Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 TriVlyTranspDevFee . . -- -- <., CITY CLERK File # D~[2][Q]-[g][Q] AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 20,1997 SUBJECT: Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (TDF) Report Prepared by: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Draft letter to the Chairperson ofthe Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) Letter dated March 12, 1997 from Hermann Welm, Chairperson of the TVTC Draft Resolution to Establish Policy for the Tri-Valley TDF Attachment A) Fee Project List Attachment B) Proposed Fee Schedule Projected Collections of Tri-Valley TDF by the Year 2010 from each Jurisdiction in the Tri-Valley Area Letter from Tri- Valley Business Council 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) RECOMMENDATION: '-' ~ f/ J\f\l2) ~\l Review the draft Resolution and comment Authorize Mayor to sign letter to Herman Welm, Chairperson of the TVTC, as written or as modified, and direct Staff to forward the letter to the TVTC FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Completion of the TDF Study will require an additional $3,000 L;m already budgeted General Fund Engineering Contract Services. This review will have no financial impact on Dublin; however, when the Tri-Valley TDF is instituted, the Fee will generate about $146 million to build needed regional transportation facilities, a large portion of which will be paid by Dublin developers. DESCRIPTION: At its February meeting, the Tri-Vallc.' Transportation Council (TVTC) approved for transmittal to member jurisdictions the proposed draft Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (TDF) and Policy. The purpose ofthe TDF is to produce revenue of approximately $146 million for projects as shown in Attachment A of the Resolution. ------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: Bill van Gelder, TVTC Tac Committee ITEM NO. --8~1 g:agenmisc\tvtcfee Councilman Hermann Welm, Chairperson of the TVTC, is asking that each member jurisdiction review .-c- '.' and identify any fatal flaws in the proposal which will be jointly reviewed by all jurisdictions prior to fina .: recommended adoption (see Exhibit 2). The public workshop held on February 25, 1997, reviewed project need and proposed Fee. The City of Dublin Staff notified all Eastern Dublin property owners and invited them to attend the workshop. The resulting list of projects is shown in Attachment A and the amount of the proposed Tri-Valley TDF is contained in Attachment B of the draft TVTC Resolution. The Tri-Valley TDF, as proposed, would be as follows: $2,582 per single-family dwelling unit $1,555 per multi-family dwelling unit $1.15 per square foot for retail buildings smaller than 200,000 square feet $1.38 per square foot for retail buildings larger than 200,000 square feet, $3.82 per square foot for office buildings $2.78 per square foot for industrial buildings This Fee is projected to generate the following amounts from each jurisdiction by the Year 2010: ESTIMATED TOTAL JURISDICTION CONTRIBUTION % TOTAL AlamolB1 ackhawk $ 2,136,645 1% Danville $ 2,770,371 2% -. . San Ramon ** $ 3,354,678 2% Dougherty $ 23,578,677 16% Tassajara $ 212,211 0% Contra Costa County $ 511,632 0% Dublin $ 47,096,307 32% Pleasanton $ 32,622,354 22% Livermore $ 32,808,402 22% Alameda County $ 924,426 1% . TOTAL $ 146,015,703 100% __ ** Vesting Tentative Maps in the City of San Ramon could generate an additional estimated $3 to $5 million if San Ramon would agree to require Fees of revised vested projects. Two ofthe projects listed for the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee, the 1-580/I-680 Flyover and State Route 84, are also part ofthe Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. If, in the future, the City Council adopts the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee, these two projects will be removed from Dublin's Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. e/. The draft letter to the Chairperson of the Tri- Valley Transportation Council includes the following clarifications and concerns: Page 2 . l) The Fee shows a $10.1 million shortfall for the 1-580/1-680 Flyover project when the shortfall is actually closer to $5.6 million. The $4.5 million difference should go toward other projects on the list on Exhibit 3 Attachment A which are underfunded. 2) The Fee is based on square footage for nonresidential uses. Staff recommends that jurisdictions be given the option of collecting the Fee based on the projected number of average daily trips. This will accommodate developers with projects that do not match any of the categories given on Attachment B of the draft TVTC Resolution. 