Cover - Pol BOD 1-13 - SANDAG · 2006-01-20 · SANDAG builds consensus, makes strategic plans, obtains and allocates resources, plans, engineers, and builds public transit, and provides

BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY AGENDA

Friday, January 13, 2006 9 a.m. to 12 noon

SANDAG Board Room 401 B Street, 7th Floor

San Diego

Board Members

Mickey Cafagna, Chair Mayor, Poway

Mary Teresa Sessom, First Vice Chair Mayor, Lemon Grove

Lori Holt Pfeiler, Second Vice Chair Mayor, Escondido

Matt Hall Mayor Pro Tem, Carlsbad

Steve Padilla Mayor, Chula Vista

Phil Monroe Councilmember, Coronado

Crystal Crawford Mayor, Del Mar

Mark Lewis Mayor, El Cajon

Christy Guerin Mayor, Encinitas

Patricia McCoy Councilmember, Imperial Beach

Art Madrid Mayor, La Mesa

Ron Morrison Vice Mayor, National City

Shari Mackin Deputy Mayor, Oceanside

Jim Madaffer Councilmember, San Diego

Scott Peters Council President, San Diego

Pia Harris-Ebert Vice Mayor, San Marcos

Jack Dale Councilmember, Santee

Joe Kellejian Councilmember, Solana Beach

Morris Vance Mayor, Vista

Pam Slater-Price Chairwoman, County of San Diego

Advisory Members

Victor Carrillo, Supervisor Imperial County

Will Kempton, Director California Department of Transportation

Harry Mathis, Chairman Metropolitan Transit System

Jerome Stocks, Chair North County Transit District

CAPT Dan King, USN U.S. Department of Defense

William Hall, Commissioner San Diego Unified Port District

Marilyn Dailey, Commissioner San Diego County Water Authority

Luis Cabrera C. Consul General of Mexico

Gary L. Gallegos Executive Director, SANDAG

AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS

• STATEWIDE INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING

PROPOSALS

PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES DURING THE MEETING

YOU CAN LISTEN TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING BY VISITING OUR WEB SITE AT WWW.SANDAG.ORG

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

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

and builds public transit, and provides information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the

region's quality of life.

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

(619) 699-1900 ⋅ Fax (619) 699-1905 ⋅ www.sandag.org

**REVISED**

Welcome to SANDAG. Members of the public may speak to the Board of Directors on any item at the time the Board is considering the item. Please complete a Speaker’s Slip, which is located in the rear of the room, and then present the slip to the Clerk of the Board seated at the front table. Also, members of the public are invited to address the Committee on any issue under the agenda item entitled Public Comments/Communications/Member Comments. Speakers are limited to three minutes. The Board of Directors may take action on any item appearing on the agenda. This agenda and related staff reports can be accessed at www.sandag.org under Meetings on SANDAG’s Web site. Public comments regarding the agenda can be forwarded to SANDAG via the e-mail comment form also available on the Web site. E-mail comments should be received no later than noon, two working days prior to the Board of Directors meeting. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) 699-1900, (619) 699-1904 (TTY), or fax (619) 699-1905.

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

2

BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY AGENDA Friday, January 13, 2006

ITEM # RECOMMENDATION

3

1. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS Members of the public shall have the opportunity to address the Board on any issue

within the jurisdiction of SANDAG. Anyone desiring to speak shall reserve time by completing a “Request to Speak” form and giving it to the Clerk of the Board prior to speaking. Public speakers should notify the Clerk of the Board if they have a handout for distribution to Board members. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Board members also may provide information and announcements under this agenda item.

REPORTS (2 through 6)

2. ASCE 2005 SAN DIEGO INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT CARD (Carmen Kasner and Gordon Lutes, ASCE San Diego Chapter)

INFORMATION

Members of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) will present key findings

of the 2005 San Diego Infrastructure Report Card. The ASCE report card assesses the adequacy of seven categories of infrastructure, including surface transportation, land & sea ports of entry, stormwater collection and treatment systems, open space and parks, wastewater systems, water supply, and K-12 school facilities.

3. OVERVIEW OF STATE INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING PROPOSALS

(Secretary Sunne Wright McPeak, Business, Transportation and Housing Agency; and Mark Watts, Smith, Watts & Company)

INFORMATION

Sunne Wright McPeak, Secretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing

Agency, will provide an overview of the Governor’s Strategic Growth Plan for California. Mark Watts of Smith, Watts & Company will provide an overview of the other infrastructure financing proposals being discussed at the state level.

4. OVERVIEW OF INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS IN THE SAN DIEGO REGION +A. REPORT ON REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (RCP) AND ITS

RELATIONSHIP TO STATEWIDE INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING PROPOSALS (Bob Leiter) This item provides an overview of the Integrated Regional Infrastructure Strategy (IRIS) of the adopted Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) and its relationship to the statewide infrastructure funding proposals under consideration. The IRIS took a systematic approach to addressing the regional infrastructure needs and identifying existing and future revenue sources in eight regional infrastructure areas – transportation; stormwater management; parks and open space; education; water supply and delivery; wastewater; solid waste collection, recycling, and disposal; and energy supply and delivery.

INFORMATION

REVISED

4

4. OVERVIEW OF INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS IN THE SAN DIEGO REGION (Continued)

B. PANEL DISCUSSION ON SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE CATEGORIES

(Garry Bonelli)

A panel of agency staff will summarize the regional infrastructure needs in several key infrastructure categories: transportation (Karen King, NCTD; Paul Jablonski, MTS; Dan Wilkens, Port of San Diego; Mike Hix, SANDAG); stormwater management (Chandra Wallar, County of San Diego); habitat and shoreline preservation (Rob Rundle, SANDAG); and housing and local infrastructure (Gail Goldberg, City of San Diego).

DISCUSSION

+5. INTERACTIVE POLLING EXERCISE ON INFRASTRUCTURE PRIORITIES

(Garry Bonelli) DISCUSSION/ POSSIBLE ACTION

The Board of Directors will be asked to provide direction on the San Diego region's

infrastructure priorities for consideration in the possible statewide infrastructure financing proposals. Interactive polling technology will be used to facilitate the policy discussion.

6. NEXT STEPS (Gary Gallegos) INFORMATION Next steps following the January 13, 2006, Policy Board meeting include continued

discussion at the February 1-3 SANDAG Board Retreat, bringing together the Board and the state legislative delegation at the February 10, 2006, Policy Board meeting, and continuing meeting with various state legislators and administrators to ensure that the San Diego region’s needs are included in the various infrastructure proposals.

7. UPCOMING MEETINGS The next meeting of the Board of Directors is scheduled for Friday, January 27, 2006,

at 9 a.m.

8. ADJOURNMENT

+ next to an agenda item indicates an attachment

* next to an agenda item indicates a San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission item

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 4AJANUARY 13, 2006 ACTION REQUESTED – INFORMATION

REPORT ON REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (RCP) AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO STATEWIDE INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING PROPOSALS File Number 7000900

Introduction

On December 16, 2005, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved a process and schedule for participation in the various statewide efforts to develop future infrastructure funding proposals. The following report provides an overview of SANDAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), adopted by the Board of Directors in July 2004, and its relationship to statewide infrastructure funding proposals that are currently under consideration. In addition, this report contains a summary of available information regarding regional infrastructure needs in several of the areas identified in the Integrated Regional Infrastructure Strategy (IRIS), a key element of the RCP.

