Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 1 TRANSP INV PLAN 01-16-84AGENDA DATE: . JANUARY 9, 1984 NEW BUSINESS NO. 1 1-16-84 Inter-Corn WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: BOB LEDENDECKER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: 15-YEAR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN RECOMMENDATION:~ That the Tustin City Council, at their meeting of January 16, 1984, adopt the attached resolution approving the Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan, as prepared bythe Orange County Transportation Commission, and requests that the plan be placed upon the June 5, 1984 ballot for decision by the voters of Orange County. BACKGROUND: The Orange County Transportation Commission (O.C.T.C.) has developed a Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan to meet the County's current and future transportation needs. All cities within the County have had the opportunity to provide input to the plan as its preparation progressed. The attached document consists of the support document to the plan and the Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan (copied on colored paper). This plan has been approved by the Orange County Board of Supervisors in December, 1983 and to date, four other cities within the County. The Fifteeh-Year Transportation Investment Plan includes four categories of projects as follows: Highways (50%) Local Improvements (20%) Countywide Discretionary Program (10%) Transit (20%) The entire plan is estimated to cost $13 billion, about 4D% or $5 billion will be financed through a sales tax of 1%, collected for fiteen years and earmarked for implementation of the plan. The percentages, indicated above, are those that will be dedicated to each of the categories from the sales tax proceeds. DISCUSSION: Each of the four categories within the plan are discussed in detail in the attached document. The Highway category includes all of Tustin's previous concerns with respect to widening of the Santa Ana (I-5) and the Newport/Costa Mesa (Rte.55) freeways. It also provides for the construction of the Eastern and Foothill Corridor freeways. 15-YEAR TRANSPORTATION ~NVESTMENT PLAN JANUARY 9, 1984 PAGE 2 Th.e Local Improvements category provides for.the return of 20% of the sales tax revenue to cities on a population basis. It is estimated that the initial years revenue to each city will be approximately $15.00 per person or approximately $600,000.00 to Tustin. These revenues will be restricted to the same use as current gas tax revenues, or any projects that are eligible under Article XIX of the State Constitution. The City will also be able to compete for funds within the Countywide Discretionary Program category. These funds will be available on a competitive, project merit basis. The final category, Transit, provides for the construction and maintenance of a 38.3 mile rapid transit project in Central Orange County. OCTC has not approved the specifics or committed to a specific technology of this project at this time. Prior to the release of any construction funds for this Transit Project, all environmental documentation must be completed, approval must be obtained from the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) and 'the California Transportation Commission (CTC) on the alternative analysis studies for the Santa Aha Transportation Corridor, public hearings held, and other funding sources secured. Concerns. have been raised by various agencies and individuals regarding the effects of a sales tax increase on retail sales within Orange County and neighboring counties. The attachment on yellow colored paper is a study by Arthur Young and Company on this matter and is provided for additional information. The OCTC is requesting that each Orange County City approve the Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan and authorize the placement of the plan on the June 5, 1984 ballot. Adoption of the attached resolution by the Tusttn City Council would accomplish this request. Bob tedendecker Director of Public Works/City Engineer BL:jr Attachment RESOLUTION NO. 84-io A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FIFTEEN-YEAR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLAN AND AUTHORIZE THE PLACEMENT OF THE TRANSPOR- TATION INVESTMENT PLAN ON THE JUNE 5, 1984 BALLOT WHEREAS, Orange County's transportation system has deteriorated in recent years, creating traffic problems, lengthening the time it takes for routine trips, and increasing traffic congestion; and WHEREAS, these increasing difficulties threaten Orange County's quality of life; and WHEREAS, maintaining and improving our aging transportation system is 10 essential to preserving our standard of living and to developing an environment where business, industry, and commerce can grow and prosper; and 1! WHEREAS, the Orange County Transportation Commission has prepared a 12 transportation investment plan which addresses, in a balanced and reasonable fashion, the many transportation needs and deficiencies of Orange County; and I3 WHEREAS, the Orange County Transportation Commission is requesting 14 'the Tustin City Council to join with the County of Orange and other Orange County cities to authorize the placement of the Transportation Investment Plan 15 on the June 5, 1984 ballot; and 16 17 18 19 2O 21 WHEREAS, the Tustin City Council recognizes that it will be the decision of the voters to determine if they wish to approve a one percent sales tax increase to finance the projects and plans outlined in the Transportation Investment Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Tusttn City Council has reviewed the Transportation Investment Plan, approves the plan, and agrees this matter should be placed before the people of Orange County. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, held on the 16th day of January, 1984 . 22 23 24 MAYOR 25 26 ATTEST: 27 28 CITY CLERK ORA~Gt~ COUNTY' TRAN~0RTATION ¢OMi~f~$ION It~ · Martin. of December 1983 1055 Nm'th Main, 516 Santa Aim, 'CA 92701 (714) 834-7581 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PUuPOSE AND OBJ]~ EVOLUTION OF ~ PLAN Initial Technical Studies Cit~y Comments and Propos~l.~ The Community Dialogue Group Process The Business Leadership Task Force Emergence of The Plan Amendin~ The Plan TH~ PLAN IN DEPTH Project Needs Over the Next 15 Years Highways Local Transportation Improvements Countywide Discretionary Pro&ram Transit FINANCING OUR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS Where the Money Goes Cost and Revenue Estimates Project Phasing HOW ~ W~ BENEFIT~ Principal Benefits Benefits: A Closer Look APPENDICES A. B. C. D. Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan Article XIX Apportionment and Expenditure of Highway Funds Cb.9ter 1320~ Statues of 1983 (SB 693) Assumptions Used in the Computation of Benefits 1 2 3 4 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 14 2O 26 30 II~I~ODUC~ION This report provides an introduction to Orange 'County's Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan, a pl~q envisioned to solve our most pressing current and future transportation problems and keep us moving through the year 2000. Orange County has experienced tremendous growth tn the number of people and jobs, growth that has made much of our transportation system inadequate. From a rural county of 200,000 residents in 1950, Orange County grew to 2 m~11~on residents by 1980 and emerged as a major job center for ~ll Of southern California. l~oreeasts of pop, clarion increases and growth in jobs indicate that by the end of this century, Orange County will be adding upwards of 700,000 new residents and 500,000 new jobs -- equivalent to adding a city the size of Denver onto the existing urban terrain. A dramatic increase of 50% in the number of trips that must be accommodated on our already congested streets and highways is also expected. While the focus of the trips will be travel to and from work, people will also be driving to meetings, school, shopping, or recreation. Changing soeio-eeonomie trends will make things worse, with single parent households and two wage earner families putting even more commuters on the road during peak times. Without taking steps to improve our transportation system, we face a doubling tn the amount of time spent traveling, dramatic reductions in personal mobility, and losses to the economic vitality of the county. We face a dual problem. Our transportation system has failed to keep pace with our popnl~tion and employment growth, and we need to plan for the future. We must catch-up and keep-up with Orange County's tremendous growth. The sad fact is our existing federal, state, and local transportation revenues are not and will not be sufficient to meet our needs. New revenue sources will be needed to provide the capital investments in our transportation system that are critically needed to assure our existing and future mobility. Recent state legislation has given Orange County voters the opportunity to raise money lOcally to solve the county's most serious transportation problems by approving a sales tax increase earmarked strictly for transportation improvements in Orange County. Senate Bill 693 (Chapter 1320, Statutes of 1983) by Senator William Campbell gives the Orange County Transportation Commission the authority to ask Orange County voters if they are willing to assess themselves an additional 1% sales tax to help pay for transportation improvements. The leg/alation requires that the Commission develop a Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan which would tell the voters how existing transportation revenues plus the sales tax would be spent to relieve today's congestion and assure tommoreow~ mobility. A copy of the legislation is shown tn Appendix C. The CommisSion will ask Orange County residents to east their votes on a 196 transportation sales tax on June 5, 1984. The sales tax tnerense will go into effect only if approved by at least a majority of the voters. To complete all of the projects in the Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan, the tax would remain in effect for 15 year~ This document describes the Fifteen-Year Tran.~Portation Investment Plan. The plan is a comprehensive and specific listing of highway, street, road, and transit improvements needed to keep us moving. A complete copy of the plan is contained in ,appendix A of this report. PUP..P~H ~ OB~H~ The Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan is designed to relieve current traffic congestion, upgrade our transportation system to modern standards and provide for future mobility. It will put in place a transportation system that w. orks, one that. provides current and future Orange County remdents with the means o! getting to cna from work, shopping, recreation, and entertainment activities. It will provide a sound foundation on which the county's economic and employment strer~th will continue to prosper and ~row. It will preserve and sustAir~ the high quality of life that we currently enjoy. This will be accomplished through improvements to existing freeways, construction of major new roadways, improvements to the arterial and local street system, and the development of alternatives to the single-occupant automobile through construction of a rail transit system, improvements to the bus system, and greater emphasis on ridesharing. Soundw~n.~ and landscaping will accompany these improvements. The overall goal of the plan is to provide safe and efficient transportation to keep people and goods moving; and to asaure that transportation improvements are built in an environmentally sensitive way. The plan is structured to provide a balanced transportation system which is compatible with present and future land uses. It will increase the avAilAbility of transportation services for all segments of the county's population, including all income levels and age groups. It will provide for a countywide transportation system which blends well with and complements the transportation system of Orange County's 26 cities and the adjacent counties. The plan maximizes the use-of existing resources and' facilities and minimizes right-of-way acquisition, displacing or requiring the relocation of es few businesses and residences as possible. EVOLUTION OP T~ PLAN Orange County's tremendous growth since World War H has transformed it from a sparsely Dop,d~ted a~ricultural community' to the thriving urban county and employment magnet it is today. From a popu!stion of 200,000 in 1950 Orange Coun~t[f has grown to more than 2,000,000 residents, a tenfold increase. And continued growth is projected for the future. By .the turn of the century, Orange County will house 2,700,000 people, and provide 1,400,000 jobs. And the trips that link these residents with their jobs and other destinations will increase by ball, to some 10,400,000 trips -- additional trips that will be loaded onto an already overburdened transportation system. Figure 1. Population, employment and trip forecasts to the year 2000. Year Orange County's tr~rtation system has not kept pace with the demands placed upon it. Most of our freeways and hii~hways were built in the 1950's and 1960's for a rural and suburban setting with about half our current population. Consequently, major improvements are needed to upgrade our transportation system to current urban standards and to accommodate the trips generated by the new residents and jobs that will be here in the future. Today, for ten hours a day, the average speed on most Orar~e County freeways is under 35 miles per hour and in many areas is under 20 miles per hour for much of the time. During peak drive times on the Santa Ana (I-5), San Diego (I-405) and Costa Mesa (SE 55) Freeways, traffic crawls, creating six and eight lane parking lots. No longer can county residents and workers avoid congestion by changing their daily work schedules. Our peak hours have increased from two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening to three to four hours in the morning, two hours mid-day, and another three to four hours in the evening -- fully ten hours a day of severe congestion. Motorists seeking alternatives to the freeways are overloading local arterial surface streets, creating congestion that affects ,11 major roads. -3- The following sections of this report discuss the activities that have been undertaken leadir~ to the development of the Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan. Figure 2 summarizes the major components of the effort. Initial Technical 8tudias The Orange County Transportation Commission was formed in 1977 to provide countywide coordination of various local, state and federal transportation programs. In response to the existir~ and rapidly deteriorating tran.~ortation problem in Orange County, the Commission in 1978~ undertook a eomprehensive Multimodal Transportation Study (MM'IS) to evaluate future transportation needs that could be met by All modes of travel --auto, bus, commuter train, and rail transit. The multimodal study examined ou~ etueent travel needs, pinpointed the areas of continued residential, employment, and trip concentration, and developed recommendations to deal with our growi~ transportation deficiencies. At the'same time, the Commission vigorously acted to secure a fair share of transportation funds from all avail_Able sources of revenue -- federal, state, and local. The Multimodal Transportation Study served as the county's blueprint' for action. Followin& 'the initial MMTS recommendations, the Commission and other agencies embarked on a five-year period of detailed studies of various transportation problem areas or corridors (such as the Santa Aha, or Interstate $ corridor), and initiated finanein& studies and soeio-eeonomie and environmental studies. Based on this extensive period of study, an initial Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan wes proposed in Mareh~ 1983. This initial plan set up a framework of solutions to lessen our serious transportation problems by the end of the century and identified costs and potential fundin~ soUrCes needed to implement the plan. The initial plan aiso provided a focal point for dialogue and discussion for the county's cities, residents, and major employers. Each of these groups actively participated in shaping the Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan to its present form. -4- Shaping the [~ifteen Yea~ Transportation Investment Plan Te~hni~i and Financial Studies C~ty County and other Agencies The F'dteen Year Transportation Investment Plan INPUT' Community Dialogue Groups General Public Business Leadership Task Force (cso) and Service Organizations (Group Discussions) City Comments and During the preparation and discussion of the initial '~ifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan, each of Orange County's 26 cities, the County, and all agencies active inplanning and transportation provided extensive comments, about .the specific loeaI problems and needs to be included in the package of potential solutmns. These comments, in comb/nation with aw~l~hle technical data, shaped the initial p!