3) Vesting Tentative Maps which expire or require land use changes should be conditioned for the collection of the Fee. This would not include cosmetic changes, such as landscaping, color of building, etc. 4) Public facilities should be exempt from the Fee. 5) It is anticipated that a member jurisdiction should be designated to administer the collection and disbursement of funds generated by the Fee. Staff is recommending that the City of Dublin offer to provide this service to the TVTC. .. The TVTC is requesting an additional $3,000 from each member jurisdiction for the consultant to complete this project and to solve some of the differences between jurisdictions. The TVTC is also requesting submittal of the name of each jurisdiction's legal counsel who will review legal aspects ofthe Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee. To date, the jurisdictions shown below have taken the following actions. .: JURISDICTION ACTION TAKEN Town of Dan vi lIe Modified Resolution to state that Vesting Tentative Maps and developers with development agreements be exempt from Tri-Valley TDF. Danville wants to keep a portion of Fee for I-680 Auxiliary Lane. San Ramon Modified Resolution to state that Vesting Tentative Maps and developers with development agreements should be exempt from this Tri-Valley TDF. San Ramon wants to keep a portion of Fee for 1-680 Auxiliary Lane. Livermore Basically supported Policy; however, concerned that TDF for Industrial usage is too high. Are hiring consultant to study Industrial rate. Alameda County Not presented yet to Board of Supervisors; however, Alameda County Transportation Committee is supporting Policy. Contra Costa County Modified Resolution to state that Vesting Tentative Maps and developers with development agreements should be exempt from this Tri-Valley TDF. However, the amount that would come from developers with existing Vesting Tentative Maps or agreements should be covered by other funding sources. Pleasanton Went to City Council on May 6th. Representative of City Council will discuss Pleasanton's issues and comments at the next TVTC meeting. --. Page 3 The City has received a statement (Exhibit 5) from the Tri-Valley Business Council (TVB Council) .' expressing their concern that most of the projects for the Tri-Valley TDF are on the list due to existing congestion. The TVB Council feels that future developments should not be paying for existing problems. However, the TVB Council suggests that future developments pay only 10% of the total Tri-Valley TDF. It should be noted that many of the projects are getting funding from other sources and the proportion of the improvements are already a small percentage of the overall projects. For example, the local match of the 1-580/I-680 Flyover is only $10.1 million (of which $4.5 million has already been paid), and this project is, in total, a $120 million dollar project. Staff has prepared the attached draft letter to the TVTC and recommends that Council review the draft letter and draft Resolution, modify if necessary, authorize the Mayor to sign the letter, and direct Staff to send the letter to the Chair of the TVTC. .....'; . . -- .' Page 4 .':' .' .. - - .: 4) May 7, 1997 l{?4;.)~ Councilman Hermann Welm, Chairperson Tri-Valley Transportation Council c/o City of San Ramon 2222 Camino Ramon San Ramon CA 94583 SUBJECT: Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Dear Mr. Welm: The City Council of the City of Dublin would like to congratulate the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) for the development of the draft Transportation Development Fee. Our Council believes that regional cooperation has eased the way to solving future traffic congestion in the Tri-Valleyarea. Dublin is supportive of your Resolution with the recommendation that the TVTC address and clarify the following items: 1) The Fee shows a $10.1 million shortfall for the 1-580/680 Flyover project when the shortfall is actually closer to $5.6 million. The $4.5 million difference should go toward the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station or the 1-680 HOV Lanes, both of which are in need of additional funding. '. 2) The Fee for nonresidential uses is based on Square Footage. The City of Dublin's TIF for nonresidential uses is based on average daily trips. Dublin is requesting that the jurisdictions be given the option of collecting the Fee based on the projected number of daily trips if the use does not fit the categories listed on Attachment B. 3) Vesting Tentative Maps which expire or require land use changes should be conditioned for the collection of the Fee. This would exclude cosmetic alterations, such as changes in landscaping, color of the building, etc. Public facilities should be exempt from this Fee. -._~ ~'~f~J'~IT '-..." P:": ;: > . '?,. J.(i;.~ I?' l(;'i;'-' .'.' ..., \tJl!t 6.. tiWi'" .. l .AI. May 7, 1997 Hermann Welm, TVfC Tri-Valley TDF Page 2. . We are designating our City Attorney, Elizabeth Silver, as our legal representative to review the Joint Exercise Of Power Agreement. It is anticipated that a member jurisdiction will be designated to administer the collection and disbursement of funds generated by the Fee. The City of Dublin hereby offers to provide this service to the TVfC member jurisdictions. Again, I would like to thank the Tri-Valley Transportation Council for the long hours spent on the task of improving the quality of life in the Tri-Valley area. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact my office. Sincerely, GIJY Houston Mayor . . .... GH/LST/mb cc: Bill van Gelder g:\agenmisc\welmltr .' -- . 2 e: Donna Gerber Supervisor Contra Costa County (W) 820-8683 Scott Haggert)' Supervisor Alameda County (W) 272-6691 l\liIlie Greenberg. Councilmember Danville 837-3231 ..u)' Houston ...a)'or , ,::,,:'l1blin (W) 828-3337 (H) 828-2152 Sharrell Michelotti Councilmember Pleasanton (W) 462-2419 Tom Reitter. Councilmember Livermore (W) 422-1468 (H) 443-3326 Hermann Welm. Vice Mayor --.- San Ramon. CA (W) 262-4846 (H) 838-8261 .:: TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL Traffic Engineering P. O. Box 520 - 200 Old Bernal Avenue Pleasanton, CA 94566 March 12, 1997 Tri-Valley Jurisdictions Dear Mayor and Council Members, The attached package is the culmination of many years work by your representatives to Tri-Valley Transportation, Council (TVTC) , your staff representatives and several consultants. We are asking that you one more time confirm your commitment to implementing transportation development fees for regional transportation needs. The attached information is the TVTC recommended projects, proposed fee rates and some overall policy used to guide the drafting of a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (jEPA) to administer the project implementation. The TVTC has held two workshops and public meetings to obtain public comment and specific reaction from the building industry. Their comments have been useful in reshaping the proposal and while the proposal will not be all things to every interest, we believe it moves us reasonably closer to our charge of developing a Tri-Valley Transportation system which can better serve both existing and future development in the Tri-Valley in an equitable fashion. Process Suggested TVTC believes that the most exp~ditious process will require each jurisdiction to review the current proposal and let us know of any fatal flaws which you believe must be corrected for the fee proposal to be acceptable to your jurisdiction. In addition to these comments we also ask that you appoint a legal counsel to assist in developing a common language for the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee ordinance and JEPA agreement to be adopted by all jurisdictions once any needed revisions are determined by consensus. The attached East Contra Costa County Regional Fee and Financing Authority JEPA is a starting point. The third action would be to appropriate an additional $3000 which will be used, if needed, to finalize any further documentation which TVTC and your legal staff believes must be done to implement the fees, ~\,~~::: ~ ~,' 07 ~~'~ i..~ ~. >. ~"', ".s:>., l1i. ~~~i~~~ II 2" March 11, 1997 -2- Given the current accelerated rate of development, we believe that time is of the essence e:, as not on ly is our transportation system showing the signs of overcapacity, but the opportunity to have new development help pay' for their impacts is fast diminishing as we approach buildout in many of our jurisdictions. We suggest that if at all possible you return your comments to us for our April 23, 1997 meeting so that we may resolve any issues presented and be able to return to each Jurisdiction a revised fee proposal for adoption in May, We know that this is an ambitious schedule, however, we also know how things can slip if not diligently pursued. Critical Issues: Projects to be Funded: 1. 2. 1-580/1-680 interchange State Route 84 Jack London to Concannon 1-580 Interchange Vallecitos to 1-680 West DublinlPleasanton BART Station 1-680 HOV Lanes - Route 84 (Highway 84 to Top of Sunol Grade) 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes (Bollinger to Diablo) .' '"\ ,). 4. 5. Fee rate A fee rate has been proposed to accomplish the top five projects. (Table I) It is trip based for land use types. We believe it is the best starting point given the regional nature of our funded facilities, The TVTC has examined the use of AM, PM and average traffic generation rates and recommends the use of the "average". Initial Project Priorities and Cash Flow t While the fee is set to fund all five projects, cash flow and the lack of bonding ability will mandate that the projects be phased over the life of the fee. Land use projections are done to year 2010. The TVTC recommends that the first call for funds be to the 1-58011-680 Flyover, with a second priority jointly to the Isabel Highway 84 Measure "B" local project and completion of the environmental and preliminary design work for the remaining projects. TVTC recommends that no more than 25% of anyone year's revenue should go toward environmental or design activities, which then places the emphasis on construction. Periodic review of fee structure and priority will determine the priority of the remaining projects at a later date when additional information and EIR documents are completed. .' .' e:" ---- - .;" March 11, 1997 -3- Agreement To Seek Additional Funds And Carry Over Any Extra Money To Other Priority Tri-Valley Projects. There are limited avenues to obtain any additiqnal funds for our needed projects. These include sales tax measures and enactment of some new regional or state gas tax. Projections of the likely amount of any such funds available to Tri-Valley indicates that an ongoing Development fee will be required. Our Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan as mutually adopted, should serve as the Tri-Valley's official position on need and allocation of discretionary funds for regional improvements. It is anticipated that even with the development fees that need will outpace our ability to deliver improvements in some areas. Fee Exemptions The handling of projects with existing exemptions is clear cut, however, the modifications of development agreements without requirement to conform to the TVTC Fee Rate is at issue. Another specific exemption, for public facilities, must also be resolved. Agreement to include costs of future Plan updates and fee administration in the fee rate Fee schedules and cost estimates will change over time as will projections of Tri-Valley development an expenditure of 1 % for administration and traffic model updates is recommended. The cost of any administration and Traffic Model update up to 1 % of revenues should be included within the fee schedule. Draft Resolution The draft resolution is provided for review as it contains many of the issues discussed by the TVTe. Other background material is also furnished. We would appreciate comments be as specific as possible as we hope to resolve any fatal flaws quickly and return these documents in their final form after our April 23, 1997 meeting. Sincerely, TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL d-(. Z. WeLrn.p~ Hermann Welm Chair Attachments: Resolution Nexus Study March 1997 .. DRAFT TVTC RESOLUTION TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT FEE POLICY WHEREAS; Each Tri-Valley Jurisdiction has adopted the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Action Plan (TVTP AP) and agreed to pursue the joint adoption of Transportation Development Fees and. WHEREAS; the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) has been constituted to plan and assist in the funding of such a plan and, WHEREAS; Certain mutually agreed to policies must be adhered to by each of the Tri- Valley jurisdictions if an equitable Fee Program is to be enacted by each jurisdiction. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT; The following policies are proposed as part of the "Draft Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Proposal": 1) Each jurisdiction shall adopt their own version of the "Tri- V alley Transportation Development Fee", (TVTDF), in substantially the same language as each of the other jurisdictions, including the 5 priority projects shown on Attachment A. 2) That the initial fee rates shall be as in Attachment B. . 3) The changes in any jurisdiction's "Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee" shall not be done unilaterally and will entail comprehensive review by each of the Tri- Valley Jurisdictions in terms of equity and impact of the changes on the completion of those stated projects contemplated to be funded by the TVTDF. 4) That a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEP A) will be formed to cover the establishment and administration by a member agency of the fees. The fees shall be deposited into a common fund to be administered according to financial guidelines as un~imously adopted by all of the Tri- Valley jurisdictions. 5) That the first call on the fee funds will be to reimburse any moneys advanced by member jurisdictions to complete the highest priority project on the approved Project list, and then to the next highest priority project. r 6) Reimbursement of funds advanced by member jurisdictions shall include interest fixed at five percent. 7) That the TVTDF rates shall be based on the average of AM and PM peak hour trips and land use categories and be uniform across all jurisdictions in the Tri-Valley. . tX' ~ ii~IT -:>> ~" U,iilii v. '-: .:~ e: ---- - .' 8) That member jurisdictions currently collecting development fees for projects listed in TVTDF will revise their local fees to delete those projects and enact the TVTDF. 9) That the fees will be adjusted at least every. five years. or as needed. to take into account the most recent project cost estimates, rates of development, project priorities and external funding commitments. Each update shall also include a financial plan, include cash flow and project estimates. 10) That fee rates will automatically adjust annually as indicated by the construction cost index published in Engineering News Record. 11) That additional projects may be added by unanimous vote of all TVTC jurisdictions, to the TVTDF "Funded Projects List" from the most recent adopted TVTP AP provided that the fee rate and cash flow can accommodate the added project(s) as well as the currently funded projects. 12) Tri-Valley jurisdictions agree to mutually seek external funding for all priority projects and, if successful, support the carryover of any excess funds for implementation of the priority project(s) next in line. 13) That each jurisdiction shall levy the TVTDF on all development not legally precluded from the fee, and that any development agreements which replace or supersede agreements shall include the TVTDF requirement. 14) That TVTC may adopt exemption rules, by unanimous agreement. (i.e. low income housing, or other public needs). 15) That each jurisdiction appropriate ~3.000 additional funds for the implementation of TVTDF to be reimbursed by future TVTDF funds. tvtc\feres3 97 .sam.sm updated 3/11/97 .:.. ~. ~, ~ l,j,t~ r,...... il n 'f r H Ji..t :w:- e-:) ::c :I: ..... ::z: "" ~ . ,,1:,:. tt ATTACHMENT "A" TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE PROJECT LIST PROJECT SHORTFALL FEE AMOUNT (MILLIONS) 1-580/680 FL YOVER $10.1 $10.1 State Route 84 J. London to Concannon $3.9 $3.9 1-580 Interchange $40.0 $40.0 Vallecitos to 1-680 $25.0 $25.0 W. DUBLlN/PLEASANTON BART STATION $43.0 $28.6 1-680 HOV LANES (Hwy 84 to Top Sunol Grade) $14.4 $14.4 1-680 AUXILIARY LANES (Bollinger to Diablo) $23.6 $23.6 TOTAL $160.0 $145.6 TVTCPJT.WK4 .' . ." :i ,,",,' ." ' , ATTACHMENT "B" PROPOSED TRI-V ALLEY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE SCHEDULE .'::' LAND USE CATEGORY Single Family Multi-Family Retail (<200ksf) Retail (>200ksft) Office Industrial -- - .' FEE SCHEDULE BASED ON A.M./P .M. AVERAGE $2582 per dwelling unit $1555 per dwelling unit $1.15 per square foot $1.38 per square foot $3.82 per square foot $2.78 per square foot ATTACHMENT a.~; -l::: .. , / \ I"~ ~. "~ TRI..VALLEY YEAR 2010 GROWTH PROJECTIONS (ROUGH TRIP PERCENTAGE/COSTS) Projected Estimated Total % Jurisdiction am Trips'" Contribution Total Alamo/Blackhawk 735 $2,136,645 1% DanvHie 953 $2,770,371' 2% 8111 - ---- Dougherty $23,578,677 16% !assaLC!ra 73 $212,211 0% ~._- San Ramon 1154 $3,354,678 2% CC ~_ounty 176 $511,632 0% -- Dublin 16201 $47,096,307 32% 11222 $32,622,354 --_.- Pleasanton 22% .. 11286 $32,808,402 --- Livermore 22% Ala Co. 318 $924,426 1% Total 50229 $146015703 100% *from Nexus table 6 tvctypay.wk4 ',... ,. .' .... <',' '. . " ~ :- '. e. iness Council Officers Pruid~nJ Steve T anIJ:r Tanner losurano: Brokers: Vja PresidenJ l, Bruce England The Ooro., Company Seculary Abin Erdozaincy Pacific Gas .!:: Eicctric Company Chief F uaancia1 Office r Weldoc Morelwd Moreland .!:: o.vis Business Council Directors 0.", Allen Uniaouroe Kevin Buck The National Food Laboratory Ine. TOllY Cbugill Lawreoce LiYeJIIX:<e Nal'l Lab loe Co!mory CaliIornia Bancsbares Pat Cos1clJ0 Crown O1evrdet Robert Eoea . Enea Properties Co. . EM Theaten '.. ' Jim Gbie!molti Si~ Properties Steve Gilmour Leisure Spons.lne. M=)' Foi, Valley Care Heallb SYS\eJll TboJ:nas HUDler SaOOia NatiOD>! Lab Many Inderbitzen Martin Inderbitzen, All)', TornO'Malley Triad SyllemS Corp. Robert C. PbiJeox CaliIornia Bancsbares Cannmoit), First National Bank ~ RobertSilva DeSilva Group Mark Sweeney Hacienda Mktj;. .!:: Sales Corp, Lindo Todd V avriD:k. Trio::. o.y .!:: Co. Pbi1 \VeolC WeDIe Vineyards enolDlUWiDtcll Greiner. Ine. Execuhye Director lobo Sailors .'p' ,",,"'~"" ' , . , ey ess ncil ,i" :tl'~:,~;S3~ : r' '-I"r!~ ' . : 3U~3 I. (~ ( Statement of the Tri. Valley Business Council Regarding Proposed Traffic Impact Fee Of the Tri. Valley Transportation Council INTRODUCTION: The Tri- Valley Council has been supportive of the need to improve our transportation network, not only locally, but throughout the greater Bay Area, Last year, the Business Council sponsored a Transportation Forum to call attention to the serious transportation deficiencies and how they will continue to increase in the near future. In 1997, we have joined with the Bay Area Council and other regional business councils to work toward increased awareness and funding of transportation problem areas. Lately, we have been working with Congresswoman Tauscher in her efforts to bring specific eannarked funds to the Bay Area as a part of the ISETEA reauthorization process and to galvanize Bay Area elected officials at the national, state, and local levels to work toward funding solutions in the transportation arena. In shOlt, we have been very pro-active in this area, in recognition of the fact that the viability of our transportation network is one of the most important considerations for a continuing robust Bay Area economy, PROBLEM AREAS WITH PROPOSED FEE, The Council and its members have extensively reviewed the traffic impact fee proposal of the Tri- Valley Transportation Council and have concluded that, in its present fOlID, it is not an appropliate fee for the following reasons: 1, COllcept The concept of the fee seems to be to look for the worst existing and future transportation problems in the Tri- Valley, and to require the development community to solve them. The project list bears this out: the 1-580/I-680 interchange and its proposed flyover is an existing problem. The need for the second BART station (to be paid entirely by developer fees) hardly seems to be caused by future development, which is what the imposition of the fee must be able to prove. Likewise, improvements to Route 84 and 1-680 are clearly needed now, and are not caused by future development. (It is true that future development will exacerbate existing problems on Route 84 and on 1-680, but the major problem is already evident.) It seems unlikely that the approach taken can be supported by the required nexus arguments. P.O. Box 3258 ... Livermore, CA 94551-3258 ... rvm..'~~'IT .'.: ~, ~~":.~~""':';;:' fi~ If..>,.~ ~~, \'. . ~ ,'^" ~ bl ~i i:i~~ - 5. 2. Amount The amounts of the proposed fee, whether or not considering the .,':,' cumulative effect related to other existing fees chal'ged by all Tri- Valley agencies, are extremely high, All categories of the fee are very high, but in particular the residential, retail and office rates are very high. The office rates, which considering that increased local employment does not add to, but actually can reduce traffic on some of the major commute problem facilities such as Route 84 and 1-680, are insupportable. 3. Equity Not all future development is required to pay the fee, on the basis that the development.agreements have precluded such a possibility. However, other agencies have foreseen the inevitability of a regional fee and have required their future developers to pay such a fee, if and when it is imposed. The resulting situation of having a new development complex in one city having to pay not only its own fees but also those of its competitors is untenable. PROPOSAL. The Tri-Valley Business Council suggests that local agencies attach the problem where it should be attached: at the national, state and regional levels. As noted in the introduction, we have banded together with other business-related groups to work in this direction. The most logical funding sources are user fees such as gas taxes and tolls. In addition, earmarked and voter-approved sales taxes have been very successful in the Bay Area. These approaches allow transportation problems to be solved by a combination . of existing and future users, not just future residents, employees and shoppers, ..' ,: The Tri- Valley Business Council pledges to continue serving in a leadership role to seek out these new and defensible funding sources. In such a case, it is appropriate for a regional transportation fee to be used to pay a portion of the "local match" of such new funds, or to pay for preliminary studies to advance projects to a state of readiness to quality them for the use of other funds. The standard local match is generally 10 percent of the project cost. The list below is an example of our proposal. Project Project Cost Proposed Tri- Valley Fee - I-S801I-680 Southbound to Eastbound Flyover $10.1 million $10.1 million - West DublinlPleasanton BART Station $43 million $4.3 million Rt 84 Improvements - IS 80 to 1-680 $68.9 million $6.9 million 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes in Contra Costa County $23.6 million $2.4 million 1-680 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes in Alameda County $14.4 million $1.4 million I TOTALS $160.0 million $25.1 million . , , . .:- - - .' All of these projects are eligible for funds from other sources, and in most cases, other funds are either available or have been requested. Therefore, the concept of using the fee to get projects ready for delivery or to provide the local match makes sense. This fee would result in an average trip cost of $470 compared with the proposed fee of $2,582 per trip, or 18,2 percent of the TVTC proposal. This would result in the following fees: Single family Multi-family Retail (<200 KSF) Retail (>200 KSF) Office Industrial $470/unit $283/unit $O.21/sq, ft. $0.25/sq. ft. $O,70/sq. ft. $0/51/sq, ft. The Tri-Valley Business Council and its member agencies stand ready to do all within our power to improve transportation funding in the Tn-Valley. Sincerely, Steven J. Tanner President SJT:bd