Discussion

Background As we all know, there are many critical infrastructure needs facing California with limited resources available to meet these needs. A variety of legislative proposals, ranging from $10 billion to $68 billion, are being developed to address the immediate and long-term infrastructure demands. Many groups and agencies are being called upon to provide input into the process to ensure that the most critical needs are represented in the proposals. Final allocation of any bond proposal will not meet all of the San Diego region’s infrastructure needs; however, providing a realistic “needs assessment” to our legislators will be advantageous. As the development of the RCP included collaboration with stakeholders, public outreach, policy discussions, and reviews that established a long-term framework for the San Diego region, linking San Diego’s needs assessment to the policies adopted in the RCP and our adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), MOBILITY 2030, is a good starting point. The RCP sets forth a vision for the region in the year 2030 and lays out a policy framework to achieve that vision based on three themes: 1. Improving connections between land use and transportation plans, using smart growth

principles;

2. Using land use and transportation plans to guide decisions regarding public facility and environmental investments, including the IRIS; and

2

3. Focusing on collaboration and incentives to achieve regional goals and objectives.

Integrated Regional Infrastructure Strategy (IRIS) The Integrated Regional Infrastructure Strategy (Chapter 7 of the RCP) took a systematic approach to addressing regional infrastructure needs and revenue sources. The IRIS was completed in a four-step process: (1) infrastructure inventory and evaluation; (2) needs assessment; (3) evaluation of financing and public policy options; and (4) recommended policies and implementation procedures. The IRIS addressed eight regional infrastructure areas: • Transportation (including transit, highways, maritime port, international land ports of entry,

and regional airport);

• Storm water management;

• Parks and open space (including parks and recreation, shoreline preservation, and habitat preservation);

• Education (including K-12, community colleges, and universities);

• Water supply and delivery system;

• Wastewater (sewage collection, treatment, and discharge system);

• Solid waste collection, recycling, and disposal; and

• Energy supply and delivery system.

The evaluation in the IRIS for some of these infrastructure areas is summarized in Attachment 1. Based on this evaluation, the IRIS identified existing and potential revenue sources for capital investments in each of these infrastructure areas, which are shown in Attachment 2. For many of the infrastructure areas, such as transportation, education, water supply and delivery, wastewater, and energy, there are existing revenue sources for capital infrastructure investments. However, for some of the infrastructure areas, such as habitat and shoreline preservation (components of the parks and open space category) and storm water management, revenue for capital investments is limited. The IRIS identified the most appropriate future revenue sources for capital investments by infrastructure area as follows: • For transportation, in addition to continuation of existing revenue sources, potential

revenue sources could include: the extension of the TransNet ½ cent sales tax (which was approved by voters in November 2004), a possible gas tax increase, and bond financing based on user charges.

• For storm water management, potential revenue sources could include a regional storm water impact fee, special assessment, and/or special tax.

• For parks and open space, local park facilities should continue to be financed by development impact fees, while regional habitat needs could be funded partially by

3

transportation project mitigation banking, and regional habitat and beach sand replenishment needs could be funded by special assessments and/or a special tax.

• For education, revenue sources should include continuation of state funding and development impact fees, as well as possible additional local bond financing for K-12 and community college facilities.

• For water, wastewater, solid waste, and energy, capital investment revenues should be based on a continuation of pay-as-you-go or bond financing supported by user charges, along with development impact fees for water and wastewater facilities.

Based on this analysis, it appears that for the San Diego region the focus of future general revenue and bonding proposals should be in the areas of transportation, storm water management, education, and parks and open space, where existing user fees and charges are not available to support future infrastructure needs. Other Funding Needs Identified in the RCP In addition to addressing regional infrastructure needs in the IRIS, the RCP also identified other funding needs to support the goals and policy objectives in the Plan. Specifically, the following needs were identified: • Funding for local infrastructure, such as local streets, parks, libraries, recreation facilities,

sewer and water facilities, and the like, to support smart growth development;

• Funding to assist in the provision of low-income and moderate-income housing;

• Funding to support ongoing provision of local municipal services, particularly in areas where additional residential development is being encouraged; and

• Funding for local and regional planning efforts necessary to support smart growth strategies.

Relationship of RCP to Current State Infrastructure Funding Proposals Since the adoption of the RCP in July 2004, a great deal of attention has been placed on infrastructure needs and financing approaches at both the regional and state level. At the regional level, voters approved the extension of the TransNet ½ cent transportation sales tax in November 2004. The expenditure plan for the TransNet Extension included not only funding for major transportation projects, but also including specific funding allocations for environmental mitigation and for local smart-growth related infrastructure. At the state level, the concept of linking transportation funding to other smart-growth-related infrastructure and environmental needs also has received significant attention, and recent proposals by the Governor and the Legislature such as Senate Bill (SB) 1024 and Assembly Bill 1783, reflect this integrated approach to infrastructure funding. As discussed above, the RCP addressed eight key regional infrastructure investment areas through the IRIS as well as other local infrastructure investment areas. The statewide infrastructure funding proposals address many, but not all of these infrastructure categories addressed in the RCP. For example, SB 1024, as currently written, includes transportation (e.g., STIP, Proposition 42

4

restoration, ports of entry, rail corridors, etc.); local infrastructure (e.g., housing, transit-oriented development, etc.); and other infrastructure categories. The Governor’s most recent proposal focuses on funding transportation, education, flood control and water supply, public safety facilities, among others. In order to assist the SANDAG Board in evaluating current statewide infrastructure bond proposals, staff has put together information regarding selected regional infrastructure needs, which is summarized in Attachment 3. This attachment provides a breakdown of regional transportation infrastructure needs (including goods movement) as well as other regional and local infrastructure needs. Transportation Infrastructure Needs The 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), MOBILITY 2030, adopted by SANDAG in March 2003, was used to estimate transportation infrastructure needs. As you recall, MOBILITY 2030 included three basic financial scenarios: (1) a $30 billion “Revenue Constrained” scenario based only on current sources of revenue projected to the year 2030; (2) a $42 billion “Reasonably Expected Revenue” scenario that was the basis for MOBILITY 2030; and (3) a $67 billion “Unconstrained Revenue” scenario that included future potential revenues to fully fund the desired “wish list” of transportation improvements in the San Diego region. The estimated transportation needs in Attachment 3 is based on the $67 billion “Unconstrained Revenue” scenario, which equates to $81 billion in 2005 dollars. The MOBILITY 2030 “Unconstrained Revenue” scenario includes the funding both for new transportation infrastructure as well as funding to maintain, preserve, and rehabilitate our existing transportation systems. For example, the “Unconstrained Revenue” scenario includes more than $2.8 billion to rehabilitate, restore, and replace our existing transit investments. Because goods movement is expected to be a significant part of the statewide infrastructure funding proposals, Attachment 3 summarizes the goods movement projects that already are included in the 2030 RTP ($7.3 billion of the total $81 billion). Besides these RTP goods movement project needs, the Port of San Diego and other freight stakeholders have identified an additional $1.6 billion in regional goods movement needs, which include additional improvements to marine terminal facilities/access, air cargo terminals/access, and the rail corridor between San Diego, Mexico, Arizona, and points east. Other Regional and Local Infrastructure Needs It will be important for the Board to consider infrastructure needs related to other regional and local infrastructure, including habitat preservation, beach sand replenishment, local facilities (e.g., parks, libraries, and fire stations), regional storm water management, and education. Attachment 3 includes the region’s estimated habitat preservation ($1.50 billion) and beach sand replenishment ($0.23 billion) needs, as identified in the Integrated Regional Infrastructure Strategy (IRIS) of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP). Attachment 3 does not include information for all of the other infrastructure areas, and additional work will be needed with regional, local, and other partners to address these other infrastructure needs. • In the area of storm water management, SANDAG should work with the County of

San Diego, the 18 cities, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board to put together an

5

estimate of regional facilities needs for addressing regional storm water management requirements.