~ of projects recommended for implementation over the next fifteen years. State le/islation defined a specific role for Orange County cities and the County in the approval and adoption of the Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan. The plan has been developed in consultation with these agencies. At least a majority of the c/ties and the County must a~prove the plan before it goes before the voters in June 1954. An intensive three-month period of soliciting transportation proposals and of obtalnin~ additional review and comments about the proposed Fifteen-Year Plan hagan in October, 1983. At that time the Commission formally issued a c~ll for proposal~ for inclusion in the plan. The request was for the cities, the County, the countyts public transportation operators, and Caltrans to review the initial Fifteen-Year Investment Proposal, and notify the Commission of any chan~es they believed were warranted. The Commission's call for proposals requested that the cities and agencies submit proposals' concernir~ each aspect of the plan, namely: o Highways - includir~ both existin~ freeways and state highways, as well as new freeways necessary to supplement our ex/stin~ congested faei]ities~ o Local Transportation Improvements - the extensive body of. local streets and roads that we rely on in the course of our daily activities; o Countywide Discretionary Pro,ram - focusin; on projects that would benefit residents of more than one city or area; and o Trar~it - including improvements to the bus system and initiation of r~il rapid transit to the key activity centers in central Orar~e County. The Commission reviewed the proposals submitted by the cities, the County, and other agencies and used this input to prepare a revised Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan which represented the collective views expressed by the cities and other agencies and which incorporated the results from key public review forums. In early December 1983, the Commission recommended the revised plan for approval by the cities and the County. The Community Dialog, ur Group ~ In developing the Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan, the Commission was al~ interested in finding out directly what Orange County citizens had to say about the proposed plan. In October, 1983, the Commission began a three-month period in which its staff conducted 18 community dialogue group meetings and met with community o~ganizations tl~oughout the county. .The purpose of the community dialogue group meetings was to obtain input from community leadars in the development of the Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan. The participants in the dialogue groups were individua1-~ who hold leadership positions within their communities or who represent community organizations. In an effort to secure the viewpoints of grnsstoots community leaders, elected or appointed govarnment offiejA1-~ did not participate. At the community dialogue group sessions, printed materials, a fLtm and a 30-minute technical slide presentation gave participants factual information about Orange County's ttan.~oortation problems, options for solutions, costs, and variety of potential revenue sources. Participants then Worked in small groups to reach consensus on five questions about transportation: What is the most important issue faein~ residents of the specific community? What are the three most important transportation improvements or facilities needed in the specific community? What are the three most important transportation' needs for the entire Orange County area? 4. What are the most controversial issues and proposals in the 15-Year Transportation Investment Plan? .What financing options are most preferred to fund ~mprovements? transportation Partieipant-~ ~!-~o eompleted pre- and post-meeting questionnaires to assess their opinions and attitudes about transportation issues and options. The questionnaires provided a means of analyzing the relative level of consensus within the group before and after the workshop. After each workshop session, a report was compiled to summarize the group's concerns and recommendations, and to identify the level of consensus reached within each community. Individual group reports were distr/buted to members of the Commission, mayors, city eouneLl members, city managers, dialogue group participants, and community leaders who were invited but were unable to attend workshops. A completed report on all the community dialogue group workshop sessions was also compiled. This report, a copy of which is available upon request, indicates that the participants universally recognized the seriousness of Orange County's transportation problems and supported the need to act soon to improve the situation. While participants among the groups differed on the specific components of the solution, the need for improvements to the freeway and 1cea1 arterial street systems and the need for efficient public transit were clearly identified. -?- The Busin,~ Leadershi~ Ta.~ Force Oranqe County's business, community has long been active in transportation. Commitment to the commun/ty, coupled with the economic need to remain competitive in attracting and maintaining a skilled work force and to provide efficient - product delivery and servicing, have made transportation a critical matter for Oran&e County's employers. Input on the Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment' Plan from the business community was provided by an independent study geoup consisting of chief executives from leading Orar~e County firms, known as the Business Leadership Task Poree. The driying force behind the creation of the task force was to provide a foundation upon which the business community could actively participate in the development of a transportation system essential for the economic strength of Orange County. The task force defined its objectives as follows= To provide a forum in which business leaders can gain knowledge and better understand the need for an improved transportation system in Orange County. To provide the background necessary to answer, by the end of 1983, the followir~ questions: o Is the scope and content of the Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan appropriate? What should be the priorities of the Investment P~an? o How should the investment Plan be funded? The Business Leadership Task Foroe then set out to conduct an in-depth examination of the transportation improvement propo~al~ developed by Commission staff and review the comments and proposals put forth by the cities, county and other agencies, opinion leaders and the public. In early December, the task force developed a formal recommendation on the Fifteen- Year Transportation Investment Plan supporting up to a 1% countywide sales tax for transportation and e~llir~ for a mix of improvements to Orange County's highway, street and road, and transit systems. The views of the task force have been intesTated into the plan adopted by the Commission. -8- By the begirminE of December, 1983, the months of review and discussion about Orange County~ transportation needs led to the emergence of specific reecmmendations by the cities and other I~overnment agencies, by the public~ .and by members of the business community. These recommendations were provined to a special Evaluation Team assembled by the Commission for the purpose of integrating and evaluatin& the proposals and comments and shst)in~ them into the Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan that w/il go to the voters in June lg84. The Evaluation Team evaluated the project proposals and comments received over the months of review, and addressed certain basic questions related to the following: Proiect Readiness for' Implementation - could the projects in the plan in fact be built in time? Local Support - were the projects accepted by the public and by funding agencies as hi&h priority needs? Project Need - would the. projects help us to catch-up, and keep-up, with con&estion, and resolve outstandir~ safety and operational problems? Project Worth - did the projects relieve congestion in a cost-effective manner, ~11owir~ us to maximize the benefits derived from ou~ investment? Environmental Cousequenees - would the projects provide positive environmental benefits and improve the quality of life for Orange County residents and workers? Equity and 'Distribution - did the projects respond to the partie-la_~ transportation needs of the different geograt)hie areas of Orange County? Did the plan respond to the needs of the older, more densely developed communities, and also provide for geowin& and newly settlir~ areas of the county? Funding Availability -.Have maximum efforts been made to secure funding from federal, state, and private financial sources prior to seekin& new revenues raised from a local sales tax? The EValuation Team made adjustments to the original proDosal for highways, local transportation improvements, countywide improvements, and transit. The plan, as a result of these efforts is one that: Addresses our most pressing current and future transportation needs over the next 15 years. Is do-able, in that the proposed projects can in fact be implmnented if funds are secured. Is representative of a consensus view that emerged from the diversity of comments provided by the Orange County community. The Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan represents a commitment to Orange County to complete a transportation investment program for today and for the future. the ~n The Fifteen-Year T~an.spovtation/nvestment Plan is a formal commitment to build the improvements contained within it. As such, it can only be modified under a limited set of circumstances prescribed by law. For example, by law, the plan may only be changed to provide for the use of additional federal, state and local funds, to acoount for unexpected revenues, or to take into eonsidaration unforeseen circumstances. Any proposed change in the plan must be a&eeed to by the County Board of Supervisors and city couneih. The amendment procedure requires all of the following: The Commission must notify, in writing, the Board of Supervisors and all city councils within the county of any proposed chan~es. The DroDosed chan~es become effective 45 days after notification unless the Board of Supervisors or city councils representing 2596 or more of the cities in the county objeet. If an objection is registered, the Commission may try to override the objection by presentir~ the proposed ehan~e formally to the Board of Supervisors and ~11 cities for their approval The change would then become effective only after a public hearing, and only If appl'oved by the Board of Supervisors and at least a majority of the Oran&e County cities representing at least 5096 of the county's incorporated area pop!clArion. The Commission is also prohibited by law from proposinl~ the elimination of a project located entirely within a city or the County unincorporated area without the corlsent of the local elected officials. If a sales tax increase is approved, the Commission must, each year, prepare and circulate a report evaluating and a.aseesir~ the progress made in the implementation of the This ril~orous process bA~aqees the public commitment to implement a specific voter- approved transportation plan with the need for some flexibility to respond to chan~ir~ trar~portation priorities and needs. -10- The Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan is a synthesis of' technical information and community concerns; it recognizes the diversity of Orange County's many life styles and the variety of transportation problems now troubHn~ California's second most populous county. It allocates local transportation resources m a cautious, balanced fashi6n which recognizes and respects the differing needs of Orange County's many communities. The following sections of this report provides a summary of the projects contained in the plan. Detailed project descriptions are in the plan in Appendix A of this report. Project Needs O~e the Next Pifteen Years The cornerstone of the l~ifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan is the recognition of the fact that no single transportation solution can meet Orange County's current transportation, needs and enstwe future mobility. The plan caLLs for a multimodal approach with improvements to local streets, arterial roads, major h~hways and freeways, and transit. Projects in the plan are organized into fotw categories: o Highways o Local Transportation Improvements o Countywide Discretionary Pro,ram o Transit' The plan lists the specific projects contained in each category. For example Highway Improvements includes widening existing freeways and highways, constructing new freeways, and ensuring adequate maintenance of our investment. Local Transportation Improvements includes construction and maintenance of city streets and roads and arterial highways. The Countywide Discretionary Program makes funds avaflRhle on a competitive project merit basis for improvements of countywide significance such as improvements to major arterial roads (Super Streets), ridesharing or commuter rAi! (trains). Transit Improvements includes the construction and maintenance and improvements to a rapid transit system in central Orange County and maintenance of the bus systems operated by the Orange County Transit District and Laguna Beach Municipal Transit Lines. -11- ~T~ghwa~s The Highway component of the p]~n (Fig. 3)~neludes funds to help finance construction of adcHtional lanes on the ~anta Ama, San Diego, Riverside, Orange, Costa Mesa, and Garden Grove Freeways. The sales tax portion of the p~m, ~n adcHtion to the freeway widening work, will help finance construction of soundw~11% landscaping, and other necessary compatibility projects. Additionally, the sales tax revenue will be used to augment state funds to improve Pacific Coast Highway, Beach Boulevard, Ortega Highway, Imperial Highway, and Laguna Canyon Road. This component will also help finance three new freeways in southern and eastern Orange County: the Eastern, Foo~ill: and San Joequin HilLs Transportation Corridors. Each of these new transportation corridors will require signifinant developer contributions. Additionally, the Costa Mesa Freeway will be completed and Route 57 will be extended to close a gap between the Orange Freeway and Route ?3. Lorn1 Trans~a~tica Improvements The Loeal Transportation Improvements component of the pln~ includes funds to help finance construction and maintenance of city streets and roads, arterial highways, and other ~roieets eligible for funding under Article XIX of the CAllfornia Constitution. This means that the cities and County will have sales tax revenues to supplement gas tax expenditures. For the first time, the cities and County will be able to catch-up and keep-up with needed street maintenance and repairs. A copy of the Streets and Highways Code Section 2101 governing the expenditures eligible under Article XIX is included in Appendix B of this report. All Article XIX expenditures will be approved by local government to meet local maintenance and construction needs. Expenditure of these funds for non-Artiel: XIX ' expenditures will be reviewed by the 'Orange County Trartsportation Commission on a case-by-ease basis. Cities are encouraged, but not required, to make maintenance of e~istin& streets and roads their top priority before spending sales tax revenues for new construction. Preliminary estimates show that maintenance needs on Orange County'~ arterial streets are significant (Fi~tre 4). In eompUanee with Public Utilities Code Section 130400.5 the Orange County TransportaUon Commission will monitor sales tax expenditures by the cities and the County to guarantee that they maintain their existing commitment of local funds for public transportation purposes. A ref,n~lar audit schedule will be adopted annually by the Commission to monitor m~,iatenanee of local effort and to insure compliance with the maintenance of effort requirement. -12- Highway and F~eeway Improvements .t I Widening of exist, lng Freeway and Highway mmmmm New Freeway eeeee Freeway Extension -13- l~igure 4. Arteria~ Street Improvement Program annual cost forecast. Flseal Year Cotmt~j~dde Dise~ettoruL~ i ~ The Countywide Diaereticrmr7 Program will be available on a competitive, project merit basis and will be cdministered by the Commissior~ Eligible projects are improvements of eountywide significance, including development of multijurisdietional traffic signalization projects, Super Streets, railroad grade separatior~ ridesharing, capital projects eontributin~ to the mobility of the elderly end the handicapped, commuter r~il projects, and other eligible public transportation improvements as determined by the Orange County Transportation Commission on en annual basis. The CountTwide Discretionary Program while independent of the County of Orangets Arterial Highway ]~inaneing Program, will be coordinated with that successful prc~ram. Transit The transit component ia .~ized to finance construction and maintenance of a 38.3 mile rapid transit project tn central Orange County. The Orange County TransportatiOn Commission has neither approved the specifies of this project nor committed to a specific technology in th~s transportation corridor. However, because of the existing end forecasted population densities in this area, as well as the inability of roads, freeways or other eonventionsl transportation solutions to accommodate the projected tran~~portation demands~ the Commission anticipates construction of a rapid transit project. This component reflects the best thinking available on the nature of the ~entral county project, but it is stLU subject to final review end approval As with all proje=ts in the ]?ifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan, AIl environmental documentation must be complete, approwl~ of the Alternatives Analysis studies for the Santa Aha TranSPortation Corridor by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration and the California Transportation Commission must be obtained, public hearir~s must be held, and RI] financing sources must be secured before eonstruetion dollars will be released for this project. The rapid transit project is anticipated to be a 38.3 mile sir~le track light rail t~ideway system eonsistin~ of an east-west line between Buena Park and Santa Aha and an elevated north-south line between Fullerton and h'vine. (Fi~z~e 5.) Additionally, the D1Ra calls for continuation and improvements to Orar~e Coun~ Transit District's and La,ma Beach Municipal Transit Lines' bus.services. However, these improvements wffi be funded with existin~ revenue sources. No sales tax revenue wffi be used to buy new buses nor will the sales tax revenue be used to operate the bus system. Mile Rapid Transit Sys. tern FllqA.I~CING OUR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMEN?S .The Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan includes projections of revenues and expenditures for maintenance, operations, and capital outlay in the four categories of projects. Ail projects in the pla~ can be completed or substantially completed within the fifteen year period from fiscal year 1984-85 to the year 2000. Projeet costs and revenues were developed by the Commission staff in consultation with Caltrans, the County's Environmental Management Agency, the Orange County Transit District and Orange County cities. The accountin~ firm of Deloitte, Haskins and Sells worked with OCTC staff to formulate estimates and to carefully construct future revenue projections. Costs are provided in 1983 do]]~s and escalated dollars. Esesl~ted dollars ave calculated based on the phasing of project construction and assumed inflation rates over the period' of the plan. The Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan maintains the Orange County Transportation Commission's commitment to press for a fair and equitable'share of all existing revenue sources available for transportation. However these funds alone are not sufficient to build the projects in the plan. Implementation of the Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan is contingent upon adoption of a one percent sales tax increase in Orange County solely for transportation purposes for a period of 15 years. Sales tax revenues are used only to make up the difference when existing federal, state and local revenues plus private sector contributions are insufficient to eomplete a project. Some transportation improvements need little or no sales tax funds while othars.¢annot be implemented without this t~ype of local revenue source. Examples of projects requiring sales, tax revenue would be widening of the Santa Arm, Orange, Eiverside, Garden Grove and Costa Mesa freeways, arterial street malntermnee end the construction of a rs~l transit system. Detailed information showing the projected distribution of sales tax revenues among different categories of projects is contained in Table 1 (Project l~Inaneing and Construction Schedule) and Tables 2 and 3 (Revenue and Expenditure Statements). Where the Money The Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan will be financed by existing local, state and federal revenue sources made available for transportation purposes, private sector contributions (such as development fees and benefit assessments) and a 196 increase in Orange County's sales tax. Table 1 provides a listin~ of these revenue sourers. Total cost of the plan in escalated dollars is $12.$ b~ll~on. Existing local, state and federal sources will pay for 4896 or $6 billion of the investment plan, private sector contributions.will pay for about 6% or approximately $800 m~11~on of the plan, and the sales tax will pay for 4096 or $5 billion. Interest accruin~ on sales tax revenues over the life of the plan will pay for the remaining 6% or approximately $750 million. More detailed figures are shown in the revenue and expenditure statements for the p!a~ (Tables 2 and 3). The plan allocates the sales tax revenues as follows: Category Percentage Highways 50 % Local Improvements 20 Countywide Diseretiormry 10 Transit 20 Figure 6. Allocation of sales tax revenues. If the sales tax proposal is not successful, about ? bi11ion dollars will be spent on tran.q~ortation-related projects tn Orange County in the next 15 years. This is the estimated expenditure ratio without a one percent sales tax: Category Percentage Highways Local Improvements Countywide Discretionary Bus Transit 36% 20 2 42 These expenditures are based on existing state and federal guidelines and categorical programs. The Orange County Transportation Commission does not have direct control over these revenues and could not, for example, transfer federal dolln~ earmarked for bus operations into local street programs. The Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan combines the sales tax increase with the existing local, state and federal resources expected to be received by Orange County as well as private sector contributions and projects the following expenditures: Category Pereentage Highway Local Improvements Countywide Discretionary Bus and Rail Transit 4296 20 5 33 Estimated expenditures with and without the sales tax are shown in Figure 7. -18- Figure ?. Expenditures by category with and without sales tax revenues. Transit Table 1 illustrates which .funding sources included in the plan (federal, state, local, private sector contributions, and sales tax) are projected to be tapped for each p~oject and/or project category included in the plan. As indicated, All projects will require a combination of two or more funding sources to assure completion within the construction timeframe. The improvements to e~dsting freeways and highways all anticipate receiving federal and state funds; many require supplemental sales tax revenue. Notable exceptions are construction of the interchange between the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) and the Costa Mesa Freeway (Route 55) and widening of the San Diego Freeway which are projected to be entirely funded by federal and state revenues. The new freeway projects included in the plan are expected to use federal, state, private sector and sales tax revenue sources. The Costa Mesa Freeway Extension (Route 55) w/l] rely extensively on federal and state resources. Some supplemental allocation of sales tax revenue may be necessary. The San Joaquin Hill.~ Freeway is expected to tap federal, state, private sector and sales tax resources. The Eastern Corridor Freeway and Foothill Corridor Freeway are expected to be built using a combination of private sector contributions and sales tax revenues. Local Transportation Improvements wi11 be financed by state, 1cea1, private sector, and sales tax revenues. The Countywide Discretionary Program will be funded by a combination of federal funds and sales tax revenues. ~u!ptm~ l-eaapa~ ~o/pu~ a:~als .~o~ Ll.ri!q.t~.tla loa~3a laa.~o-~d ~ ~o aInpaqos uo!laluamaIdtU.t aql pInoM stuatqo~d uo!l~odsu~al aaa,as ~sotu at~ ssaappa slaa.~oad qa!qM t/aaa -~o~ aInpaqas uo!l~uamatchu! aiq!ssod lsa.rI~ea aql ~. aetL~ 0 0 :Bu!ssqd :Wa./oad uo suo!~aap ap!n2 ol, pasn aaa,~ e!aal!aa ,~u!~oHo~ atL~ 'uo!~or~lsuoa ao~ pa ..qnbaa saaanosaa Tel!deo pua tretunq ~o ~4.ri!cTeI.reAs aql pue ~samp. saa ~o alels luaaano a!.aql ua,.t2 ~ueIcl aql m. sloa.~oad a~ ~o uo!l~uatuaIdm! aI~ssod lsa.rizea att1 uo pas~q s! 2u~etld · lsanbaa uodn salsa uo.t~rh~m, lsoa laa[oad pue salem!Isa enuaAaa eql Su.maeauoa uo!l~tuao~u! pelTelep eaotu ap!,oad trea ~rels uo.ts~.tutuoo · ~ITenuu~ %~-i pue %~-i uaa~laq ,~o al~a · ~aa a pue 'u~d a~ ~o ~r~a~ uaal~t~ at/1 aa,o alaa uo~vI/u! Tenutm %~ ~ ol laa.~qns aq ol palaadxa aa~ xel sates %~ ~ tuo~ sanua,a~I "b~llUaAaa x'al s~ sl! uo u.m~aa %00~ e. ~s~a! ls aA!aaaa II~.~ ~lunoD a2u'eaO -UOlTe2 -~ad sluao aA!} pu~ ano~ uaaa~aq ~o saseaaam. ol laa[qns aq II!a~ u~Id aql ~o a~.r/atll -~aAO pUS 'al~a uo.tlsTJu! fenutre %£ ~ ol laa[qns aq l~.a~ saxel Ian~ l'e.mpa~ pue alals tuoa~ sanua,a~I :suo!ldtunsse ~a~l atO ~o Lmtutuns a ~ l~u.~olIOt atL~ -sure.~2oad reaapa~ ptre al~:~s tuo.~ sanuaAa-~ uo~elaoclsu~o ~o ~l.~.qs~.re,a aanln~ atT~ ptra ~soa uo!lanalsuoa 'suo!l~puoa a!mouoaa a~n~ 'sal~ uo!lWbxu! lnoc~ alC~ .ITB*I~ UO~la~lllO~. lsaq all1 loa~a.1 U~cI luaRtlsa&uI uo.l~l~lodgu~l.l. aaaX-uaall!/[ atll aaLqa$ol ~u~.llnd u! pasn suo.tldmns~e anua,aa ptre lsoo · tuals~s l!streO p!d~a ~ ao~ suo.~lnq!aluoo aoloas ale,lad atO a~.admoo IU.a~ ~uatussass~ lt.~auaq pue saa~ luamdoIaAap ~o uo!l~m, qmoo V ~do.~lnq!aluoa aoloas ala,!ad a .a!nbaa ol pamnss~ luatua,oadtu! 1.tsu~a~ ~Iuo a~ ~ laa.ioad l!sue-~l p!dea au.,L .sanua,aa xel sales pu~ aolaas al~,!ad '~ao! 'alals 'l~aapa~ ~o uo!leu!qtuoa a uodn ~ia-~ l~.a~ u~d a~ u! papnIau! sluama,oadm! l!stma~I, How would construction of each project affect other elements of the transportation s~stem ? Phasing schedules and construction timelines for projects in the Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan relate to ri~ht-of-way acquisition and construction activities .that 'will commence only after environmental assessments have been completed. ALl of the major projects in the plan must undergo a ri~orous environmental review before they can proceed to construction, and this factor has been considered in eompilin~ the phasir~ schedules shown in Table 1. The Orange County Transportation Commission is committed to seeking prompt implementation of projects in the investment Plan while observir~ environmental safeguards and the legal requirements for project development. -21- T~ble ~. Fifteen-Ye3r Transportation/nvestment Plan ~inaucial ~mmary Revenue Statement (Ese-~Ated $ Thousands) Highway Revenues State Highway Aeeount Private Sector Contributions Sales Tax Subtotal Highway Revenues Amour 1,471,000 828,000 ' 2,516,000 Total 4,815,000 Local Revenues State Gas Tax Subventions Local General Yunds Sales Tax Subtotal Local Revenues Countywide Discretionary Progeam Federal Aid Urban Sales Tax Subtotal Arterial System Revenues 800,000 640,000 1,006,000 141,000 503~000 2,446,000 644,000 Transit Revenues Federal Capital Grants State Capital Grants Federal Operating Grants State Operating Grants Local Sources for Operations. Private Seeter Contributions Sales Tax Subtotal Transit Revenues Total Revenues Interest on Investment of Sales Tax 485,300 107,300 192,500 104,700 2,061,600 31,800 1,006,000 3,989,200 11,894,200 734,000 Grand Total Revenues 12,628,200 -23- Table 3 Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan Financial Summary l~.x-p, enditure Statement (Escalated $ Thousands) Highways Improvement~ to Existir~ Freeways and Highways New Freeways Maintenance and Operations Subtotal Highways Amo~t 2,289,600 :2,779,900 207,000 Total 5,276,500 Local Transportation Improvements (Cities and County)- Local Capital Improvements, Maintenance and Operations 2,446,000 Countywide Discretionary Pro,ram Countywide Transportation Improvements · 644,000 Transit Bus Capital Bus Maintenance and Operations Bus Total ILapid Transit Capital Eapid Transit Maintenance and Operations Rapid Transit Total 270,100 2,473,900 1,218,500 1767500 2,744,000 1,395,000 Grand Total Expenditures 12,505,500 HOW WILL WE BENEFITT The Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan is essential to provide ~rip-carrying capacity urgently needed to get as moving and keep as moving, and to preserve the quality of Hfe in Orange County. Without the addition of local revenues to supplement what will be avs!!nhle from federal, state, and private sector sources, our ability to implement projects in the Investment PlAn is severely limited. Addition of loeai revenues win ~]low as to leverage our current transportation dollars, and thereby bring projects into action sooner than would other~vise be possible. Orange County win be able to widen its existing freeways, build the missing links in its highway system, adequately maintain its local streets and roads, and provide transit alternatives. Over the next fifteen-years,. Orange County will experience a 5096 increase in the number of dn~ly trips carried on our air.early-overburdened system of streets and highways. Without the investments called for in the plan, Orange County's streets and highways will turn into virtual parking lots. For every ten ears waiting in line in front of you today, there will be fifteen ears waiting in the future. All of us will move along at less than b~lf the speed we travel today. The amount of personal time spent wasted in congestion will increase at least five-fold. Overall mobility and the quality of life win be drarnatioA]ly reduced, and our access to a choice of locations for work and leisure will be diminished. The business community win find it increasingly difficult to compete for a trained workforoe within an easy eommutin~ distance to work, and the cost of doing business in the county win rise. With more time spent in travel, partieularly under eongested conditions, Orange County win 'experienee a deterioration in air quality, and an increase in energy . 