prescribed by SANDAG’s procedures for the procurement of professional services. The scope of work of all such consultant work shall be adopted by the ITOC prior to any such solicitation.

9. SANDAG shall provide meeting space, supplies and incidental materials adequate for the ITOC

to carry out its responsibilities and conduct its affairs.

Conflict of Interest The ITOC shall be subject to SANDAG’s conflict of interest policies. ITOC members shall have no legal action pending against SANDAG and are prohibited from acting in any commercial activity directly or indirectly involving SANDAG, such as being a consultant to SANDAG or to any party with pending legal actions against SANDAG during their tenure on the ITOC. ITOC members shall not have direct commercial interest or employment with any public or private entity, which receives TransNet sales tax funds authorized by the voters in this ordinance.

Selection Committee reviews the recommendations of theTechnical Screening Committee and selects a candidate foreach open position to serve on the oversight committee.

(7 member panel: 2 Supervisors + 5 Mayors)

Technical Screening Committee recommends at least 2 qualified candidates for each open position.

Technical Screening Committee reviews applications anddevelops list of qualified candidates.

(3 member expert panel from transportation agenciesoutside region and/or from academic institutions)

Public Notice is released seeking applications for open positions.

Independent Taxpayer Oversight CommitteeSelection Process

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

phil monroe mayor pro tem, coronado agenda · christy guerin councilmember, encinitas lori holt...

Documents