• In the area of local infrastructure, SANDAG should work with appropriate staff from the

18 cities and County to begin development of a local facilities needs assessment, which could be used as a basis for evaluating bond proposals such as SB 1024 that include a local infrastructure funding component. These local facilities could include parks, libraries, and fire stations, among others. Some research has already been done in this area. For example, the City of San Diego, in conjunction with its General Plan Update process, conducted an analysis of local infrastructure needs. This analysis concluded that in order to meet existing standards, about $2.5 billion in infrastructure citywide would need to be constructed to meet existing and projected needs through 2020.

• In the area of education, SANDAG should pursue collaboration with regional leaders in this

area to develop strategies for ensuring that educational infrastructure needs are given adequate consideration in the development of statewide and regional bond proposals.

GARY L. GALLEGOS Executive Director

Attachments: 1. RCP – IRIS Summary of Regional Infrastructure Systems and Revenue Needs 2. IRIS: Sources of New Revenues for Infrastructure 3. Summary of Selected Infrastructure Needs in the San Diego Region Key Staff Contact: Bob Leiter, (619) 699-6980, [email protected]

6

Regional Comprehensive Plan – Integrated Regional Infrastructure Strategy

Summary of Regional Infrastructure Systems and Revenue Needs Transportation — Streets, Highways, and Transit. SANDAG’s Regional Transportation Plan, MOBILITY 2030, is based on the adopted “Reasonable Expected Revenue” financing option. This funding option includes current sources and levels of federal, state, and local transportation revenue, as well as, additional revenue from three sources: an extension of the TransNet ½-cent local sales tax, higher levels of state and federal discretionary funds, and increases in state and federal gas taxes based on historical trends. The three additional revenue sources account for $12 billion of the $42 billion plan. There is growing concern in the region that development is not paying its “fair share” of the cost of constructing new regional transportation facilities. To address this concern, SANDAG is analyzing a program of regional transportation impact fees. A development impact fee is required by state law to be proportional to impact. Local jurisdictions would cooperate in the establishment, collection, and use of a regional impact fee by identifying the impacts of new development on transportation facilities that serve multiple jurisdictions or that may be located outside the boundaries of a jurisdiction that is levying the fee. A local example of a regional infrastructure fee is the capacity charge currently levied by the San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority) on new water meter hookups. The charge is paid to a local jurisdiction, or water agency, which then transfers it to the Water Authority. A regional transportation impact fee would be structured in a similar manner, but used to implement the RTP. Storm Water Management. While substantial progress has been made by local agencies acting as "Copermittees" of the Unified Watershed Urban Runoff Management Program in preparing various watershed plans, much work still remains to be done. In particular, the region needs a comprehensive master plan for storm water management, including specific programs of storm drain and water management facilities required to control and clean runoff water which is discharged directly into the region's lakes, rivers, and the Pacific Ocean. These plans are part of a comprehensive approach, which should include an assessment of implementation costs or identification of appropriate revenue sources. Thus, the key revenue gap associated with the region's storm water management programs is the funding required to prepare a comprehensive, watershed-based storm water master plan, identifying actions and facilities necessary to improve the region's water quality. The cost of preparing such plans should be shared among local jurisdictions, special districts, and state and federal governments. Local jurisdictions and special districts are responsible for storm water runoff generated by land uses under their jurisdiction, and state and federal governments have an important public interest in maintaining the quality of waters under their jurisdiction. Among these agencies, transportation agencies, such as Caltrans and SANDAG, have special interests and responsibilities, since transportation projects and the urban development they make possible are the primary generators of urban runoff. Thus, it is recommended that Caltrans and SANDAG cooperate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board in initiating and coordinating the preparation of a comprehensive storm water master plan.

Attachment 1

7

When a comprehensive master plan has been completed and needed facility improvements are identified, funding sources adequate to undertake these improvements should then be identified. These funding sources could include a regional storm water impact fee, special assessment, or special tax, together with federal and state assistance. The appropriate mix of funding sources should be determined during the planning process. Solid Waste. Long-term planning for the disposal of municipal solid waste in the San Diego region is the responsibility of San Diego County, which prepares the Integrated Waste Management Plan. The final draft of the current plan (issued in September 2003) indicates that the region has sufficient capacity to manage solid waste through 2015, if waste diversion (i.e., recycling) is increased to 50 percent (from the current 48 percent) and landfill capacity is secured at two sites — expansion of Sycamore Canyon landfill and opening of Gregory Canyon landfill. However, neither site has been permitted and significant unresolved issues remain regarding the financing of landfill construction and opposition by local agencies and nearby residents. A key source of uncertainty lies with the fact that, except in the City of San Diego, private companies perform waste collection and disposal in the region. Although the County is responsible for preparing the Integrated Waste Management Plan, it lacks the means to undertake the necessary investment and other actions to implement the plan's recommendations. The "gap" with respect to solid waste infrastructure has less to do with funding and more with an appropriate authority to implement the long-term plan, although, a revenue source is needed to exercise such authority. The most suitable revenue source is a fee or charge for solid waste collection, which is already levied by most jurisdictions. It is recommended that jurisdictions that do not currently charge fees for solid waste collection do so and that a portion of the fee revenues be used to implement the goals of the Integrated Waste Management Plan. As recommended in the City of San Diego's Facilities Financing Study (July 2002), implementing a user fee for residential refuse collection could generate over $32 million every year. Education — K-12 and Community Colleges. New K-12 schools and community college facilities are funded from a combination of state and local funds. In order to generate local matching funds and, in some cases, to supplement state funding, local bond issues will be needed. Proposition 39, passed in 2000, reduced the voting requirement for bonds to finance construction of K-12 schools and community colleges from two-thirds to 55 percent. School districts, as well as other infrastructure and service providers, will likely be affected by the general plan changes called for under the RCP. Channeling growth into existing urban communities will likely increase school enrollment, where land is scarce and expensive. School districts should consider different kinds of sites, more vertical and shared resources, to cope with a more urban setting. Beach Sand Replenishment. Currently no revenue source exists to implement the beach sand replenishment program, although the start of a strategic plan and capital budget do exist. SANDAG's Shoreline Preservation Committee initiated the plan and has proposed several funding options. In one option, the Shoreline Preservation Committee has proposed dedicating a portion of revenues from the transient occupancy tax (hotel/motel visitor’s tax) to fund the program. The transient occupancy tax (TOT) would provide a reliable source and is consistent with the goal of improving visitor-serving facilities. However, any specific allocation of TOT funds to beach sand replenishment would have to be considered and evaluated by each jurisdiction responsible for allocating those funds.

