Print Back to Calendar Return
  Regular-General Government   #   41.    
Board of Supervisors County Administrator  
Meeting Date: 08/01/2017  
Brief Title:    Potential Transportation Tax and Self Help County Status
From: Patrick Blacklock, County Administrator
Staff Contact: Alexander Tengolics, Legislative & Government Affairs Specialist II, County Administrator's Office, x8068

Subject
Receive presentation on ongoing road maintenance needs and the potential advantages of the County becoming a Self-Help County and provide direction to staff on next steps. (No general fund impact) (Blacklock/Tengolics)
Recommended Action
Receive presentation on ongoing road maintenance needs and the potential advantages of the County becoming a Self-Help County and provide direction to staff on next steps.
Strategic Plan Goal(s)
Operational Excellence
Safe Communities
 
Reason for Recommended Action/Background
The recently passed and signed SB 1 is estimated to provide Yolo County $66m over the next ten years for road maintenance and repairs (annualized amount approximately $6.6m/year). For reference, the County’s FY17-18 road budget (Att. A) is approximately $20m with $10.5m spent directly on road infrastructure (that $10.5m figure does not include the amount spend on routine maintenance- potholes, tree-trimming, etc. performed by the County road crews). However, of that $10.5m, $6.5m is federal funding which is restricted to specific projects (such as bridges, federally funded large-scale road improvements). The remaining $4m consists of Highway User Tax Apportionments (HUTA), i.e. gas tax, $2.5m and $1.5m in one time General Fund (set aside for the pavement preservation project). However, despite these funds being discretionary, they are frequently used as the required 12% local match for federal projects, further reducing the amount that is actually available for discretionary maintenance projects.

While the new SB 1 funds will significantly increase the County’s expenditure on discretionary road maintenance, the County currently faces a $120m backlog of maintenance needs (Att. B). A comparison of the estimated SB1 funding and existing 10 year maintenance need for the County and the cities is detailed below.
 
Jurisdiction 10 Year Maintenance Need Estimated Ten Year SB 1 Funding Difference
Yolo County (Unincorporated) $120m $66m $54m
Davis $169m (20-year need) $16m $153m
West Sacramento $67m $12m $55m
Winters $1m $1.5m ($500K)
Woodland $150m $13m $137m
Total $507m $108.5m $398.5m
 Source: YCTD 2016

The need for additional road maintenance funds is further demonstrated by the 2016 California Streets and Roads Assessment and the County’s recent pavement assessment, which as shown in Atts. C and D, respectively, the countywide Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is 55 (at-risk) with the PCI of the unincorporated area at 51 (at-risk). Furthermore, the PCI countywide has steadily declined from 69 in 2008 to 55 in 2016. As shown in the attached chart (Att. E), as the PCI declines the cost to repair and maintain the road increases significantly.

 SB 1 also includes $200m/year for the state-local partnership program. These funds can be directed on a formulaic or discretionary basis to “self-help” counties.  Yolo County in conjunction with the cities of Davis, West Sacramento, Winters, Woodland, and the Yolo County Transportation District (YCTD) has been analyzing the potential for Yolo County to become a “self-help” county and implement a local sales tax to fund local transportation projects.

Previously funds within the state-local partnership program were allocated on a 95% formulaic, 5% discretionary basis with the formula being population-driven. County staff had estimated that under the previous funding regulations, Yolo County could have expected $1m annually in formulaic funding (similarly sized Marin County received $1.1m). However, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) recommended the new state-local partnership program funds provided by SB 1 be allocated on a 50% formulaic, 50% discretionary basis. This recommendation prompted push back from the existing self-help counties which were concerned with the program moving towards a discretionary/competitive funding basis, as such the CTC “directed staff to work with the Self-Help Counties Coalition  to reach a compromise on the portion of the program to be competitive versus formulaic.” New draft guidelines are expected to be released in mid-August.

Should the Board seek to pursue self-help county status it is necessary to adopt a local sales tax that is solely dedicated to transportation improvements, i.e. a special tax (to staff’s knowledge all Self-Help Counties passed dedicated transportation sales taxes; a list of Self-Help Counties is attached, Att. F). A county may by action of its Board of Supervisors adopt a sales and use tax. Voter approval is required for new and increased local taxes. A tax levied to fund a specific governmental project or program, or any tax in which the proceeds are not placed in the general fund, and are not made available for general government purposes, is a special tax. A special tax requires both a two-thirds vote of all members of the Board and approval by a two-thirds vote of voters.

A quarter cent sales tax is estimated to raise approximately $8.5m countywide. A conceptual draft apportionment methodology is detailed below. Funds were apportioned according to a formula which equally weighted the share of the county sales tax base, lane miles, and daily vehicle miles traveled for each jurisdiction. A far right “AVERAGE” column corresponds to the each jurisdiction’s conceptual share of funding under this methodology. For reference, the per mile cost of road reconstruction in the unincorporated area is approximately $850,000 (assuming no significant complications or environmental issues); as such, given the County’s estimated $3.1m apportionment, the County could reconstruct an additional 3.6 miles of road per year (simple overlay is approximately $350,000-$500,000 per mile).  
 