'consumed. Benefits The principal benefits of implementing the Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment plnr~ are: Dramatic reductions in traffic congestion, partie,,]--!y dur~ rush hours. o Substantial saving in hours of time spent in congestion, and commensurate flananeial savings to Orange County residents and employers. o Reduetious in average travel times. o Increases in travel speeds, n11owing us to move as freely In the future as do today. Reduced costs foe vehicle m~,~tenanee and operation on improved local streets and roads. Modern, more efficient transit aee~_~_ to our employment and activity centers to complement capacity provided by our streets and highways. Strengthening of the eounty~ economy through preservation of ~_~sting businesses, coupled with continued ability to attract new bustn~ and investment o Creation of thousands of new jobs in construetiom o Increased accessibility for workers to their jobs. o Increased ease in the ability to transport goods and commodities. Tmpl'ovements in .iP quality, alld reduced energy consumption. Ability to respond to growth and e~ in the future, beyond a .fifteen-year horizon. Each of these benefits is significant in its own right Even a conservative estimate of the monetary savings accruing to Orange County residents as a result of the implementation of the Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan amounts to over $6.2 billion (escAlAted dollars), including reductions in the number of hours a day spent in delay and lower out-of-pocket costs for maintaining vehicles that operate on the local streets and roads. It is no surprise that over the next fifteen years, more Orange County residents will be spending more hours traveling, with a greater percentage of that travel time spent in congestion. During the afternoon peak travel period alone, the proportion of time spent on congested or severely congested roadways will be four times what it is today if much needed investments in our transportation system are not made. Implementation of the Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan will dramatically improve this situation. In the absence of the Fifteen-Year Plan, and assuming that only those projects presently capable of being f'manced through existing sources were implemented, Orange County residents and workers will experience significantly more hours per day delayed in congestion. This has a very high cost During peak travel times alone, over the next fifteen-years the number of persen-hours of delay experienced on our roads will increase over 500%. Through the implementation the projects included in the Fifteen-Year Transportation investment P~, county residents will benefit from a 35% drop in the number of hours of delay experienced each day. Assuming a savings of over 122,000 person hours of delay per day after completion of All projects, and assuming conservatively that a portion of those benefits begin to accrue only after the fifth year of the program, the cost savings to residents and employers over the fifteen-year period amounts to almost $2.0 billion (1983 dollars) and $3.9 billion (in escalated dollars). In other words, without the added local revenues provided through the sales tax and without completion of the projects included in the plan, county residents would have paid $3.9 billion in the form of lost wages, excessive service and delivery costs, and wasted IAhOr time, due solely to the tremendous increase in hours of delay cocuring on a daily basis. A complete diseussion of the methodology and assumptions used in this analysis is found in Appendix D. -26- Another aspect of the plan which offers significant savings to the pubUe results from a reduction in eosts for maintenance and up-keep of vehicles operating over the county's network of local streets and roads. The Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan, with its 20% tutnbaek of funds to the cities and the County for local transportation improvements, will greatly improve the condition of Orange County's streets and roads. On a cost per vehicle mile basis, the reduction in cost to Orange County motorists for vehiele maintenance and operation that could occur is estimated at five cents a mile. In the eoutse of a single day, over 18 million vehicle miles of travel oeeut on the local streets and roads alone (exelucling freeways and other types of facilities). If the plan and its local revenues brought about improvement to only b~]~' of the system incrementally by the end of the plan period, a total of $2.3 billion would be saved by the public in the form of reduced out-of pocket costs for vehicle maintenance and operation. (Again, full discussion of the methodology used in this analysis is contained in Appendix D.) Compared to the $5 bil]~on (in escalated dollars) that county residents would pay in local sales tax monies over the fifteen year period~ the combined savings to the public from reduced costs for vehicle maintenance and from reductions in. delay is $6.2 billion. This represents a net savings of $1.9. billion. Additional effects of implementing the projects in the Fifteen-Year Transportation investment Plan are reductions in travel time~ and commensurate increases in average travel speeds. As indicated in Figure 8 there would be a significant deterioration in average travel .speeds on out freeways and major artar]~l-~ without ~ompletion of the program of projects included in the plan. On out freeways alone, reduced speeds would increase the time required to make an equivalent trip today by more than 5096. The Fifteen-Year Investment PIRu will AllOW us to keep moving. Average speeds on out freeways and major arterfR]-~ will ganer~]ly be on a par with today's. Compared to conditions without the plan, we will achieve a 44% increase in average freeway speed and a 20% Increase in average speed on out major arteri-l-~. Even the Santa Ana Freeway will keep moving. -27- Improvements in Av~r~~~ Tr~v~! Sl~~~c~ Without Plan 16 MPH With Plan 23 MPH. Freeways .o - Major Arterials Without Plan 22 MPH -..~,.. .. ..-,,.: ? il· With Plan 27 MPfl . , I~ & Commuter Roads Derived from Santa AM 111/mport~lon Corridor tr~ml cllmlnd model data. FIcjurea are for the attemo~n peak period in the y~r 20~0. * Associated with the increase in average travel speeds, accessibility and mobility to a choice of opportunities for work and recreation wi]/ be preserved in the future. Compared to conditions without the Investment Plan, Orange County residents will be acoessible to opportunities over a 44% broader a~ea~ Conversely~ residents could select the same work and recreation leeation choices that they do now, and reach them in 44% less time. This s~me effect would be t~ue for Orange County employers seeking to preserve access to a pool of skied ]~hor. The Investment Plan will ~l.~o improve aeeessibiUty and mobility by providing travel capacity on buses, raft transit, commuter rail, and special transportation sawices for the eldarly and handicapped, to complement that offered on our streets and highways. As Orange County's key activity and employment centers continue to grow (in fact, double their size) over the next fifteen years, some 10-15% of the trips going to these locations will be made on transit. In some locations, the proportion of such trips will approach 20%. The dramatic redueti°ns in vehicle miles and hours of travel and in hours of congestion, coupled with inereasas In vehicle operating speeds will also result in significant improvements in air quAllty throughout the County, as well as reductions in energy consumption. Compared to conditions without the plan, emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons would be expected to decline on the order of 1096. These emissions are dependent on speed and vehicle miles of travel Emissions of sulfur ox/des and total suspended particulates, which are generally proportional to reductions /n vehicle m/les of travel, are expected to decline some 3%. Bmissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) would be expee, ted to remain constant NOx emissions tend to increase with speed and decrease with vehicle miles of travel, and these two effects together would tend to offset each other. In summary, then, the overall effect of the plan in terms of air quality and energy consumption is expected to be highly positive. A final benefit of the Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan relates to continued opportunity for growth in the Orange County economy. The accessibility and mobility gains afforded by the plan will help county businesses to remain competitive in the marketplace. Further, the direct infusion of milllons of new construction dollars into the local area will encourage additional sales and expenditures, creating a multiplier effect that will be felt regionwide. 'APPENDICES -30- APPENDLX A OR.A~NGH COUiNTY TRA~NSPORTATIOM CO~SII~$IO~N ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION F~Twm~-YEAR TRANSPORTATION ~ PLAN December 12, 1983 1055 North Main. Suite 516 , Santa ~ CA 92701 · (714) 834-7581 ]TTI']IODU~ON The recent'enactment of state legislation has given Orange County voters the opportunity to solve the county's most serious transportation problems by approving a sales tax increase earmarked strictly for transportation improvements in Orange County. Senate Bill 693 (Chapter 1320, Statutes of 1983) by Senator william Campbell gives the Orar~e County Trensportation Commission the authority to ask Orange County voters if they ace w~l~ng to t~ themselves an additional 196 sales tax to help pay for a specific transportation plan desi~,med to relieve today's congestion and assure tomowow's, mobility. The sales tax inc~eese would go into effect only if approved by at least a major~t~ of the voters end would, remain in effect for 15 years. The Commission will ~ Orange County residents to cas~ their votes on a 1% transportation sales tax on June 5, 1984. This Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan lays out what the additional sales t~ would help pay for - a specific Ust. ing of highway, street, road, end transit improvements needed to keep us moving. The plan has been developed pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 1320, Statutes of I983 and constitutes the expenditure plan called for in Section 130406 of the Public Utilities Code. The Fifteen-Year. Transportation Investment Plan is designed to relieve current traffic .congestion, upgrade our tranSpOrtation system to urban standards anc~ provide for future mobility. It will put in place a transportation system that works, one that provides Orange County residents with the means of getting to and from work, shopping, recreation, and entertainment activities. It will provide a. sound foundation on which the eountyWs economic and employment strength will continue to prosper and grow. It will preserve and sustain the high quAllty of life that we currently enjoy. TRis will be aeeomplMhed through improvements to existing freeways, construction of major new ~oadways, improvements to the arterial and local street system, and the development of alternatives to the single-occupant automobile through construction of a rail transit system, improvements to the bus system, and greater emphasis on ridesharing. Soundw~ll~ and l~dseaping will accompany these improvements. The overall goal of the plan is to provide safe and efficient transportation to keep people and goods moving; and to assure that transportation improvements are built in an environmentally sensitive way. The p!~n is structured to provide a b_~l~nced transportation system which is compatible with p~esent and future land uses. It will increase the avsil~_hility Of transportation services for all segments of the county's population, including all income levels and age groups. It will provide for a countywide transportation system which blends well with and complements the transportation system of the cities and the adjacent counties. The plan minimizes right-of-way acquisition, preserving as many businesses and residences as possible. THE PLAN The Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan includes projections of revenues and expenditures for maintenance, operations and capital outlay in four categories .of projects: Highways Local. Transportation Improvements Countywide Discretionary Program Transit. It represents a eommitment to implement solutions to Orange County's severe transportation problems. The capital outlRy projects oontained in the investment plan are capable of being completed or substantJ-]ly completed within the fifteen-year period, from fisoai year 1984-85 to fi.seal year 1998-99. Implementation' of the Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan is contingent upon adoption of a one. percent sales tax increase in Orange County solely for transportation purposes for a period of 15 years. In ~ll instances, the sales tax is used to make up the difference When other transportation revenue sources are insuffieient~ Some transportation improvements need little or no saIes tax while others cannot be implemented without a local revenue source such es a sales tax. The plan shows the Commission's eommitment to continue to press for a fair and equitable share of ~ll existi~ revenue sources available for transportation, usin~ the sales tax to supplement these funds where they.fAll short of Our needs. ~ Without the sales tax, there will not be sufficient.revenues to implement the projects contAir~ed in the investment plA~ For example, in the highway program alone, we would be unable to complete both the widening of the Santa Aha Freeway and the extension of the Costa Mesa Freeway. Also, e~i-~ting local resources will not be enough to cover adequate arterial street maintenanoe, which estimates show will cost $465 milllon over the next fifteen years. Deficits also exist in the transit program. A rail transit system cannot be built in Orange County without sales tax revenues. To make up these deficits, the investment plan applies the new one [~ercent sales tax revenues in the following way: Category Percent / Highways. 50 Local Transportation Improvements 20 Countywide Discretionary Program 10 Transit 20 The sales tax will generate approximately $5 billion in 15 years, which represents approximately forty pereent of total expenditures contained in the Investment Plan. All investment earnings generated by investment of the sales tax revenue will be apportioned to each appropriate category (interest on the highway account will stay with the highway account, interest on the transit portion will remain in the transit portion). PRO~BCT D~U~TI~?NB AND COOT~ The fo~ eat~o~ of ~e F~teen-Ye~ ~ov~fion ~v~tment P~ ~e H~hways, L~ ~r~fion ~provemen~, Co~de D~eretion~ Pr~ ~d ~a~i~ ~e projee~ eont~!a~ in ea~ eat~o~ ~e ~mm~z~ below. Cos~ ~e p~vid~ M 1983 do11A~ ~d ~t~ dn11~ ~t~ do~A~ ~e c~c-1At~ b~ on ~e ph~ of p~jeet =o=~e~on ~d ~ed ~flon rat~ over ~e period of ~e p~ glGHWAYS The Highway category ~ont~ins three components: (1) Improvements to Existing Freeways and .Highways, (2) New Freeways, and (3) Operations and Maintenanoe. The improvements are described by route number, name and type of improvement Fifty percent of the SB693 sales tax revenues are Allocated to the Highway category. Project Description Total Bstimated Cost ($ Thousands) 1983 Cost Escalated Cost (1) IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING FREEWAYS AND HIGHWAYS I-5 Santa Aha Freeway 594,000 From Route 405 to. Route 605, reconstruct and widen from six lanes to eight lanes f,,n design standard, including modification and reeonstruetion of overerossings and interehar~es as requirecl, soundwAns and landscaping. Reconstruct the I-5/Route 55 Interohange to upgraded, modem design standard. 80,100 58,700 1-405 San Diego Freeway From Route 5 to Route 605, widen from eight to ten lanes including reconstruction of overerossings and tnterohanges, soundwAll-~ and landscaping. Route 22 Garden Grove Freeway 72,000 From Route 405 to Route 55, widen from six lanes to eight lanes medium design standard, including reconstruction of overerossings and interchanges as required, sotmdw~11-~ and landscaping. Route 55 Newport/Costa Mesa Freeway 97,700 From Route 405 to Route 91, widen from six lanes to eight lanes full standard design, including auxiliary lanes, reconstruction of overerossings and interchanges, soundwA11s and landscaping. 1,247,000 107,200 79,600 181,000 186,000 Project Description Route 57 Orange Freeway From Route 5 to Tonnet Canyon Road, widen from eight lanes to ten lanes medium design standard, including overerossings and interchanges as required, landscaping and soundwA~l~. Route 91 Riverside Freeway From Coyote Creek Bridge to Weir Canyon Road, widen from six leges to eight ]Rnes medium design standard, including reconstruction of interchanges and overcrossings as required, soundwn11.~ and landscaping. Route 1 Pacific Coast Highway From MaeArthur Boulevard to San Gabriel River, widen to six lanes. Route 39 Beach Boulevard From Route 72 (Whittier Boulevard) to Route 1, construct grade separations or widen at seven intersections, interconnect and coordinate, signals, restripe and widen to eight l~es. : Route 74 Ortega Highway In and near the City of San Juan Capistrano, widen to primary highway' standards from Route 5 to La Novia and to secondary highway standards from La Novia to La Pats. Route 90 Imperial Highway From State College Boulevard to Yorba LInda Boulevard, widen to'six lane major highway standard; from Yorba Linda Boulevard to Route 91, widen four lane freeway to six lanes; from Berry Street to Randolph, widen to six {R,~e major highway standard. Route 133 Laguna Canyon Road From Canyon Acres Drive in the City of Laguna Beach to Route 405, widen from two lanes to four lanes, including realignment at Big Bend curve, with rustic landscaping. Total Improvements to Existing Freeways and Highways Total Estimated Cost ($ Thousands) 1983 Cost EseR!_~ted Cost 73,000 145,200 64,000 156,900 40,500 53,700 29,600 52,600 3,400 5,200 29,600 55,800 13~400 19~400 1,156,000 2,289,600 Project Description (2) '~N;w FR1;EWAYS Total Estimated Cost ($ Thousands) 1983 Cost EseAlnted Cost Route 65 Costa Mesa Freeway Extension From Bristol Street*to Route 1, construct new six lane freeway with a newinte~ehange at Route 1. Route 57/Route 73 Orange Freeway Gap Closure On Route 67 from present terminus at Route 5 to Route 405, construct new, six lane freeway with connector to Route 73, including interchanges and - overerossings with local streets. Eastern Cort'idor Freeway Construct a new four lane freeway ffrom Route 91 to Route 5. Foothill corridor Freeway Construct a new four lane freeway from the Eastern Corridor Bxprassway to Route $ neat the Orange County line. San Joaquin H/Us Freeway From MaeAvthur Boulevard to Avery Parkway and Juntpero Serra Road at I-5, construct a new six to ten lane freeway with a transit median. Total New Freeways (3) HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS 96,000 157,600 500,000 1,268,900 103,700 . 236,900 156,500 354,800 402~100 771}?00 1,258,300 2,779,900 Maintain and operate 250 miles of highways in Orange County. TOTAL HIGHWAY ELEMENT Capital Outlay Maintenance and Operations 169:000 207~000 2,414,300 5,069,500 169,000 207,000 2,583,300 5;276,500 -5- Project Description LOCAL THANEPORTATION n~PROYEMF.1C~ (CITIES AiqD C OUI~'TY) The loe~ ~portation improvemen~ eatego~ ~eludes m~te~ee, opera~o~ ~d eapi~ ou~y for loe~ s~ee~ ~d roa~, ~e~l~, bicycle ~d ped~i~ faeffiSes ~d o~er p~e ~ortafion improvemen~ identified by ~e ei~ ~d eo~ which ~e e~ble ~dar ~iele- X~ of ~e S~te Co~titu~on. ~endtur~ ~ ~ eatego~ ~e W be f~d~ by a t~aek of twen~ pe~ent of ~ ~es t~ revenu~ to each ei~ ~d ~e eo~W by pop~om ~e revenu~ ~e ~ addition W revenu~ reeeiv~ by ~e cities ~d co~ from e~ ~e~ ~eh ~ state g~ t~ s~venfio~, gener~ f~. ~d private developer eon~butio~ ~e cities ~d co~ may e~end s~es t~ revenu~ r~eived ~der ~ eat~o~ for non-A~ie~ ~ tr~rtation p~s~~ wi~ ~e prior renew ~d ~prov~ of ~e Commhsiom Total Estimated Cost ($ Thousands) 1983 Cost Escalated Cost 1,840,700 2,446,000 COUlqTYWIDE DI~3RETIOlqARY PROGRAM This pro, am is a countywide discretionary fundin~ pro, am to be administered by the Orange County Transportation Commission. This pre. ram is avniIRble on a competUve, project merit basis. Eligible projects are improvements of county-wide significance ineludir~: arterial street improvements; multi-city signal interconnects; railroad grade separations; capital projects contributing to the mobility of the elderly and the handicapped; commuter rail capital improvements; ridesharing; and other eligible public transportation improvements. This program is independent of the Arterial Highway Financing Program sponsored by the County of Orange. The OCTC discretionary program is to be funded by Federal-Aid Urban (FAU) funds and allocation of 10 percent of the new sales tax revenues. However, when a project is fi,ny financed with sales tax revenue, it will not be subject to the FAU review process. 415,000 644,000 Project Daseription The trans/t component is sized to finance construction and maintenance of a-38.3 mile rapid transit project in central Orange County. The Orange County Transportation Commission has neither approved the specifies of this project nor committed to a specific technology in this transportation corridor. However, because of the ex/sting and forecasted population densities in this area, as well as the inability of roads, freeways, or other conventional methods to deal with this transportation ~tress in this area, the Commission antic/patas construction of a rap,id transit project. This component is sized to reflect the best thinking awilable on the nature of the central County project, but i~ is s~ll subject to final review and approval. In addition to the sales tax revenue, the OCTD-zponsored project anticipates the costs of a rapid transit-system to be partially underwritten by developer contributions, some form of benefit assessment di-~triet, and state and federal grants. As with all projects in the Transportation Investment Plan, ~11 environmental documentation must be complete, approvals of the AltarnaUvas Analysis studies for. the Santa Aha Transportation Corridor by the Urban Mass Transit Administration and the C~lifornia Transportation Commission must be obtained, public hearings must be held, and all other funding sources must be secured before construction do~la~ will be released for this project. Additionally, the Orange County Transpoetation Commission will decide on the preferred alternative in the Alternatives Analysis only after the Commission holds a public hearing. Total Estimated Cost ($ Thousands) 1983 Cost Esealate'd Cost -7- Project Description TRANSIT (Continued) The Transit category contains two ~omponents: (1) Bus, and (2) Rapid Transit. Twenty percent of the SB 893 sales tax revenues are ~lloeatad to the Transit ~ategory. (1) BUS Operation, maintenance, and capital improvements for Orange County Transit District and Lnguna Beach Munleipal Bus Lines bus transit systems. Bus Capital Bus Maintenance and Operations Total Bus (2)RAPID TRANSIT Construction, operation and maintenance of a new, 38.3 mile single track Light rail guideway system consisting of an east-west line between Buena Park and Santa Arm and an elevated north-south line between Fullerton and Ivvine. Rapid Transit Capital Rapid Transit Maintenance and Operations Total Rapid Transit Total Estimated Cost ($ Thousands) 1983 Cost Escalated Cost 158,000 270,100 1,316,400 2,473,900 1,474,400 2,744,000 762,000 1,218,500 91,500 176,500 853~500 1,395,000 TOTAL TRANSIT ELEMENT Capital Outlay Maintenance and Operations 920,000 1,488,600 1,407,900 2,650,400 2,327,900 4,139,000 -8- l*fft::n-Year Transportation Investment Financial Summary AppHeation and Use of Sales Tax Eevenues - (Escalated $ Thousands) Category Highways Local Transportation Improvements (Cities and County) Countywide Dise~eUonavy P~o~am Transit Total Amo~t ~,516,000 1,006,000 503,000 1,006,000 5,031,000. Percent of Total Sales Tax 50 2O 10 2O 100 % -9- Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan Finar~is! Summary Revenue Statement (Escalated $ Thousands) Highway Revenues State Highway Account Private Sector Contributions Sales Tax Subtotal Highway Revenues Amount 1,471,000 828,000 2,516,000 Total 4,815,000 Local Revenues State Gas Tax Subventions Local General Funds Sales Tax Subtotal Local Revenues 800,000 840,000 1,006,000 2,446,000 Countywide Discretionary ProL~ram Federal Aid Urban Sales Tax Subtotal Arterial System Revenues 141,000 503~000 644,000 Transit Revenues Federal Capital Grants State Capital Grants Federal Operating Grants State Operating Grants Local Sources for Operations Private Sector Contributions Sales Tax Subtotal Transit Revenues 485,300 107,300 192,500 104,700 2,061,600 31,800 1,006,000 3,989,200 Total Revenues Interest on Investment of Sales Tax 11,894,200 734,000 Grand Total Revenues 12,628,200 -10- Fifteen-Year Tnueq~rtation Investment Plan l~inane/~ .~wn mm.y ~enditure Statement (Escalated $ Thousands) Highways Improvements to F. xistin~ Freeways and Highways New Freeways. Maintenance and Operations Subtotal Highways Amount 2,289,600 2,779,900 207,000 Total 5,2?6,500 Local Trar~vortation Improvements (Cities and County_) Local Capit~l Improvements, Maintenance and Operations 2,446,000 Countywide Discretionary Pro.~ram. Countywide Transportation Inprovements 644,000 Transit Bus Capital Bus Maintenance and Operations Bus Total Rapid Transit Capital Rapid Transit Ma/ntenanee and Operations Rapid Transit Total 270,100 2,473,900 1,218,500 176~500 2,744,000 1,395,000 Grand Total Expenditures 12,505,500 -11- AMENDMENT PROCF. DURI~ Tl{e Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan is a commitment to build the improvements contained in the plan. The Plan can only be changed under a limited set of circumstances prescribed by law. For example, the plan may only be changed to provide for the use of additional federal, state and local funds, to account for unexpected revenues, or to take into consideration unforseen circumstances. Any proposed change in the plan must be agreed to by the County Board of Supervisors and city councils. The amendment procedure requires all of the following: The Commission must notify, in writing, the' Board of Supervisors and all city councils within the county of any proposed changes. The proposed changes become effective 45 days after notification unless the Board of Supervisors or city councils representing 25% or more of the cities in the county obje~ If an objection is registered, the Commission may try to override the objection by presenting the proposed change formally to the Board of Supervisors and all cities for their approval The change would then become effective only after a public hearing, and only if approved by the Board of Supervisors and at least a majority of the Orange County cities representing at least 50%. of the county's incorporated area population. The Commission is ~lso prohibited by law from proposing the elimination of a project located entirely within a city or the County unincorporated area without the consent of the local elected officiate. This rigorous process b~lAnces the public commitment to implement a specific voter- approved transportation plan with the need for some flexibility to respond to changing transportation priorities and needs. -12- APPENDIX B o~n~ or to another ~ or entit7 m the manner an~ moject to suc~, reservations, conditions, covenants or other contzscn~l e~,ngementsjp, provea by the cc~mi~ as wOl pr___,~e~ve_ the scenic eharscter or beeuty ot me eren DIVISION 3. APPORTIONMENT AND EXP~DITURE OF HIGHWAY FUNDS C~,~ 3. HI--AY USEP. S TAX ACCOt;~'T ~100. The Highwey Usen Tax Fund ts continued in _~_~t~ce as the Ei~hw~y Users Tax A~nt tn the Tnmsport~on T~x Fund. Any .r~.ee in ~ny ¼w or regul~ion to the Highway Users Tax Fund .sh~Lbe deemed to re,er to the Hi~w-~y Us~s Tax Account in the Trmsport~on ~ax Fund. Ap.wop~/~#on ~01. All motmys in the Hi~w~y Users Tax AcCount in I~e. Tr .aFts~orta..tion' T.~ Fmsd and h~m~er received in the ~.nt are at~ropr~tect mr a~ of the following:. · (n) T~e resenrch, planning, conet~uet~m, improvement, mnintenence, a~.d operation of public streets ~ highways (md ~.eir releted pubUc .~c.~it~es for nonmntol~z~'~ I:r'a/~c), incluc[hlg the miUption ot their env~-onmentet e.~.~, ts, !he payment for p~_ pe~7 t~ken or d,q.m~ed.~or such purposes, and the ed.,ninisrrat~ve costs neeessa~ly incurred in the ~oregomg pur~nes. (b) The research and plenmn.' $ for exclu?e public ~ their related fixed fecflit~es), ~e payment tot propen7 purpose~ md the ~tin~t~,~five costs nece~__~y incurred tn the fore$omg APPORTIONMI=NT OF F~ND5 (c) The construction and improvement of exclusive public mass guidoways (and their related flxed Facilities), including the mitigation environmental effects, the payment for property taken or damaged f, p~ the administrative costs neoessarily incurred in the t~oregoing pt and tim maintenance of the structures and the immediate right-of-way public ma-, transit guidoways, but exclutt!~g the m~!,~tenance and operati inr m~,, transit power p/stems and r~** uansit passenger faciliti~, v equipment, and service, in any area where the voters thereof have app proposition purmant to Section 4 of' Article XIX of the C'~l!t~orriia Corlsti (d) Tha payment of principal and interest on voter-approved bonds ~ tl~ purpot~ specified in subdivision (c). 210~. Net revenue derived from 'a tax means the amount of revenue from a tax that is deposited into the Highway Users Tax Account Transpomtion Tax Fund. 2103. At least ~0 percent of the balance deposited to the credit of the 1 Users Tax Account in the Transportation Tax Fund by the lith day of eacl shall be apporiioned by. the State Controller by the second working day tht as provided for in Seciions 2104 to ~ inclusive. If information is not to make the apportionment as-required, the apportionment shall he rnad~ b~ of the information of the previous month. ,Sanounts not apportioned incluck, d in the xp .portionment of the subsequent month. 2104.. A sum equal to the net revenue derived £rom 1.6~.5 cents (~0.01~ gallon tax under the Motor Vehicle Fuel License Tax Law/Part 2 (com~ with Section ?il01) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code),: hundred thousand dollars ($500,000~ annually, and an additional forty-ont dotlars (~41,000,000) during the 1982-83 risc-al year, shall be apportioner (a) Each county shell be paid one tho,,t~,~d six hundred sixty-sever ($1,667) during each calendar month, which amount shall be expended exi fro' engineering costs and. administrative exper~e~ with respect to count (b) A mm equal to ~e total of all reimbursable mow removal co pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 2152, or two r~illiun dollars whichever is less, shall be apportioned in 12 approximately equal , apportionments for snow removal on county roads, as provided in Secti (c) A sum equal to five hundred thousand dollars ~$500,000) ~ apportioned in 12 approximately equal monthly apportionments, a.s pro Section (d) Seventy. five percent of the t'unds payable under this section apportioned among the counties monthly in the respective proportions number of tee-paid and exempt vehicles which are registered in each cour to the total number of fee-paid and exempt vehicles registered in the s · F, .or,purl?o~,,,,,es of apportionment under fl-lis subdivision, the Del~artmen~ ve~icies snali, ~ soon as potable after the last Friday of each calenda~ finnish to the Contro[ler a verified statement showing the number of fee-, exempt vehicles which are registered in each county and in the state as o Friday of each calendar month as reflected by the records of the Depar~ Motor Vehicles. APPENDLX C ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SALES TAX AUTHORIZATION BILL SUMMARY SB 693 (Campbell), enacted on September 30, 1983, authorizes the Orange County Transportation Commission to place a countywide sales tax of up to I percent for transportation purposes on the ballot for voter consideration. The bill becomes effective on January 1, 1984. The major provisions of the bm are summarized below: Allows the Orange County Transportation Commission from January 1, 1984 to January 1, 1986 to c,l] an election and, with majority voter a~proval, enact a sales tax of '1/4, 1/2, 3/4, or 1 percent for a specified length of time with the proceeds to be allocated by the Commission for transportation purposes. The sales tax proceeds could be ,]located to all types of transportation purposes, exclusive of transit operations, including the construction and maintenance of .street/road, highway, transit and passenger 'rail improvements. Before an election is held, the Commission with the approval of the county and at les.st a majority of the cities must adopt a fifteen year expenditure plan of transportation improvements to be funded by the sales tax proceeds and state, federal and local revenues. The expenditure pl-,~ is to be developed by the Commission with the assistance of the county, the cities, pubUe transit operators, Caltrans, and the public. Public hearings must be held prior to its adoption. The expenditure plan must include annual alloeat/ons of a portion of the sales tax to the cities and the county for local transportation projects to be. used Lq addition to funds currently dedicated to transportation needs. Provision is made for updating the expenditure plan if additional state, federal or local revenues become available or other unforseen eireumstanees occur. If a sales tax is adopted, the Commission must prepare an annual report on progress made in implementing the expenditure plan. The Comm!a~ion may issue "limited tax bonds" payable solely from the sales tax proceeds. An act to add and repeal Article 9 (commencing with Section 130400) to Chapter 4 of Division 12 of the Public U~liti~s Code, and to ~rnend and r~,al Section 715~- of the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to transportation. (Beem~ hw without C. ov~r~or's sismmr~ Fded with Sec~,ets~ o~ St~te October 1, LEGISLATIVE COUN~EL'~ DIGEST SB 693, C-~mpbelL Orange ~ T~~on (1) Un~ ~g ~w, ~- ~-~t ~c~ ~e ~ffio~ ~o ~ r~il ~o~om ~d ~ ~ ~r ~e Tr=n~dcfiom ~ bffi ~d aurae ~ ~se ~ T~m~on hw, ff m~ to ~e el~to~ ~ore D~r 31. 1~, a mjo~ ~ te e~n vo~ app~ve ~d · ~e co~o~ ~e ~ wo~d ~ au~o~e ~e ~on to ~e revenue ~n~ s~ ~ ~ ~ to r~d ~ ~n~ ~ r~ ~ ~d ~ ~ ~nd ~on not~ ~e ~ wo~d p~ ~or ~me~gm~t to ~ ~n~e p~ repo~ on ~e bffi ~d ~me op~ve o~y · ~ ~ ~ e~t~ ~d ~ o~ve, ~ w~ ~e ~ bffi wo~d ~me ope~ve on ~e o~ve ~e of ~ ~. ~d ~ ~ ~e Rev~ue ~d T~on C~e r~e r~b~ lo~ age~ ~d s~l ~c~ for ~t~ by ~e rote. O~ pro.om r~e ~ Dep~ ~ent of ~ ~ ~r ~g c~ to ~e S~te B~d o~ ~n~ol ~or r~b~menL ~ bffi wo~d ~ a s~t~t~ loc~ p~ by ~ O~e Co~ ~o cond~ ~i el~om However, ~e ~ ~d pro.de that no appropm~on Tie people o£ ~e State o£ Califorzz~ do ea~ct as tbiloms.. SECTION 1. Art/cie g (commencing with Section 130400) is added to Chapter 4 of Division li of the Public Utilities Code, to read: Article 9. Trnnsaction and Use Taxes in the County of Orange 130400. As used in this article: (a) "Commission" means the county transportation commission created in Orange County pursuant to Section 130000. (b) "County" me~n~ the County o£ Orange~ (c) ~'Transit operations" means all activities related to operating a transit system other ~ the purchase, construction, and r~intenance o£ equipment, vehicles, and £acilities for public trmuit purposes. 130400.5. The Legislature, by the 'enactment o£ ~ article, intends the county and cities therein to use any additional fi~nds provided them by ~hl, article to mpplement existing local revenues being used for public transportation purposes. The county and the cities therein are further encouraged to m~in~i,~ their existing commitment ot: local funds for public transportation purpose~ 130401. A retail transactions and use tax ordinance applicable in the incorporated and ~incorporated territory o£ the county may be adopted by the coriamis~ion in aocorr~ce with Section 130410 and Part 1.6 (commencing with .Section ?t51) of Division ~. o£ the Revenue and Taxation Code, ii: a m~jority o£ the electors voting on the measure vote to approve its imposition at a special election called for that purpose by the col~mis~ion and an expenditure: plan is adopted pursuant to Section 18.0406. 13040~. The commission, in the ordinance, shall state the nature oE the tax to be imposed, shall provide the tax rate or rates or the mawlrm~m tax rate or rate~, and shall $peci~ the purposes for which the revenue derived from the tax will be used. 130403. (a) The County of Orange ah,i! conduct the special election called by the commi_*gon pursuant to Section 130401, and the comr~is~on shall reimburse the county f~r its cost in conducting the special election. (b) The special election shall l~e called and conducted in the same manner as provided by law for the conduct o£ special elections by a 130404.. (a) Any transactions and use tax ordinance adopted pursuant to ~hi, article shall be operative on the Rrst day of the first calev~t-- quarter commencing more than 1~) days after adoption o£ the ordinance. (b) Prior to the operative date of the ordinance, the commisrion shall contract with the State Board o£ Eqn~li~tion to'perform all {unctions incident to the a8mlni~cration and operation oi: the orr]inance. 130405. The revenues from the taxes imposed pursuant to this article may be allocated'by the commi*~ion for public tr~nrportation purposes, including, but not limited to, consi~'uction, maintenance, and operation o£ streets, roach, and highways, and the construction and ~-~enanee ofpublic tr~,,-~t systema, inclu,ti-$ exclua/ve public ma~ transit guideway systems, available now or hereafter. The r~,enue~, may aho be used/or improvements to the state highway system in the m---er otherwise provided by law. However, the revelMles ~_hail not be allocated for tr~-~t operations. 130406. (a) If the commission dec/des to adopt a retail transactions and use tax purs~-t to ~hi~ art/cie, the COmrnlsvion shall review and assess the needs for the public transportation purposes spec/Heal in Section 130405: A~ part o£ this rev/ew and ~,_,a~aznent, the con~mi~t~ion sh~i! soltc/t proposals for public transportation purposes /rom the Detau~uent of Transportation, the county, and the cities therein, and all public trans/t operator~ within the county. The commt~ion shall adopt a procedure/or evaluatin$ these proposals in consultation with the Department of Tr~-.e.0ortation, the county, and the cit/es ther~/n, and all public tr~n,~t operators wi~htn the county. (b) Based on the evaluation, the commi~on shall prepare a plan for the expend/ture of the revenues expected to be derived From the tax provided for in this att/cie, together with other federaL, state, and local funds expected to be av-il~te. For tr~-eportation improvements, for a period of 15 yea~. (c) The expenditure plan shall include projectiom o£ revenues and 8.1tpell~ ~Cor c~pit~J, m~iflt~l~llC~, and Ol::lt"l~OI1S pllrpose$ /or categories of trampormtion facilities, ine..ltlflln~, but not limited to, freeways, arterial roads, local streets and roacts, and (d) The co~m~i,~on shall not adopt the expenditure plan until it has received the approval of the board of mpervison and the city eo-n~h representing both a m~.~ority of the cities in the county and a m_e./or/ty of the population res/ding/n incorporated areas o£ the county. Before adoption of an expencT/ture plan, the commie,/on sha~l ah° c°nduct public h peap~Z~S~lan sl~llthat Plan' (e) The expenditure be Finally adopted prior to the call of the election provided for in Section 1130401. An ameo~lrnent to the expenditure plan subject to protest pursuant to paragraph (3) subdivision (c) of Section la040T shall be /inally adopted by the comnfiss~o' n after approval of the board of supervisors and the c/ties as spedHed in ehls section and public hearings on the amendments, and the amendment is e/~ective upon eh~t final adoption by the 130407. {a) The cowmle~ion may annually review and propose amendments to the expenditure plan adopted purmant to Section 130406 to provide.for the use d additional federal state, and local /unds, to account for unexpected revenues, or to take into consideration -n~oreseen circumstances. (b) The commi.m'on shall notify the board d supervisors and the c/ty c~mc/l o/each city in the county and provide them with a copy d the proposed amendments. (c) The proposed amendments shall become et~ective 45 days 9~ 110 Ch. 13110 ~4-- a/ter notice is ~iven purs-~nt to subdivision (b) except as/ollows: (1) I/ the proposed amendment deletes a project which is included in the original adopted expenditure plan and which is located entirely within a city, the proposed amendment shall become effective only if the city council o£ the affected city, by resolution, Concurs with the deletion oS the project. (2) If the proposed amendment deletes a project which is included in the original adopted expenditure plan and which located entirely in the unincorporated area of the county, the proposed amendment ~h~li become effective only ff the board of mpervisors, by resolution, concurs with the deletion of the project. (3) In all cases other than those set forth in paragraphs (i) and (2), the proposed amendment shall become effective u-less the board of supervisors, or city councils representing 25 percent of the cities in the county, adopt a resolution protesting the proposed amendments. If protested, the proposed -mendments sb,ll become effective only ff the commission follows the approval procedure in subdivision (d) of Section 130406. 130408. The expenditure plan adopted pursuant to Section 130406, and any amendment adopted pursuant to Section 130407, sl~l! include a provision for an annual allocation of funds to the county and the cities therein for public transportation purposes. In maldng alLrlual allocations to the eoullty and the cities therein~. the cowmi-~'ion may allocate the proceeds o£ any limited tax bonds authorized by the vote~ purs~nt to. Section 13041Z 130409. An ~mended expenditure plan adopted pursuant to Section 130407 may include a provision to reduce a tax rate to percentages lower tla~n that approved by the voters and ma), further provide/or an increase ~f the tax rate if it has previously been lowered; but the tax rate may not be increased to a rate above the tax rate approved by the voters. Any revised tax rate may be adopted only it: the com~i~ion determines, by a two-thirds vote, that the proc~.ads o£ the taxes with the altered tax rate will be sufficient to provide for the payment oS principal and interest of any limited tax bonds and any other indebtedness incurred by the com~r~i,~ion which Was to be payable from the proceeds oS the ree=i! 130409.5. If a retail transactions and use tax is adopted pursuant to ~hls article, the commission sh~li prepare and submit a report to the Department of Transportation, to the board of mpervisors, to the city council oS each city in the county, and to each public t~ansit operator wib~in the County on or before Janua.ry i OS the }'esi- /ollowing the end o{ the F~x~i full Fiscal year a/ter the date that the taxes are imposed pursuant to this article and ann,~lly therea/ter. The report shall evaluate, and report the progress made in, the implementation oS the expenditure plan in the preceding fiscal year. 130410. (a) The commission is authorized to impose a maximum tax rate oS 1 percent under this article and Part 1.6 (c.ommencing Ch. 1310 with Section 7~i) o£ Division i o£ the Revenue and Taxation Code, and the commie|on ~lay state the max/mum tax rate in te~..~.~ o£ not to exceed I percent, or any lesser percentage theceo£ The cor-mi-~ion shall not levy the tax at a rate other fl~n~ 1 percent or %, ~ or ~ .d I percent, ,,.nl~ ~ed/:/c~dly authorized by the Legislature. (b) The ~ommi~ion, ill ~ ordil~glce, ~hnl! provide for |irnitations upon the ~me when the tax shall be in effect. Any tax rate or maximum tax rate adopted pursuant to this article, unless otherwise prohibited, may be increased when authorized by the com~i-~ion by ordinance adopted in the t~nnner and by the vote stated in Section 13041)1 and approved by a majority of the electors vo_H_n$ on the measure at an election called/or that purpose by the ~304~L (a) The acm&i wor~n~ o~ the propc~un on any sbort form o£ bz~]ot cra-d, ]~:~e~, or other dm~ce, regzu~]~ o~ ~e system of voting used. ,h,,,|! reod as follows: TRANSPORTATION-ORANGE COUNTY TP, ANSPORTATION COMMISSION To improve, expand, construct, maintain, and operate the transportation system in the count'y, ti'ds proposition authorizes the Orange County Transportation Cornmi,,ian to adopt a . . percent sales tax solely for trnn~portation purpoSeS. ¸NO (b) The proposition shall set forth the actual percent of the trnns~tions and use tax upon which the electors are votin$. (c) The sample ballot to be mulled to the voters, under Section 10010 of the F_Jections Code, shall be the full proposition as set forth in the oret~n~,.C~ e.~lllng the election. 13041P, The cornmim'on may, as part d the s~me ballot proposition to approve the knposit/on ola retail trnn~actions and use tax, seek authorization to issue bonds payable solely .from the proceeds oithe retnil tramactions and use tax. The maxinium bonded indebtedness wE|ch may be author/zed shall be an amount equal to the su~ of the principal and/nterest on the bonds not to exceed the est/mated proceeds o£ the retail transactions and use tax for a period of 30 years. The actual word|ns o£ the proposition on any short form of ballot card, label, or other device, regardless o£ the system o£ voting used, shall read as follows: Ch 13~0 -- 6-- TRANSPORTATION-ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION To improve, expand, construct, maintain, and YES operate the tr~_~_,q~ortation system in the county, proposition authorizes the- Orange County Transportation Commission to adopt a percent sales tax solely for tr~n~ortation purposes and/or to issue bonds payable from the proceeds o£ NO that sales ~ 130413. The commission may further, as part of the same proposition, submit to the voters a proposal to increase any appropriations limits heretofore imposed upon the commission by the amount of the proceeds of the sales tax not entitled to an exemption from those limits as debt service. In this ease, the ballot proposition shall, in addition to the lansuage set forth in Sections 130411 and 130412, further include the following words: "and increases the appropriations limit." 130420. (a) The bonds authorized by the voters concurrently With the approval of the re~il transactions and use tax may be issued by the comln/ssion at 'any time, and from time to time, payable solely from the proceeds of the .tax. The bonds shall be re/erred' to as "limited tax bonds." (b) The pledse of retail transactions and use taxes to the limited tax bonds authorized under this article shall have priority over the use of any o£ the funds for "pay-as-you-go" financing except to the extent that that priority is expressly restricted in the resolution providing for the issuance o£ the bonds. 1304,!1. (a) lJmlted tax bonds shall be issued pur~_~nt to a resolution adopted at any time, and from time to time, by the cornmission by a two. thirds vote of all members of the co~mlssion. Each resolution shall provide for the iss,,~nce of bonds in such amounts ~ the necessity therefor may appear, until the full amount of the bond/authorized shall have been issued. The full amount of bonds may be divided into two or more series and di~erent dates of payment Fixed for the bonds o£ each series. A bond need not mature on its anniversary date. (b) A resolution providing for the issuance of bonds shall state all of the £ollowin$: (1) The purposes for which the proposed debt is to be incurred, which may include all costs and estimated costs incidental to or connected with the accomplishment of those purposes, including, without limitation, engineering, inspection, legal, ,fiscal agents, financial consultant and other fees, bond and other reserve funds, 9~ ~tO worldng capital, bond interest estimated to accrue during the co,~--~ction period and For a period not to exceed three years therea/ter~ and expenses of all proeeedin~s for the authorization, issuance, and sale oi the bonds. (il) The est/mated cost of accomplishln~ the purposes. (3) The ~mount d the principal of the indebtedness. (4) The maxim-m te,~a the bonds, proposed to be issued, shnll nm before rnatur/ty, which sb~ll not exceed 31 year~ from the date thereo/or the date o/each series thereo£ (5) The max/mum rate of interest to be pa/d, which shall not exceed the m_~m,,m allowable by law. (6) The denominalion or denomlnations of the bonds, which shall not be less than/lye, thousand dollars (I~5,000). (7) The form of the bonds, inclu,ti,~g, without l/xnitat/on, resisterod bonds and coupon bonds, to the extent permitted by federal law, and the form of any coupons to be ittached thereto, the re~stration, conversion, and ex*-h~n~e privlleSes, i~ any, pert. aining thereto, and the time when the whole or any pa~t of the principal ,h~il become due and payable. lc) The resolution may also conL~in any other matters authorized by h~is article or any other law. 1304~ (a) The bonds shall bear interest at a rate or rates not exce~in~ the m~.im~m allowable by law, . payable serlni~nro~lly, except that the Fu-st interest payable on the bonds or an}, series thereof may be for any period not exceeding one year as dete~ i,,ined by the commi~/on. (b) In the resolution or resolutiOns provi~ling ~or the hsuance of the bonds, the comm/ssion may also provide for call and redemption of the bonds prior to maturit~ at such times and prices and upon such other t=,.'.-.~ as it mey spec~, provided that no bond sh~]! be subject to call or redemption prior to ma~urit~ unless it conta/~ a recital to that e~ect or un~ess a statement to fl~at ei~ect is printed thereon. (c)- The principal of and interest on the bonds shall be payable in law/ul money of the Umted $~ates at the oi~ice o/the treasurer of the Count~ of Oranse or at tach other place or places as may be d_~__'~ated, or at either place or places at the option of the holders of the bonds. (d) The bond.~, or each series thereof, shall be dated and v,,mbered consecutively and shall he sisned by the cb~ ~n or vice ch~i~nan of the comm/~on and the auditor-control]er of the Count~ o£ Orange, and the o//icial seal of the comm/ssion at~achec~ The interest coupons o£ such bonds shall be si~ned b~ the auditor-controller of the County of Orange~ Al] of the signatures and seal may be printed, litho~raphed, or meoh~ically reproduced, except ~t one of the signatures on the bonds shal] be manually a/Fn'ed. I/any oi~/cer whose signature appears on bonds or coupons cex~s to be such an o//icer before the del/very of the bonds, the o/~/cer's signature is as e(/'ecfive as i/the of~/cer had remained in Ch. 13~0 ~ $ ~ o~ce. 130423.-(a) The bonds may .be s01d as the commission determines by resolution. The comrni~/on may sell the bonds at a price below par; provided, however, that the discount on any bonds so sold shall not exceed ~ percent of the par value ~hereof. (b) Before selling the bonds, or any part thereof, the commission shall give notice inviting sealed bids in any manner as it may prescribe. J/satisfactory bids are received, the bonds offered £or sale shall be awarded to the highest responsible bidder. If no bids are' received, or if the cornm~s~ion determines that the bids received are not satidactory as to price or responsihilit7 o£ the bidders, the commission may reject all bids received, if any, and e~ther readvertise or sell the bonds at private sale. 130424. Delivery o£ any bonds may be made at any. place either inside or outside the state, and the purchase price may be received in cash or bank credits. 130495. All accrued interest and preminms received on the sale of bonds ~h~ll be placed in the fund to be used £or the payment of principal of and interest on the bonds and the remainder o£ the proceeds of the bonds shall be placed in the treasury o£ the commission and applied to secure the bonds or £or the purposes £or which the debt was incurred; provided, however, that when the purposes have been acCOmplished, any moneys remaining shall be either (a) transferred to the.fund to be used £or the payment of principal o£ and interest on the bonds or (b) plabed in a fund to be used for the purch~.se of outstanding bonds o£ the commission from time to time in the open market at such prices and in tach manner, either at public or private sale or otherw/se, as the comm/ssion may dete,~xine. Bonds so purchased shall be canceled imme~i=~ely. 130430. (a) The commission may provide £or the is~o,~ce, sale, or exchange o£ refunding bonds to redeem or retire any bonds issued by the commission upon the tei'~l~s, at the tinles and/ri the mallrler which it dete,~,,irtes. (b) l~efunding bonds may be issued in a principal amount sufficient to pay all, or any part of, the principal of' the outstanding bonds, the preminms, if any, due upon call and redemption thereof prior to maturity, all expenses o£ the refunrli~, and either (a). the interest upon the ref~,mding bonds from the date o£ sale thereof to the date of payment of the bonds to be re£unded ~ut o£ the proceeds o£ the sale o£ the refunding bonds, or to the date upon which the bonds to be re/traded will be paid pursuant to call or a~reement w/th the holder~ of such bonds or (b) the interest upon the bonds to be refunded./rom the date o£ sale o£ the refunding bonds to the date o£ payment of the bonds to be re£unded or to the date upon which the bonds to be refunded w/il be paid pursuant to call or a~reement with the holders of the bonds. (c) The provisions o£ tiffs article for the issuance and sale of bonds apply to the issuance and sale of ref~.mding bonds.- 1304,35. (a) The co~__mi~ion may borrow money in ant/c/pat/on o/the sale of bonds which have been authorized pursuant to this art/cie, but which have not been sold and delivered, and m_ay issue helot/able bond anticipation notes there/or and may renew the bond ant/c/pat/on notes from t/me to t/me, but the max/mum matur/W of any bond anticipation notes, includin~ the renewals thereof, shall not exceed Bve years from the date of delivery of the original bond anticipation notes. (b) The bond antic/pat/on notes, and the interest thereon, may be pa/d /rom any moneys o£ the. comm/ssion ava/lable therefor, including the revenues/rom the retail tr'an-sact/ons and use taxes imposed pursuant to this art/cie. Ii'not previonsiy otherwise pa/d, the bond antic/pat/on notes, or any portion thereo£, or the interest thereon, sh~il be pa/d from the proceeds o£ the next sale of the bonds of the c'ommi~ion hi anfidpat/on of which the notes were/ssued. (e) The bond antic/pat/on notes shnll not be issued in any remount /n excess of the a~re~ate amount o/bonds which the comm/~on has been authorized to issue, less the amount e/ any bonds o£ the authorized issue previously sold, and also less the amount d other bond ant/c/pat/on notes there/or issued and then outstanding. The .bond anticipat/on notes shall be issued' and sold in the same ~- ~he bond~ (d) The bond ant/c/pat/on notes and the resolution or resolutions author/TinS. them may conta/n any provisions, cond/tions, or ]imitations which a resolut/on of the convair-s/on auth0ri~in$ the i.ssttance o£ bonds l~lay copt-/n. 130440. Any bonds which shall be issued under the provisions th/s article shall be lesal investment for all trust/unds; for the/unds o/' insurance companies, co~merc/al and sav/uss hank.m, and trust companie~ and for state school/onds; and whenever any money or /unds may, by any Law uow or herea/ter e_n__~eted, be invested in bonds o£ c/ties, cities and counties, count/es, sahoo{ districts, or other districts within the state, that money or fmmds may be invested in the bonds i~ued under fhi~ a~cie,, and whenever bonds o£ c/t/es, tit/es and count/es, count/es, school districts, or other districts within chis state may, by any law now or herea/ter enacted, be used as security for the per/ormance of any act or the/{epos/t o£ any public moneys, the bonds issued under ~ article m~y be so used. '13~e provisior,~ m. his az't/cie shall be in addition to all other laws reLal/ng to legal investments and shall be c0ntrollin~ as the latest e.rpression of the Legislature with respect thereto. 130441. Any act/on or proceedin$ wherein the validity of the adopt/on of the retail transactions and use tax ordinance provided for in flmis article or the issuance e/any bonds thereunder or any e/the proceedin~ in relation thereto is contested, questioned, or denied, sh~{i be commenced v~ithin six months from the date of the election at which the ordinance is approved; other~ise, the bonds and .ail proceedin~ in relation thereto, includini{ the adoption and approval Of the ordinance, shall be held to 5e valid and in ever5' respect legal and incontestable. 13044~ If the measure to adopt the transaction and use tax purmant to Section 130401 is not submitted to the electors on or before December 31,198,5, then ~ article shall remain in elect only until January 1, 1986, and as of that date is repealed unless a later enacted statute, which is chaptered before January 1, 1986, repeals or extends that date. SEC. ~ Section 7252. of the Revenue and Taxation Code is amended to read: 72~2. "District," as used in this part, means any gounty, transit district, or rapid transit district authorized, or the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission or the Orange County Transportation Commission ii' authorized, to impose transaction and use taxes pursuant to this part. If the measure to adopt the transaction and use tax pursuant to Section 130401 of the Public Utilities Code is not submitted to the electors of the County of Orange on or before December 31, 1985, then this section shall remain in effect only until lanuary 1, 1986, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, which is enacted before January 1,-1986, deletes or extenc~ that date. If that date is not deleted or extended, then, on and afh,r January 1, 1986, pursuant to Section 9611 of the Government God~, Section 7252 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, as amended by Section 11 of Chapter 652 of the Statutes of 1977, shall have the same force and effect as if this temporary provision had 'not been enacted. SEC. 3. This bill shall become.operative only i .' Assembly Bill 465 of the 198,3-84 ttegular Session of the Legislatme is enacted and becomes operative, in which case this bill shall become operative on the operative date of Assembly Bill 465. SEC..4. No appropriation is made and no reimbursement is required by this act pur~,~r~t to SeCtion .6 of Article XlII B of the California Constitution or Section 2131 or 2234 of the ltevenue and Taxation Code because this act is in accordance with the request of a local agency or school district which desired legislative authority to carry out the program specified in this act. 9'2 310 APPENDIX D A~MPTIOI~ U~-r~ IN ~ COMPUTATION OF PERSONAL AND BUSINESS BENEFITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO REDUCTIONS IN DELAY This analysis ,-e~umes that reductions in hours of delay occur only during the morning and evening peak periods, and uses travel model - derived computations of changes in vehicle hours of delay per day durin~ the evening peak period as its base. Assuming continued growth in pop,,1Ation, employment, and trip-maki~, with no commensurate increase in transportation system ea@aeity, Orange County would experience over 186,000 vehicle-hours of delay per day during the evening peak period alone; including the same level of congestion over the somewhat shorter morning peak period there would be a total of roughly 310,000 vehicle hours of delay experienced per day without an expansion of capacit~y beyond, that achievable with eurcent revenue sources (essentially, widening of I-5 and 1-405, 5/55 Interchange, Route 55 extension, and selected arterial improvements). If all projects in the Fifteen-Year Transportation Luvestment Plan were implemented, vehicle-hours of delay per day would drop to 125,200 in the evening and 209,100 All day, representing a reduction of 3396 in vehicle-hours of delay. To estimate the value of the. ehan~e in vehicle-hours of delay in terms of personal time and dollar savings, assumptions must be made about trip purpose, vehicle occupancy rates, value of time, and number of days per year that the change would be in effect. It is assumed that 8096 of the vehicle mileage during the peak periods is work-~elated and 2096 is discretionary travel (that is, shorter tripe for personal business, shogping, and such). Assuming an average vehicle occupancy of 1.18 persons per vehicle for work tripe and 1.3 for d~scretionary travel, the total number of person-hours of delay saved per day is over 19.2,000. Attributing a median value of time of $7.72 per hour to the work-related trips (representing the median wage rate per worker in 1980 do]lAys) and $2.57 per hour to the discretionary trips (or one-third of the wage rate), and assuming 255 work days per year, it is possible to compute the value of the improvements in terms of personal and business savings. Consistent with county trends, a 2.296 annual ~rowth rate in real income is assumed over the fifteen-year period. It is also necessary to make assumptions about the timing within which the effects of the projects included in the Investment Plan begin to be felt. This analysis conservatively assumes that the effects of the plan do not begin to be realized until the fifth year of the pro,am. It further assumes that the schedule for realization of benefits over the life of the program would lag behind implementation of the projects. The following sohedule has been assumed: Years Plan is in Effect 96 Reduction in Delay Achieved 1-4 5-6 20% 7-8 33% 9-10 45% 11-12 67% 13-14 85% 15 100% Thus, the full benefits of the platt are not assumed until the 1A.~t year of the plan period. In reality, the benefits of the p!au could accrue sooner, and at a faster rate. II. REDUCTION IN VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING COSTS This analysis assumes that cost savings result from operating vehicles over a better maintained network of local streets, and roads. Based on travel model output, over 18 million vehicle miles of travel take place on the local streets and roads on a d~!ly basis, 365 days a year. It is conservatively assumed that the added revenues returned to the cities and county for local needs throu&h the Fifteen-Year Investment Plan will allow for improvements to 50% of the local road system that would not have been possible otherwise. It is further assumed that benefits from the local Investment will first begin to accrue in the third year of the progTam (maintenance improvements can be implemented more quickly than new facilities), at which point one-third of the effect will beg~n to be noticed. At the tenth year of the program, two thirds of the benefits are assumed to accrue, and the full effect of the improvement is not assumed to' occur until the thirteenth year of the program. An out-of-pocket variable cost for vehicle maintenance and operation of five cents per vehicle mile (1983 dollars) has been assumed. This cost is assumed to escalate with inflation at 696 per year over the fifteen years of the program. WORKSNR~T Ft;R COMPUTATION OF ANNUAL Dr.