8

Habitat Conservation. The regional habitat conservation plans, the MSCP and MHCP (see RCP Appendix section on Parks and Open Space and the Healthy Environment chapter for more information), have estimated the local jurisdictions' cost to assemble and manage a regional preserve system in perpetuity at $1.3 billion (discounted present value), but the local jurisdictions have not established a funding source to cover this cost. Construction of transportation facilities for the RTP will require mitigation of impacts to biological resources, such as habitat of protected species, according to federal, state, and local environmental guidelines. Traditionally, mitigation programs have been designed and implemented on a project-by-project basis, subject to competition from other users for lands or natural resources to be conserved in compensation for identified impacts. Under the IRIS it is proposed that a mitigation banking program be established, where important habitat lands and natural resources identified by the regional habitat conservation plans would be conserved and managed in advance of need by future transportation projects. Purchasing and managing land earlier and in larger quantities than would be the case under a project-by-project mitigation should result in substantial cost savings. The RTP and TransNet can thus help achieve some of the key conservation goals of the regional conservation programs. Source: Regional Comprehensive Plan, pp. 319 – 321.

9

RCP - Integrated Regional Infrastructure Strategy

SOURCES OF EXISTING OR NEW REVENUES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE1

INFRASTRUCTURE REVENUE FOR

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

REVENUE FOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT

TRANSPORTATION - Continuation of existing general revenues (streets and highways)

- Continuation of existing fare/user charges (transit)

- Continuation of income from operations (air and maritime ports)

+ User charges (land ports of entry)

+ TransNet extension (1/2-cent sales tax; highways and transit)

+ Gas tax increase (highways and transit) - Development Impact Fees - Continuation of bond financing based on

income from operations and federal and state funds (air and maritime ports)

+ Bond financing based on user charges (land ports of entry)

WATER - Continuation of existing rate/user charges - Continuation of pay-as-you-go or

bond financing based on rate revenues and fees

- Development Impact Fees

WASTEWATER - Continuation of existing rate/user charges - Continuation of pay-as-you-go or

bond financing based on rate revenues and fees

- Development Impact Fees

STORM WATER MANAGEMENT

- Continuation of existing general revenues

+ Regional storm water impact fee, special assessment, or special tax

SOLID WASTE + User charge + User charge and bond financing based on user charges

ENERGY - Continuation of existing rate/user charges

- Continuation of pay-as-you-go or bond financing based on rate revenues

EDUCATION - Continuation of existing general revenues and state funding (K-12)

- Continuation of existing tuition/user charges, donations, and state funding (CSU, UC)

+ Local bond financing (K-12, community colleges)

- Continuation of state funding (K-12, community colleges)

- Continuation of local funding (donations) and state funding (CSU, UC)

- Development Impact Fees

PARKS AND OPEN SPACE

- Continuation of existing general revenues

+ Special assessment or special tax (beach sand replenishment, habitat)

- Continuation of existing pay-as-you-go based on impact fees (local parks)

+ RTP / TransNet mitigation bank (habitat) + Special assessment or special

tax. One possible source could be the Transient Occupancy Tax (beach sand replenishment, habitat)

- Development Impact Fees

1 Revenues that are currently used to fund operations and maintenance or capital investment are indicated with a minus sign “-“. Revenues that are proposed as new funding sources to meet the infrastructure needs of the RCP are indicated with a plus sign “+”.

Source: Regional Comprehensive Plan, p. 322.

Attachment 2

Attachment 3. 2030 RTP Revenue Unconstrained Plan and Other Regional Infrastructure

Categories

2030 Revenue Unconstrained

Estimated Needs(2005 $millions)

Goods Movement Applicable Share (2005 $millions)

Other Regional Infrastructure

(2005 $millions)

Net Revenue Shortfall

(2005 $millions)

Transit

Major New Facilities (e.g. Coastal Rail Tunnels, Double Track, Mid-Coast LRT, Grade Seps) 18,263 735

Misc. Capital/Rehabilitation/Replacement (e.g. LRV and Bus Replacement, Station Upgrades) 2,860 237

Operating Subsidies (e.g. Salaries, Fuel) 10,140

Joint Use Facilities - Managed & HOV Lanes (e.g. Managed Lanes on I-5, I-15, I-805, DAR's, etc) 20,297 5,307

Highways

System Completion/Widening (e.g. SR 52 from SR 125 to SR 67, SR 76) 7,005 1,095

Operations/Maintenance/Rehabilitation (e.g. Pavement Rehabilitation, Operational Improvements) 6,300

Local Streets and Roads (e.g. Arterials, Traffic Signals) 14,656

Land Use/Systems Mgmt/Demand Mgmt

Smart Growth Incentive Program 355

Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements (e.g. Bike Lanes, Trails) 507

Transportation Systems Management (e.g. Traveler Information Systems, Data Collection) 758

Transportation Demand Management (e.g. Rideshare, Vanpool, Schoolpool) 205

Other Seaport/Landport/Rail Line Goods Movement Capacity Increasing Projects 1,574

Other Regional and Local Infrastructure

Habitat (e.g. Acquisition, Management, Monitoring of Habitat Areas) 1,500

Beach Sand Replenishment 231

Local Infrastructure (e.g. Parks, Libraries, Fire Stations) TBDStorm Water Management TBD

Subtotal RTP Projects 81,346

Subtotal Goods Movement Projects Already Included In RTP (non-add) 7,374

Subtotal Other Goods Movement Projects 1,574

Subtotal Other Regional Infrastructure 1,731

Grand Total RTP, Goods Movement and Other Regional Infrastructure 84,651 35,691 48,960

2030 Revenue Constrained Estimated Revenues

(2005 $millions)

LocalStateFederal

23,5237,8324,336

Reg

iona

l Tra

nspo

rtatio

n P

lan

- Rev

enue

Unc

onst

rain

ed S

cena

rioAttachment 3

10

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 5JANUARY 13, 2006 ACTION REQUESTED – DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE

ACTION

INTERACTIVE POLLING EXERCISE ON INFRASTRUCTURE PRIORITIES File Number 7000900

Introduction

The SANDAG Board of Directors will engage in an interactive polling exercise to help gauge priorities and guidelines for the state infrastructure funding proposals. Establishing priorities for the San Diego region will enable our leadership to work with the Governor and members of the Legislature to ensure that our specific regional infrastructure program/project needs are addressed in the statewide proposals currently under consideration. SANDAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) addressed eight key regional infrastructure investment areas through the Integrated Regional Infrastructure Strategy (IRIS) as well as other local infrastructure investment areas, such as housing and local facilities and services (see Agenda Item no. 4A). The statewide proposals vary in the types of infrastructure categories they address, and they do not address all of the infrastructure categories covered in the RCP. The current version of Senate Bill 1024 (Perata), for example, includes categories for transportation (e.g., STIP, Proposition 42 restoration, ports of entry, rail corridors, etc.); local infrastructure (e.g., housing, transit-oriented development, etc.); and other infrastructure categories. Assembly Bill 1783 (Nunez) focuses on transportation; flood control; safe water systems; environmental improvement; housing; hospital seismic safety repair; and emergency public safety communications equipment, among others. The Governor’s most recent proposal focuses on a large-scale public works program focused on transportation, education, flood control and water supply, public safety facilities, and court facilities, and other categories. Policy issues the Board should consider include:

Should the infrastructure needs be prioritized? If so, what infrastructure needs does SANDAG consider to be most critical to address in the statewide funding proposal?

How should the funds be divided among the various types of infrastructure needs?

How important is it that the San Diego region receives its “fair share” of funding?

Is it a good idea to have a local match component to the bond? If so, to what extent should a local match drive the allocation of funds?

Should other factors, such as the ability to finance and to operate and maintain the infrastructure investments, be considered in the statewide proposal?

2

Transportation Infrastructure While future investments will be necessary in order to build new transportation infrastructure to accommodate growth to 2030 and beyond, there also is a clear need to maintain, preserve, and rehabilitate our existing infrastructure as it ages. A large portion of the state highway system was constructed in the 1960s, and major components of our regional transit system are in need of rehabilitation/replacement in the near-term, with some structures built in the early 1900s. Within the category of transportation, goods movement is part of many of the statewide infrastructure proposals. SANDAG’s adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), includes several improvements to the major highway and rail corridors that support goods movement into and through the San Diego region. The Port of San Diego and other freight stakeholders also have identified additional regional goods movement needs beyond those currently included in the RTP. These would improve marine terminal facilities/access, air cargo terminals/access, and the rail corridor between San Diego, Mexico, Arizona, and points east. Many of the statewide proposals would provide new funding for transportation infrastructure. Also critical to addressing our transportation needs is the consistent receipt of existing transportation revenue sources, such as Proposition 42, which have been subject to cuts during the annual state budget process. Transportation-related policy issues the Board should consider include:

Should funds be directed toward new capital infrastructure or be used to rehabilitate and restore our existing infrastructure systems?

What priority in the statewide proposals should be placed on goods movements needs?

What priority should be placed on protecting existing transportation revenue sources, such as Proposition 42?

Other Regional and Local Infrastructure Needs The RCP took a comprehensive approach to addressing transportation as well as other regional and local infrastructure needs, including habitat preservation, beach sand replenishment, local facilities (e.g., parks, libraries, and fire stations), regional storm water management, education, and others. As part of the TransNet Extension measure, the Board also committed to considering how to best fund our “quality of life” needs beyond transportation.

What other regional and local infrastructure needs are the most critical to address in the statewide funding proposal?

Next Steps

The next steps following the January 13, 2006, Policy Board meeting include:

• February 1-3, 2006 - continue discussions on infrastructure funding proposals at the SANDAG Board Retreat.

3

• February 10, 2006 - bring together Board members and our state legislative delegation to further discuss and refine the San Diego region’s approach.

• Continue to meet with various legislators and administrators to ensure that San Diego’s needs are represented in the various bond proposals.

Any infrastructure bond that passes the legislature and is approved by the Governor would require support by the majority of the voters statewide.

GARY L. GALLEGOS Executive Director

Key Staff Contact: Kim Kawada, (619) 699-6994, [email protected]

This Item Relates to Agenda Item #3Board of Directors

January 13, 2006

1

National City Marine TerminalHarbor & Tidelands Connection; Signal Improvements & ROW ExpansionNational City Marine TerminalHarbor & Tidelands Connection; Signal Improvements & ROW Expansion

National City Marine Terminal – Bay Marina Drive- Intersection Improvements & Street WideningNational City Marine Terminal – Bay Marina Drive- Intersection Improvements & Street Widening

2

Preferred Alternative

Benefits:•Approx. $100 million•Avoids Downtown “S” Curve•Keeps trucks off of residential streets•Maximizes use of Harbor Drive as parallel arterial•Supported by Residents and Tenants•Study approved in TEA Reauthorization•Both Communities get what they want

$25 Million

$75 Million

COMMUNITY

BARRIO LOGAN - - 12,691,504 12,691,504

CENTER CITY - - 253,000,000 253,000,000

CLAIREMONT MESA 1,066,152 760,000 176,527,485 178,353,637

COLLEGE AREA 67,635,150 - 142,952,365 210,587,515

GOLDEN HILL 3,037,240 - 64,994,800 68,032,040

KEARNY MESA 15,959,500 24,052,000 54,957,997 94,969,497

LA JOLLA 9,783,368 - 100,270,841 110,054,209

LINDA VISTA 3,139,368 - 34,172,499 37,311,867

MID-CITY - - 488,568,714 488,568,714

1,442,520 220,488,000 173,548,733 395,479,253

MISSION BEACH - - 19,811,130 19,811,130

MISSION VALLEY 17,332,727 504,354,315 271,525,720 793,212,762

NAVAJO - - 79,159,975 79,159,975

NORTH PARK 17,236,438 - 132,956,940 150,193,378

OCEAN BEACH - - 35,345,089 35,345,089

OLD SAN DIEGO 95,500 - 32,682,632 32,778,132

OTAY MESA - NESTOR 2,314,000 - 58,908,614 61,222,614

PACIFIC BEACH - - 83,333,564 83,333,564

PENINSULA 6,986,847 - 72,741,379 79,728,226

SAN YSIDRO 5,053,055 5,755,000 80,204,522 91,012,577

SERRA MESA 7,108,360 19,000,000 70,274,723 96,383,083

SKYLINE-PARADISE HILLS 9,568,700 - 119,028,368 128,597,068

SOUTHEASTERN SAN DIEGO 45,319,916 - 160,761,345 206,081,261

TORREY PINES 51,628,973 - 33,657,374 85,286,347

UNIVERSITY CITY** 6,347,000 - 2,050,776 8,397,776

UPTOWN 5,582,901 - 251,916,885 257,499,786

TOTAL 276,637,715 774,409,315 3,006,043,974 4,057,091,004

**Includes only South University City and excludes all Northern (FBA) area needs.

*Revised annually for inflationary adjustments and as Public Facilities Financing Plans (PFFP) are updated. Some PFFPs have not been updated and may not accurately reflect community needs.

MIDWAY/PACIFIC HIGHWAY CORRIDOR

CITY OF SAN DIEGOURBANIZED COMMUNITIES FACILITIES NEEDS SUMMARY LISTING

FUNDED PROJECT

(Other Sources)

FUNDED PROJECT

(Subdividers)

UNIDENTIFIED FUNDING

(2005)

ESTIMATED FACILITY

COST (2005)

REVISED SEPTEMBER 16, 2005*

01/12/2006

This Item Relates to Agenda Item #4BBoard of Directors

January 13, 2006

FACILITY / NEED TYPEUnidentified

Funding (2005)Funded Project (Other Sources)

Funded Project (Subdividers)

Estimated Facility Cost (2005)

Percent Funded

TOTAL TRANSPORTATION 1,017,335,299 196,868,408 564,909,315 1,779,113,022 42.82%

TOTAL PARK & RECREATION 1,757,550,547 25,295,389 - 1,782,845,936 1.42%

TOTAL LIBRARY 137,293,656 36,918,071 500,000 174,711,727 21.42%

TOTAL FIRE-RESCUE 93,864,471 17,555,847 - 111,420,318 15.76%

TOTAL FLOOD CONTROL - - 209,000,000 209,000,000 100.00%

TOTAL 3,006,043,974 276,637,715 774,409,315 4,057,091,004 25.91%

CITY OF SAN DIEGOURBANIZED COMMUNITIES FACILITIES NEEDS SUMMARY LISTING

SUMMARY BY FACILITY / NEED TYPE

REVISED SEPTEMBER 16, 2005

01/12/20062

1

1

A Legacy in Peril

SANDAG Policy Board MeetingJanuary 13, 2006

A Legacy in Peril

SANDAG Policy Board MeetingJanuary 13, 2006

San Diego Region’s Infrastructure 2005 Report Card

San Diego Region’s Infrastructure 2005 Report Card

2

Outline of Presentation

• Overview – Carmen Kasner• Report Card – Gordon Lutes, Carmen

Kasner– Surface Transportation – Land and Sea Ports of Entry– Stormwater Collection and Treatment – Parks and Open Space– Wastewater Collection and Treatment– Water Supply– School Facilities (K-12)

• Questions

2

3

Background

• The Problem - rapid increase in highway congestion, bursting water lines, frequent sewer spills, pollution of our beaches and bays, limited trade, declining quality of life

• The Cause – declining investment in our infrastructure

• The Challenge – replacing aging infrastructure and adding new infrastructure to sustain a growing population and economy

4

Background (cont.)

• American Society of Civil Engineers’ Role

– National Report Cards – 1998, 2001, 2003, and 2005

– Local Report Cards • Orange County – 2002 and 2005• LA County – 2002 and 2005• Inland Empire - 2004• San Francisco – 2005• San Diego – 2004 and 2005• California – 2007?

3

5

Grading Criteria

• Scale of A to F• B is “meeting acceptable standards”• Step 1: Existing Adequacy

- Operations- Condition - Capacity

• Step 2: Future Adequacy- Long Term Plan - Long Term Funding

6

Surface Transportation

4

7

Surface Transportation

Grade: C

8

Surface Transportation Elements

• Highways• Local Streets & Roads• Transit (Bus and Rail)• Intelligent Transportation Systems

5

9

Highways

• Overall Grade = C– Capacity alone would be much lower– Condition and Operations brought it up

10

Local Streets/Roads

• Overall Grade = D+• Operations - Poor

– Inter-jurisdictional problems– Signal improvements/coordinated

timing badly needed– Interconnections/fiber optic network

lacking– ITS projects planned but not

implemented

6

11

Local Streets/Roads

• Condition - Poor– Maintenance hit hard by budget crises – 45% to 50% in need of repair

• Capacity - Fair– Generally adequate– Some gaps in the network– Important arterials impacted

12

Transit

• Overall Grade = C

• System Efficiency - Good– System slightly smaller than other

regions

– Better performance than other regions• Ridership per capita• Productivity of services

(Passengers/Service Hour)• Subsidy per passenger

7

13

Transit

• Condition – Poor to Fair– Vehicles – Average– Facilities – Average to Below Average

(Old)

14

Surface Transportation: The Good…

• Voters passed TransNet Extension

• SAFETEA-LU federal transportation bill passed– $286 B over 5 years– Not a big real increase

• Proposition 42 funds coming– Gas tax revenue previously taken by

state

8

15

Surface Transportation: The Good…

• Major projects dohelp– State Route 56– Mission Valley East LRT– State Route 125

• MOBILITY 2030 - Solid Regional Plan

16

Surface Transportation: The Bad…

• Freeway congestion worsening fast– Hours of delay up >20% (2001-2004)– Congested mileage up >30% (2001-2004)

• Many factors – More people– More cars per capita– Longer commutes (unaffordable housing)– More goods movement

9

17

Surface Transportation: The Bad…

• 45% to 50% of local streets need repairs

• Regional arterial problems– Differences between jurisdictions– Gaps in the network

• Transit services being reduced– Not enough funding for operations

• All categories lack dollars– SANDAG projects a $25B shortfall (2030)– New funding sources leave holes for

maintenance and operations

18

Surface Transportation: Recommendations

• Continue to support legislation– Protect gas tax revenues– Index gas taxes to inflation– Support additional local funding sources

• Support implementation of MOBILITY 2030

• Promote regional coordination

• Encourage more ITS and find funding

10

19

Land and Sea Ports of Entry

20

Land and Sea Ports of Entry

Grade: C

11

21

Land & Sea Ports of Entry – The Good

• SR 125 toll road under construction

• $10 million for rail ports studies and parallel projects

• Modernization of the Tecate Port of Entry complete

• Expansion of San Ysidro Port of Entry; construction starts in 2007

22

Land & Sea Ports of Entry – The Bad

• Facilities constrained by physical limitations, surrounding land issues, local street network and limited capacity

• State Route 905 funding shortfall

• Construction costs are exceeding estimates

• Cruise ship terminal demand outgrowing capacity

• Need funding for marine terminals and access

12

23

Land & Sea Ports of Entry –The Recommendations

• New port of entry at East Otay Mesa

• Improvements to the sea ports, including access

• Rail and intermodal improvements

• Implementation of MOBILITY 2030

• Expansion of cruise ship terminal and access

24

Stormwater Collection and

Treatment Systems

13

25

Stormwater Collection and

Treatment Systems

Grade: C-

26

Stormwater Collection and Treatment Systems: The Recommendations

• Funding to build and manage treatment best management practices (BMPs) in older areas

• Regional master plan matching pollutants with watershed

• Water quality monitoring program in concert with treatment BMPs

14

27

Parks and Open Space

28

Parks and Open Space

Grade: B-

15

29

• Maintenance Funding– User fees, adopt-a-park programs

• Acquisition/Construction Funding– Development impact or facilities benefit

assessment fees– Transfer development rights

• Joint-use Facilities– Use school yards after hours

• Urban Park Opportunities– Rooftop parks, dog parks, plazas, and pocket

parks

Parks and Open Space: Recommended Actions

30

Wastewater Systems

16

31

Wastewater Systems

Grade: B-

32

Wastewater Systems: The Recommendations

• Implement regular inspections

• Update master plans

• More efficient operations of facilities

• Restore City of San Diego bonding capacity

17

33

Water Supply

34

Water Supply

Grade: B

18

35

Water Supply – The Recommendations

• Continue to adequately fund maintenance

• Bring master plans up to date for treatment and distribution systems

• Establish capital reserves to fund future improvements

36

School Facilities (K-12)

19

37

School Facilities (K-12)

Grade: C+

38

• Better Coordination - Between districts - Between districts and local agencies

• Increase in maintenance funding

• Replace aging schools

• Construct more flexible schools

School Facilities: The RecommendationsSchool Facilities: The Recommendations

20

39

Questions

40

A Legacy in Peril

SANDAG Policy Board MeetingJanuary 13, 2006

A Legacy in Peril

SANDAG Policy Board MeetingJanuary 13, 2006

San Diego Region’s Infrastructure 2005 Report Card

San Diego Region’s Infrastructure 2005 Report Card

1

OVERVIEW OF STATE OVERVIEW OF STATE INFRASTRUCTURE PROPOSALSINFRASTRUCTURE PROPOSALS

SANDAG BOARD OF DIRECTORSSANDAG BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Presented By

Mark WattsSmith, Watts & Co.

2

What I Will CoverWhat I Will Cover

Where we are nowOverview of why interest in state investments is so high nowGovernor's Strategic Growth Plan (SGP)Senator Perata’s SB 1024Speaker Nunez’s ProposalProcess for getting something doneBrief comparison Some issues to consider

2

3

State of Transportation FundingState of Transportation Funding20062006

CTC says 2006 STIP cycle is first indication that allstate and federal gas excise tax revenues are consumed by Caltrans maintenance, operations, and rehabilitation programs;

State transportation programs now compete annually for funding – this is destabilizing for long-term development of projects;

Largely due to Prop 42 suspensions and these factors, the 2006 STIP has a mismatch of available fund source (largely PTA) and carry-over projects from 2004 STIP (largely highway).

4

Why the interest in transportation and Why the interest in transportation and infrastructure now?infrastructure now?

Transportation investment has emerged at the center of Sacramento policy as the state has begun to climb out of its deficit condition;Governor’s Asian trips have focused on trade corridor issues as centerpiece of his interest in rebuilding;BT&H Secretary McPeak sparked the GoCalifornia formulation of the administration’s transportation vision;SF Bay Bridge funding dilemma from 2004-2005 underscored the tenuous nature of state transportation funding;

3

5

Why the interest in transportation and Why the interest in transportation and infrastructure now?infrastructure now?

Recognition in 2005 that the cumulative impact of state budget decisions had left state, regional and local transportation programs in shambles;

Governor and legislative leaders met in August 2004 and declared 2005 to be the year of infrastructure, with emphasis on transportation challenges.

6

Specific Proposals Specific Proposals GovernorGovernor’’s Strategic Growth Plan (SGP)s Strategic Growth Plan (SGP)

SGP looks out 20 years and proposes Phase 1, ten years worth of new funding for state infrastructure;

$222 billion of total state and local government funding, including new sources;

$68 billion in state GO bonds are proposed, to be presented to voters over 10 year period;

Programs include – transportation/air quality; K-12 and Higher Education; Flood Control and Water supply; Public Safety and Courts;

Coupled with delivery reform and private investment.

4

7

SGP Bond ElectionsSGP Bond ElectionsGeneral Obligation Bonds ($ BillionsGeneral Obligation Bonds ($ Billions))

$68.0$5.0$8.7$18.9$10.2$25.2Total

2.2----1.0--1.2Courts & Other Public Service Infrastructure

6.8----4.2--2.6Public Safety

9.0----6.0--3.0Flood Control & Water Supply

38.0$5.0$8.7$7.74.212.4Education

$12.0------$6.0$6.0Transportation/ Air Quality

10-Year Total

20142012201020082006Program

8

SGP: 1SGP: 1stst Tranche of Transportation BondsTranche of Transportation Bonds

2006 Bond (2006-07 through 2010-11) - $ 6 billion$1.7 billion to increase highway capacity$1.3 billion for safety and preservation improvements to the state highway system$1 billion for port improvements, mitigation related to programs and projects that reduce diesel emissions, and mitigation of other community impacts$1 billion for goods movement infrastructure, which will reduce related road congestion$400 million for intercity rail expansion$300 million for corridor mobility improvements$200 million for Intelligent Transportation Systems$100 million to expand park and ride opportunities and bicycle and pedestrian improvements

5

9

SGP: 2SGP: 2ndnd Trance of Transportation BondsTrance of Transportation Bonds

2008 Bond (2011-12 through 2016-17) - $ 6 billion$3.6 billion for highway projects that provide congestion relief and meet or exceed performance measures for improved corridor performance$2 billion for goods movement infrastructure, which will reduce related road congestion$200 million for highway safety and preservation projects$100 million for additional intercity rail expansion$100 million to expand park and ride opportunities and bicycle and pedestrian improvements

10

Senator PerataSenator Perata’’s SB 1024s SB 1024

Initially introduced to address the SF Bay bridge overrun, but included affordable housing, goods movement, levee repair, and other programs;

Following meeting with Governor in August 2005, amended to supplement the STIP, provide repayment of outstanding transportation loans, and transit-oriented development (TOD) program;

Anticipated to be amended this week.

6

11

Senator PerataSenator Perata’’s SB 1024s SB 1024

Authorizes the sale of $10.275 billion in GO bonds:

•STIP $1.5 billion•Proposition 42 repayment $2.3 billion•Ports, system expansion, security and AQ $2.5 billion•Environmental enhancement $100 million•Levee improvements $1 billion•Affordable housing incentives $425 million•Regional housing and growth $975 million•Flood control matching $200 million•Transit oriented development $275 million•High speed rail corridors $1 billion

Total $10.275 billion

12

Speaker NunezSpeaker Nunez’’s Proposal (AB 1783)s Proposal (AB 1783)

• Repayment of transportation funds• Goods movement and community and environmental

mitigation• Improvements to State Highway 99• Public transportation• Transportation security• Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards

Attainment Trust fund• Environmental mitigation and safety• Regional planning partnerships• Flood control subventions

7

13

Speaker NunezSpeaker Nunez’’s Proposal (AB 1783) s Proposal (AB 1783) --continuedcontinued

• Drinking water systems• Cleanup of brownfields and urban infill development• Sustainable communities • Local and regional planning partnerships, of open

space, agricultural land, and habitat• Variety of homeowner’s assistance programs• Hospital earthquake retrofit• State emergency response communications

equipment

14

Comparison of ApproachesComparison of Approaches

Intent to address

Amendments will address

$500 m for state interest in I/C RailTransitTransit

Not specifiedProp. 42 “fix”, design-build

Prop. 42 ”fix”, DSR, Design-build, P3ReformsReforms

Not specifiedExisting allocation process

Relies on existing allocation processProjectsProjects

Not specified$10.3 B; $7.4 B for Transportation

$220 B; $107 B for Transportation:

$12 B GO Bond;$47 B, Existing$48 B, New

Total Total FundingFunding

Not specified$10.3 billion$68 billionGO BondsGO Bonds

Across the board

Transportation and housing

Transportation and educationEmphasisEmphasis

One-timeOne-time10 Years, Phase 1TermTerm

AB 1783AB 1783SB 1024SB 1024SGPSGP

8

15

ProcessProcess

Governor calls for entire package to be approved in time for June 2006, with measures needing voter approval, including first bonds scheduled then.

Senator Perata has held that a Conference Committee would be the focus for handling the complexity of the competing proposals.

Speaker Nunez has already announced key conferees:Assembly Members Laird, Chu and Keene.

16

Issues to ConsiderIssues to Consider

While each proposal infuses new transportation capital, SGP focus is on highway congestion and mobility, while the others will also address regional and local transit needs;

SANDAG’s charter is more in line with Perata proposal, with emphasis on transportation and housing;

SGP will build on promise of Proposition 42 and fund state transportation priorities, most of which is in line with regional interests;

SANDAG must balance meeting fair share within transportation with big picture needs under your charter.

1

Using the RCP to GuideUsing the RCP to GuideRegional Infrastructure Regional Infrastructure

Investments Investments SANDAG Board of DirectorsSANDAG Board of Directors

Policy MeetingPolicy MeetingJanuary 13, 2006January 13, 2006

22

OverviewOverview

RCP Policy ThemesRCP Policy Themes

Integrated Regional Infrastructure StrategyIntegrated Regional Infrastructure Strategy–– Infrastructure Needs AssessmentInfrastructure Needs Assessment

–– Evaluation of Potential Revenue SourcesEvaluation of Potential Revenue Sources

Other Needs Identified in RCPOther Needs Identified in RCP

Overall Needs SummaryOverall Needs Summary

2

33

RCP Policy ThemesRCP Policy ThemesBetter connecting land useBetter connecting land useand transportation plansand transportation plans

Using transportation and land Using transportation and land use plans to guide other plans use plans to guide other plans

Making it happen through Making it happen through incentivesincentives and and collaborationcollaboration

3

44

Integrated Regional Infrastructure Integrated Regional Infrastructure Strategy (IRIS)Strategy (IRIS)

Approach to Addressing Regional Infrastructure NeedsApproach to Addressing Regional Infrastructure Needs

Infrastructure inventory and Infrastructure inventory and evaluationevaluation

Needs assessmentNeeds assessment

Evaluation of financing and Evaluation of financing and public policy optionspublic policy options

Recommended policies and Recommended policies and implementation proceduresimplementation procedures

3

55

IRISIRISEight Regional Infrastructure AreasEight Regional Infrastructure Areas

TransportationTransportation (including transit, highways, maritime port, (including transit, highways, maritime port, international land ports of entry, and regional airport)international land ports of entry, and regional airport)

Storm water managementStorm water management

Parks and open spaceParks and open space (including parks and recreation, shoreline (including parks and recreation, shoreline preservation, and habitat preservation)preservation, and habitat preservation)

EducationEducation (including K(including K--12, community colleges, and universities)12, community colleges, and universities)

Water supply and delivery systemWater supply and delivery system

WastewaterWastewater (sewage collection, treatment, and discharge system)(sewage collection, treatment, and discharge system)

Solid waste collection, recycling, and disposalSolid waste collection, recycling, and disposal

Energy supply and delivery systemEnergy supply and delivery system

66

IRISIRIS

Additional local bond financing for KAdditional local bond financing for K--12 and community 12 and community college facilities may be possiblecollege facilities may be possible

EducationEducation

Partial funding for regional habitat needs could come Partial funding for regional habitat needs could come from transportation project mitigation banking, and from transportation project mitigation banking, and regional habitat and beach sand replenishment needs regional habitat and beach sand replenishment needs could be funded by special assessments and/or special could be funded by special assessments and/or special tax.tax.

Parks and Open Parks and Open SpaceSpace

Regional storm water impact fee, special assessment, Regional storm water impact fee, special assessment, and/or special tax.and/or special tax.

Storm Water Storm Water ManagementManagement

TransNet TransNet ½½ cent sales tax extension, possible gas tax cent sales tax extension, possible gas tax increase, and bond financing based on user charges.increase, and bond financing based on user charges.

TransportationTransportation

Appropriate Future Revenue Sources for Appropriate Future Revenue Sources for Capital InvestmentCapital Investment

InfrastructureInfrastructure

4

77

Other Needs Identified in RCPOther Needs Identified in RCP

Funding for local infrastructure (e.g., parks, Funding for local infrastructure (e.g., parks, libraries, local streets, sewer and water)libraries, local streets, sewer and water)

Funding for lowFunding for low--income and moderateincome and moderate--income income housinghousing

Funding for local municipal services, particularly Funding for local municipal services, particularly in residential areasin residential areas

Funding for local and regional planningFunding for local and regional planning

88

Overall Needs AssessmentOverall Needs AssessmentTransportationTransportation–– Transit Infrastructure Rehabilitation (Paul Transit Infrastructure Rehabilitation (Paul JablonskiJablonski, Karen , Karen

King)King)–– Port facilities (Dan Port facilities (Dan WilkensWilkens))–– Other Transportation Needs (Mike Hix)Other Transportation Needs (Mike Hix)

Parks and Open Space (Parks and Open Space (Rob RundleRob Rundle))–– HabitatHabitat–– Sand ReplenishmentSand Replenishment

Local Infrastructure (Local Infrastructure (Gail GoldbergGail Goldberg))Storm Water Management (Storm Water Management (Chandra Chandra WallarWallar))

5

99

2030 OVERALL INFRASTRUCTURE 2030 OVERALL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDSNEEDS

Categories 2030 Needs($ millions)

Transit 31,263Joint Use Facilities (ML/HOV) 20,297Highways 13,305Local Streets & Roads 14,656Land Use/Systems & Demand Mgmt. 1,825Seaport/Airport/Rail (non-RTP) 1,574Habitat 1,500Beach Sand 231Local Infrastructure TBDStorm Water TBD

TOTAL 84,651

1010

2030 TRANSIT NEEDS2030 TRANSIT NEEDS

Categories 2030 Needs($ millions)

TransitMajor New Facilities 18,263Misc. Capital /Rehab/Replacement 2,860Operating Subsidies 10,140

TOTAL 31,263

6

1111

2030 NON2030 NON--RTPRTPGOODS MOVEMENT NEEDSGOODS MOVEMENT NEEDS

Categories 2030 Needs($ millions)

Seaport/Airport/Rail (non-RTP)Port of San Diego 647Air Cargo Terminals 112Rail Improvements 815

TOTAL 1,574

1212

REMAINING 2030 TRANSPORTATION REMAINING 2030 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDSINFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS

Categories 2030 Needs Goods ($ millions) Movement

Related ($ millions)

Transit 31,263 972Seaport/Airport/Rail (non-RTP) 1,574 1,574

Joint Use Facilities (ML/HOV) 20,297 5,307Highways

New/Widening 7,005 1,095O/M/Rehab 6,300

Local Streets & Roads 14,656Land Use/Systems & Demand Mgmt.

Smart Growth Incentives 355Bike/Ped 507TSM 758TDM 205

TOTAL 82,920 8,947

7

1313

2030 TRANSPORTATION 2030 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTUREINFRASTRUCTURE

$35.6BFUNDED

$47.3BUNFUNDED

1414

2030 NON2030 NON--TRANSPORTATION NEEDSTRANSPORTATION NEEDS

Categories 2030 Needs($ millions)

Habitat 1,500Beach Sand 231Local Infrastructure TBDStorm Water TBD

TOTAL TBD

8

Map of SD and 26 urbanized Map of SD and 26 urbanized communitiescommunities

City of San Diego

1616

9

1717

Total Facilities Needs $4 billionTotal Facilities Needs $4 billion

Identified Sources $1 billionIdentified Sources $1 billion

Infrastructure Deficit $3 billionInfrastructure Deficit $3 billion

1818

2030 OVERALL INFRASTRUCTURE 2030 OVERALL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDSNEEDS

Categories 2030 Needs($ millions)

Transit 31,263Joint Use Facilities (ML/HOV) 20,297Highways 13,305Local Streets and Roads 14,656Land Use/Systems & Demand Mgmt. 1,825Seaport/Airport/Rail (non-RTP) 1,574Habitat 1,500Beach Sand 231Local Infrastructure TBDStorm Water TBD

TOTAL 84,651