HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.01 TriVlyTranspDevFee
.
.
.
...
'.
..
lJi
CITY CLERK
File # D[@~(2]-~[Q]
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCil MEETING DATE: June 29, 1998
SUBJECT:
Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee JPA
Report by: Lee Thompson, Public Works Director
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1. Letter from Supervisor Donna Gerber, dated
June 24, 1998 and suggested pledge
2. Draft Resolution Pledging to Continue the
Collection of TV1D Fee Pursuant to the TVTD
JEPA
RECOMMENDA nON: ~pt Resolution Pledging to Continue the Collection of
TVTD Fee Pursuant to the TV1D JEPA
FINANCIAL
STATEMENT:
None
DESCRIPTION: On May 5, 1998, the Council adopted a resolution approving the "Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement Pertaining to Tri- Valley Transportation Development Fees for Traffic :Mitigation"
(JEP A). On June 2, 1998, the Council adopted a resolution approving several changes to the JEP A,
including language which would allow any party a one-time option to opt out ofthe 1EP A during a 30-day
period. The "opt out" language was requested by the City of Livermore.
Since that date, Contra Costa County's representative to the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (Chair of
the TVTC expressing concerns with the recent changes made to the JEP A In particular, Supervisor Gerber
expressed concern that more than one party could opt out of the 1EPA and not collect the fee. (Exhibit 1.)
Supervisor Gerber's letter requests that the other parties to the JEP A adopt a resolution pledging not to
exercise the option to opt out of the 1EP A If six of the jurisdictions adopt such a resolution, including
Contra Costa County, the County will consider the 1EP A in its current form (with the "opt out" language).
A draft resolution (Exhibit 2) is attached for the Council's approval. The resolution was prepared by the
City Attorney based on the sample resolution provided by Contra Costa County. The City Attorney has
made only slight modifications to the resolution prepared by Contra Costa County. It is the City
Attorney's opinion that the legal effect ofthis resolution will be to state the Council's current intention; it
-will not bind this Council or any future Council from withdrawing from the JEP A and tenninating the fee_
It is, in effect, a political, not a legal statement.
Staff recommends that the Council adopt the draft resolution (Exhibit 2),
EHS:Jj.
J :\WPD\MNRSW\114\OI \AGENDA \1 998\T\"ID1P A629
-----------
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO. ~
..
(,
.
.'
.
309 Diablo Road
oanvUle. CaRfomia 94526
(510) 820-8683
F/JJ( (510) B2O-6627
Contra Costa Cowrty
Board of Supervi$Ors
DoNNA GERBER
DISTRICTI,..-eM8OA
June 24, 1998
Ms. Sharre1l Michelotti.
TVTC Chair
P.O.Box 520
Pleasanton. CA 94566
Dear Ms. Michelotti:
On May 27. 1998. the Tri Valley Transportation Committee adopted amendments to the proposed Join! Exercise
of Powers Agreement (JEP A). allowing panies to "opt out" of the Agreement once the 1-5801I-680 Interchange
project is funded. These amendments changed the nature of the entire Agreement: what was once an instrument
for regional planning and mitigation for development throughout the region could become just a one-project
funding source. with an option to continue once that project is funded.
While we are still committed to regional planning and cooperation, the proposed "opt out" language is a source
of significant concern for Contra Costa County. The Nexus Study. upon which this JEP A is founded, is based
on eleven proposed projects and on all seven jurisdictions participating. If the parties to this JEP A withdraw
from the Agreement after the first project is funded. then the Nexus Study will no longer be applicable, leaving
the parties vulnerable to a legal challenge to the fee. Since Contra Costa County initially would be a "donor"
to this program. we are particularly vulnerable to any legal challenge.
According to our County Counsel. if only one party opts out of the Agreement, the nexus would not be
significantly affected. and the study would still have some validity should it be challenged. Therefore. Contra
Costa County would be willing to enter into this JEPA with the "opt out" language as proposed. provided there
is some assurance that no more than one party will withdraw. Since five jurisdictions approved the JEP A
without the 4<opt out" language, we can assume that the option of withdrawing from the fee program was not
particularly impOItaDt to them. If each of these jurisdictions adopts a separate pledge to continue their
participation in the TVTD Fee program after the first project is funded, then Contra Costa County can agree
to the JEP A in its current form.
A sample pledge is enclosed with this letter. If six panies, including Contra Costa County, adopt such a pledge,
we will accept the current terms of the JEP A. There is still time to pass an ordinance in time to begin collecting
fees by the target date of September 1, 1998. Without these pledges, the County cannot enter into the JEPA
without changes to the text. This may cause significant delays in implementing the fee.
Contra Costa County remains committed to regional planning for the Tri- Valley area. The County had been
ready to enter into the TVTD JEPA before the "opt out" language was adopted and is still willing to enter into
the JEPA, provided that some compromise is reached between the panies to allay the County's concerns. We
hope that each jurisdiction will find this compromise acceptable and that we may go forward in the spirit of
cooperation.
anachment: Pledge to Continue the Collection
Of the TVTD Fee
Exhibit 1
II
PLEDGE TO COl\"TINUE THE COLLECTION OF TVTD FEE
PURSUM7 TO THE TVTD JEP A
,
RECITALS
1.
Tri-VaIley Transportation Development Fee: The Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton,
and San Ramon, the Town of DanviUe, and the Counties of Contra Costa and Alameda
(collectively referred to as "the Parties") are in the process of adopting a Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement (JEP A) to implement a fee on future development for the mitigation of
regional traffic impacts.
.
2. Regional Projects: The Cities and Counties have identified, through the Tri-Valley
Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance, eleven regional
Transportation hnprovement Projects, listed in Section 8 of the JEPA These projects are
designed to help mitigate the regional impacts of forecast development within the Tri- Valley
Development Area The proposed fee is based on the estimated cost of these projects and the
estimated future development expected in the Tri-Valley area. A more detailed basis for1he fee
is outlined in 1he Nexus Study, cited in 1he JEP A.
3. 1-58011-680 Interchange Project:. The Parties have identified the 1-580fl-680 Interchange
project as its fIrst priority, and have agreed to give this project first priority. Only when the
Parties' share of this project is fimded wiIJ the Parties begin to fimd other projects from the list
4.
"Opt-out" Language: At the May 27, 1998 meeting of the Tri- Valley Transportation Council,
the COlmcil agreed to add a second paragraph to Section 18 of the JEP A. ~ting each party a
limited opporttmity to withdraw from the JEP A, with such withdrawal not becoming effective
until the I-580fl-680 Interchange project is fully funded.
.
5. Effect of Withdrawal: The Parties recognize that the withdrawal of more than one party from
the JEP A potentially could affect the Nexus Study and the fee being adopted by the Parties.
However, if only one party withdraws, this is not expected to have any significant effect on
either the Nexus Study or the collection of the fee by the remaining Parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, does hereby pledge to remain a party to the JEPA
and continue collecting fees pursuant to the JEP A until all of the Projects listed in Section 8 have been
fully constructed and/or acquired, the second paragraph of Section 18 of the JEP A notwithstanding.
Further, the TVID Fee shall remain in effect until the Transportation Improvement Projects are fully
constructed and/or acquired.
This pledge shall take effect as soon as six such pledges are adopted by the Councils or Boards of the
respective parties and it shall remain in efect and be binding until such time as the JEP A terminates
pursuant to the first paragraph of Section ] 8 of the JEP A.
Mayor or Board Chair
.
ATTEST:
City Clerk or Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
..
.
RESOLUTION NO. - 98
.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
**************
PLEDGING TO CONTINUE THE COLLECTION OF
TVTD FEE PURSUANT TO THE TVTD JEPA
Recitals
1. . Tri- Valley Transportation Development Fee. The Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton,
. and San Ramon, the Town ofDanville and tP-e Counties of Contra Costa and Alameda (collectively
referred to as "the Parties") are in the process of adopting a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEP A)
to implement a fee on future development for the mitigation of regional traffic impacts.
2. Regional Proiects. The Parties have identified, through the Tri- Valley Transportation
Plan! Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance, eleven regional Transportation Improvement
Projects, listed in Section 8 of the proposed JEP A. These projects are designed to help mitigate the
regional impacts offorecast development within the Tri-Valley area. A more detained basis for the fee is
outlined in the Nexus Study, cited in the JEP A.
3. I-5801I-680 Interchange Proiect. The Parties have identified the I-5801I-680 Interchange
project as the first priority for use of the fee revenues, and have agreed to give this project first priority.
Only when the Parties' share of this project is funded will the Parties begin to fund other projects listed in
Section 8 of the proposed JEPA
.
4. "Opt-out" Language. At the May 27, 1998 meeting of the Tri-Valley Transportation
Council, the Council agreed to add a second paragraph to Section 18 of the 1EPA, enabling any party to
withdraw from the JEP A once the first project, the I-5801I-680 Interchange project, is funded. The City
Council approved such language at its June 2, 1998 meeting.
NOW, TIIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin does hereby pledge to remain a
party to the JEP A and continue collecting fees pursuant to the JEP A until the Projects listed in Section 8 of
the JEP A have been fully constructed and! or acquired, second paragraph of Section 18 of the 1EP A
notwithstanding. Further, it is the Council's intention that the TVTD Fee shall remain in effect until the
Transportation Improvement Projects are fully constructed and/or acquired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 29th day of June, 1998.
AYES:
NOES:
.A.B SENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
K::/G;6- 29- 98/resotvtd. doc
EHS:rja
J:\WPD'J\1NRS\V\114\O J \RESOL\TVTDFJPA616
Exhibit 2