~UAY RP/DUCTION PROJECTED DA~LY VEHICLE HOURS OF DELAY WITHOUT THE PLAN PROJECTED DAmY VEHICLE HOURS OF DELAY WITH THE PLAN REDUCTION IN DAH.Y VEHICLE HOURS OF DELAY X 96 Of Work Helated Travel Work Related Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay Reduced X Vehicle Occupancy. Rate (Work Related) Work Related D~ly Person Hours of Delay Reduced X Median Hourly Wage Rate1 $ Value of Person Hours of Delay Heduced Per Day (Work Related) X 96 Of Non-Work Related Travel Non-Work Related Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay Reduced X Vehicle Oeeu[~aney Rate (Non-Work Related) Non. Work Eelated D.~!y Parson Hours of Delay Reduced X Yalue of Non-Work Time 1 $ Value of Parson Hours of Delay Reduced Per Day (Non-Work Related) Total $ Value of Person Hours of Delay Reduced Per Day X Number of Work Days Per Year Total $ Value of Person Hours of Delay Reduced Per Year 1 These values are expressed in both constant (1983) dollars adjusted annually for ~rowth in real income, and in ese~!-ted dollars adjusted for inflation. WE)RK~N~T FOR COMPUTATION OF ANNUAL VEHICLE M~r~I'ENANCE AND OPERATING COST SAVINGS ANNUAL VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED ON LOCAL STREETS X % of Local System Improved Annual Vehicle Miles Travelled over Improved Local Streets X Out of Pocket Cost Savings Per Mile1 Total Annual Vehicle Maintenance and Operating C~t Savings 1 This is expressed in escalated dollars adjusted annually for inflation. ARTHUR YOUNG & COMPANY SUITE 90O 3200 PARK CENTER DRIVE P. O. BOX 2410 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 i714) 850-9500 December 16, 1983 Mr. Stan Oftelie Executive Director Orange County Transportation Commission 1055 North Main Street Santa Ann, California 92701 Dear Mr. Oftelie: Arthur Young is pleased to present the results of our study of possible effects of a sales tax increase on retail sales within Orange County. As described in 'our engagement letter of November 30, 1983, we agreed to conduct a limited study to: Describe the provisions of the state tax regulations regarding the conditions under which sales and use taxes are applied and how the regulations would apply to sellers and buyers in Orange and neighboring ,coun- ties. Identify and describe some of the impacts that sales tax increases have had in other California counties that have chosen to increase the sales tax above the statewide rate. To accomplish the project objectives.we: Researched applicable California tax laws and regula- tions issued by the State Board of Equalization. Contacted agencies and organizations that may have conducted research on the impact of sales tax increases on automobile and other higher priced goods. Among the organizations we contacted were: December 16, 1983 Mr. Start Oftelie page 9. - The State Board of Equalization, - R.L. Polk R Company, - Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, Chambers of Commerce for Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Jose, and San Francisco, Merchant associations including: the Los Angeles Center City Association, the Northern California Car Dealers Association, California Mart, and the Los Angeles Taxpayers Association, and - Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART). Contacted selected Los Angeles, Orange, and Bay Area retailers in the automobile and furniture markets to inquire about their perceptions of the effect .of the ' sales tax, their familiarity with applicable State Board of Equalization regulations, and their actual collection practices. Researched and reviewed available literature covering theory and case studies of the impact of sales tax increases on retail sales and tax revenues. Our findings are~presented in the remainder of this report. A. BACKGROUND Consideration is being given to a one percent increase in the sales tax in Orange County for use in public transportation projects for the county. Questions have been raised about the impact of this additional tax on retail sales. For example, some merchants are concerned about consumers who may "border hop" to surrounding counties in an effort to avoid the incremental tax. Sales tax programs similar to the one proposed by OCTC have previously been implemented in five areas within the state. In each of these areas an additional one-half of one percent of sales tax is in effect. The resulting revenues to the regional transportation authorities in each of the five areas for fiscal year 1982-83 were as follows: December 16, 1983 Mr. Start Oftelie page 3 AUTHORITY BART REVENUE RESULTING FROM 1/2 CENT SALES TAX INCREMENT FISCAL. YEAR 1982 - 1983 Santa Clara County $102,907,000 Santa Cruz Metorpolitan $ 53,652,000 San Nateo $ 5,487,000 Los Angeles County $ 14,853,000 B. APP ROA CH $172,486,000 In our review of the application of the tax to sellers and buyers-we reviewed the regulations that apply to Los Angeles County and discussed'them with State BoArd of Equalization officials. Our findings in that area assume that similar regulations would apply to Orange County. Our review of the effect of the tax increase on sales is based Rrincipally on the following data: S~ate Board of Equalization data on taxable sales by county, city, and type of business for the quarter preceding and subsequent to the Los Angeles County tax increase. R. L. Polk & Company data on new passenger car regis- trations in Southern California for the six months prior and subsequent to the July 1, 1982 implementation of an additional one-half percent sales tax in Los Angeles County. Phone survey data collected by our staff on Los Angeles and Bmy Area merchants' understanding and experience with the sales ~ax implementation A review of the current body of theoretical and case literature covering sales tax differentials. December 16, 1983 Mr. Stan Oftelie page 4 Ce FINDINGS REGARDING REGULATIONS FOR APPLICATION OF THE ADDITIONAL TAX The issue we addressed in this area was the regulations applicable to buyers and sellers in imposing and collecting the additional one percent tax. We addressed the issue by examining the application of the one-half percent additional sales and use tax presently imposed in Los Angeles County and analyzing how it might apply to a similar tax proposed for Orange County. In order to determine when the seller would be obligated to collect the sales or use tax, it is necessary to determine when each tax would apply in a particular transaction. The additional sales tax would apply to all sales of tangible personal property in the taxing Jurisdiction where state sales'tax is applicable. One exception to this is if the goods were to be used outside the taxing district and the buyer took possession of the goods outside the taxing district. In general, use tax applie~ if the sale is cons-mm-ted in a non taxing district and the property is purchased for use in a taxing district. When the seller outside of a taxing district is also engaged in business in a taxing district, he is required to collect and remit the use tax if the buyer takes possession of the goods within a taxing district. The buyer is required to report and pay the use tax if he takes possession of the goods within a taxing district. The buyer is required to report and pay the use tax if he takes possession of the goods within a non taxing district and brings the goods into a taxing district for use in that district. It should be noted that the sales tax or the use tax applies, not both. Assuming the experience with the Los Angeles sales tax would apply to. Orange County, the additional Orange County sales and use tax would occur if taxable personal property were purchased for use in a taxing district from a retailer. However, certain questions need to be answered in each set of circumstances to determine whether the seller is obli- gated to collect the district sales or use tax. These questions are: December 16, 1983 Mr. Start Oftelie page 5 Is the sales contract consummated within the County? Are the goods to be used within the County? Does the buyer take possession of the goods within the County? Does the seller have business operations or participate in a sale in the County? The outcome applicable to each set of circumstances would vary with the response to these questions. For example if the pro- perty were purchased for use in the taxing district (i.e., Orange County) from a retailer outside the district, the use tax would apply· When the retailer also has operations within the County and delivers the property to the user in the taxing district, the retailer must collect the use tax. Otherwise, the purchaser is responsible for payment of the tax. Neither the seller nor the buyer'would be required to report and pay sales' or use tax if .the goods were to be used outside of a taxing district and the buyer took possession of the goods outside the taxing district. These examples are based upon procedures presently used in Los Angeles County to impose, collect and remit the additional one- half percent sales and use tax. It is presumed that Orange County would adopt similar procedures if the sales and use tax were to be approved here· D. FINDINGS REGARDING EFFECT ON SALES The information regarding possible effec~ on sales of a tax increase is presented below by source information. Board of Equalization The available data showing taxable sales in California allowed for analysis by county market share and by border city market share of retail sales. In the first analysis Los Angeles market share for nine business types is compared to the market, share for Orange and Riverside Counties for the second and fourth quarters of 1982. A s,,mmary of this analysis is presented in Exhibit 1. December~18, 1983 Mr. Stan Oftelie page 6 The data shows a decrease in Los Angeles County's market share in the apparel, general merchandise, specialty shop, automobile, and other categories and an increase in the food and drink, building material, and business service categories. The second analysis compares the Los Angeles and Orange County border city market shares on total taxable sales for the second and fourth quarters of 1982. A Summary of this analysis is presented in Exhibit 2. In this study the data shows an overall net increase in Los Angeles County market share of .76~ over the period studied with three of the seven cities in Los Angeles County increasing their shares. 2. R.L. Polk The R. L. Polk data on new auto registrations indicate a small drop in market share after the sales tax imple- mentation in Los Angeles County on July 1, 19S2. .In our analysis we compared ~os Angeles County to the surrounding counties of Orange, Riverside, San Bernar- dino, and Ventura. Our findings are s,,mmarized in Exhibit S. Exhibit 3 shows a .829 drop in the number of new cars registered in Los Angeles County as a portion of all new car registrations in the five county area in the second half of 1982 as compared to the first half. Care should be used in interpreting these figures in that factors other than the sales tax increase may have effects on market share, e.g., openings and closings of dealerships. 3. Telephone survey In addition to our review of sales data, we conducted a limited telephone survey to determine the level of understanding that retailers have about the changes in tax laws, the level of cooperation in enforcing the tax, and the impact on retail sales due to the tax. We spoke to automobile dealers and furniture retailers in Santa Clara, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties. In addition we contacted officials at the State Board of Equalization. Included in our findings were that: December 16,.1983 ' Mr. Stan Oftelie page 7 Retailers we contacted in the Bay Area do not like the added tax but feel that it has little to no effect on sales. One auto dealer felt that more people go to Oregon which has no sales taX, to avoid the tax altogether rather than going to surrounding California counties. It appears from talking with the Bay Area retailers that they have a good understanding of the application of the sales tax. Several retailers that we spoke with have been collecting the tax for five or more years and were aware of the procedures for out-of-county sales and of the State Board of Equalization's procedures for following up on these sales. The Los Angeles automobile dealers surveyed felt that they were losing sales due to the increased sales tax. One 'dealer said that he knew of customers who had'shopped at his lot and then crossed the border to buy. Furniture retailers surveyed felt that they had not lost sales from the tax. One department store executive said that furniture, is purchased on convenience not price. L'os Angeles County retailers were less educated in the applicat ion of the tax on out-of-county residents than those in the Bay Area. Many felt that they were required to collect the additional one-half percent on all sales. Orange County retailers surveyed had little under- standing of the tax laws. Every merchant we spoke with was willing to charge Los Angeles County residents six percent rather than the required 6 1/2 . Representatives from the State Board of Equaliza- tion expressed no opinion on the effect of regional sales tax differentials. Literature review We conducted a limited review of literature regarding the effects of sales tax differentials on revenue. One of the articles we reviewed was "Local Sales Taxes: Tax Rate Differentials, Sales Loss, and Revenue December 16, 1983 Mr. Stan Oftelie page 8 Estimation" by Ronald C. Fischer which was published in vol,,me 8 number 2 of Public Finance Quarterly pages 171-188. I n his art ic le Fischer discusses the derivation of a model which evaluates local sales tax differentials. He then cites evidence from a case study conducted in the District of Columbia. Among the points Fischer makes in his article are: · Theoretical evaluation shows that local tax rates do affect sales locations. Fischer's argument concludes that tax. rate differences are likely to be important in consumers' decisions about where to shop. Previous studies cited by Fischer indicate that for each one percent increase in sales tax there is a corresponding decrease of about six percent in taxable sales. Attrition of sales revenue can be controlled to a certain extent as demonstrated in the case study of the District of Colm,mbia. The other literature we reveiwed was generally suppor- tive of Fischer's findings. Due to the limited nature of our review, however, we do not draw any conclusions regarding scholars' findings on this subject. SUMMARY Our analyis of retail sales in Orange and Los Angeles County border cities before and after the sales tax increase in Los Angeles County in July 1982 shows that the Los Angeles County cities, in fact, gained in overall market share. Since the border areas are where migration of sales would seem most likely to occur, this finding appears to indicate that the impact of the tax increase may not be substantial. The data also shows that factors other than the sales tax rate may have a more significant effect on sales. For example, the opening of a new car sales center in Cerritos substantially increased that city's market sh~re of auto sales. However, new car registration and retail sales data show that Los Angeles County's overall share of the five county market area sales decreased slightly after the tax increase was implemented. December 16, 1983 Mr. Stan Oftelie page 9 Actual regulations applicable to Orange County will not be adopted until a tax increase is approved. Assuming that those regulations would be similar to those in Los Angeles County, it will be important for County and OCTC officials to educate merchants'regarding the application of the tax increase in order to insure maximum revenues. We appreciate the opportunity to assist the Orange County Transportation Commission with this project. If you have any questions regarding this report or if we may be of any assis- tance, please contact Larry Seigel at (714) 850-9500. Very truly yours,