Jurisdiction Sales Tax (2015)
(BoE)
% of Sales Tax Base (2015) (BoE) Lane Miles
(2015)
(CalTrans)
% of Lane Miles DVMT
(2015)
(CalTrans)
% of DVMT AVERAGE Apportionment
Yolo $2,928,080 10% 871 63%              757,940 37% 37% $3,111,000
Davis 5,243,786 18% 162 12%              359,180 17% 16% $1,321,000
W Sac 12,497,136 43% 165 12%              401,430 20% 25% $2,079,000
Winters 416,990 1% 23 2%                19,070 1% 1% $112,000
Woodland 8,098,858 28% 165 12%              517,770 25% 22% $1,815,000
Total $29,184,850 100% 1385 100%           2,055,390 100% 100% $8,500,000*
*Individual apportionments do not total to $8.5 due to rounding.

Finally, state law caps the combined rate of all local sales taxes (county and city imposed taxes) in a county at 2%; however, special legislation can waive this cap. The existing capacity within this two 2% local sales tax cap for jurisdictions within Yolo County is denoted in the chart below. Should a quarter-cent sales tax be approved, Yolo County jurisdictions would have a remaining capacity of 0.75%-1.75% within the 2% cap.
 
Jurisdiction Statewide Sales Tax
Rate
Existing Local Sales Tax
Rate
Existing Total Sales Tax
Rate
Capacity Within 2% Local Sales
Tax Cap
City of Davis 7.25% 1% 8.25% 1%
City of West Sacramento 7.25% 0.75% 8% 1.25%
City of Winters 7.25% 0% 7.25% 2%
City of Woodland 7.25% 0.75% 8% 1.25%
Yolo County 7.25% 0% 7.25% 2%
 
Staff recommends the Board pursue Self-Help county status given the additional local and state funding that would then become available for transportation projects. Pursuing Self-Help county status dovetails with YCTD’s current work on a Countywide Transportation Capital Improvement Plan (CTCIP) which seeks to prioritize transportation projects on a corridor-based framework. Currently contemplated corridors to be included in the CTCIP are as follows:

1. Intra County Agricultural Corridors
     a. Pacific Coast Producers – Knights Landing-County Road 102-Woodland
     b. Bogle Winery – West Sacramento – Highway 84/Jefferson Blvd/US Highway 50
2. Inter County Trade Corridors
    a. Rice Growing Areas – Port of West Sacramento
    b. I-5, US-50, I-80
3. Employment Corridors
    a. Seed Research Facilities-State Highway 16-City of Woodland
    b. County Road 31 – UC Davis/Yolo County
    c. I-5, US-50, I-80
4. Agriculture & Tourism Corridors
    a. I-505 to Cache Creek Casino Resort
    b. State Highway 128-Winters-Berryessa-Napa
5. Emergency/Access Corridors
    a. County Road 22 – Woodland to West Sacramento/Woodland to Sacramento Alternate
    b. County Road 32 – Davis/UPRR/Landfill
6. Public Health Corridors
    a. Davis/Woodland/West Sacramento Access to County Landfill
    b. Winters to Sutter Davis Hospital, Winters to Vacaville Kaiser
    c. Bay-Delta Trail
 
YCTD plans on having a completed draft ready for consideration by governing bodies by January 2018. Once approved, this document can serve as the technical underpinnings of an expenditure plan for a transportation sales tax. With the project list and expenditure plan compiled; staff can then draft ballot and ordinance language; conduct polling, if deemed necessary, on a potential ballot measure; and bring the ordinance to the Board for consideration in spring 2018. A special tax measure for transportation could be placed on either the June or November 2018 ballot. Finally, the timeline to include a sales tax measure on either ballot would be as follows:

• 120 days before election: Deadline to have the measure resolution filed with the Board of Supervisors and a copy given to the elections office.
• 88 days before election: Deadline for any arguments regarding the measure
• 78 days before election: Deadline for any rebuttals regarding the measure

While the timeline to put a measure on the June ballot would be tight, as YCTD’s CTCIP is not scheduled to be finalized until January, if the CTCIP and ballot measure proceed on parallel tracks so the two can be quickly integrated once finalized, a June ballot measure would still be feasible.
Collaborations (including Board advisory groups and external partner agencies)
Community Services, County Counsel

Fiscal Information
No Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Impact of this Expenditure
Total cost of recommended action
Amount budgeted for expenditure
Additional expenditure authority needed $0
On-going commitment (annual cost)
Source of Funds for this Expenditure
General Fund $0
Attachments
Att. A. FY17-18 Roads Budget
Att. B. Maintenance Backlog List
Att. C. 2016 California Streets and Roads Assessment
Att. D. County Pavement Assessment
Att. E. Generalized PCI Curve
Att. F. Self Help Counties Coalition List
Att. G. Presentation

Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Patrick Blacklock Patrick Blacklock 07/26/2017 08:07 AM
Phil Pogledich Phil Pogledich 07/27/2017 09:08 AM
Form Started By: Alexander Tengolics Started On: 06/30/2017 02:43 PM
Final Approval Date: 07/27/2017

AgendaQuick©2005 - 2019 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved