Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/27/1990 B A K E R S F I E L D Patricia Smith, Chair Conni Brunni Kevin McDermott Staff: John W. Stinson INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, June 27, 1990 6:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. Underground Storage Tanks 2. Congestion Management Plan COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DRAFT County Administradve Officer TO: Intergovernmental Relations Committee DATE: July 2, 1990 FROM: Joel Heinrichs, Director ,/~j~7 Policy Analysis & IntergovemmL.'ntal Relations SUBJECT: CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM City and County staff met to review the options available for development and implementation of the Congestion Management Program. The range of options include: 1. Designate Kern County as the responsible agency. 2. Designate KemCog as the responsible agency--with a requirement that the program be endorsed by the County and a majority of the cities with a majority of the population. 3. Designate KemCog as the responsible agency (KemCog proposal). 4. Create a new, single-purpose responsible agency to develop and implement the program. 5. Create a Transportation Commission to develop and implement the program (exclusively). 6. Create a Transportation Commission to develop and implement the congestion management program and transfer related transportation planning duties from KemCog to the Commission. 7. Reorganize KemCog voting structure--assign Congestion Management Plan to reorganized COG. Creation of a County Transportation Commission requires approved from County and a majority of cities representing a majority of the population, so it can only be considered a long-term option. Further, it should be pursued only if a major restructuring of all KemCog duties is desired. Similarly, a major restructing of the COG is a long-term proposition. Intergovernmental Relations Committee DRAFT Page 2 The immediate options,' therefore, include: o designate Kern County o designate KernCog - with limitation on program adoption o designate KernCog - no strings o create a new responsible agency Key factors to keep in mind when selecting a course of action include: o The Congestion Management Program must be developed, adopted and annually updated. o The Program must be developed in consultation with regional transportation providers, the transportation planning agency (KernCog), local governments, Caltrans and the Air Pollution Control District. o The Program must include: 1) traffic level of service standards 2) transit level of service standards 3) trip and travel reduction strategies 4) land use impact on transportation system analysis 5) 7-year Capital Improvement Program designed to meet standards listed above o The responsible agency must develop a computer model and data base to analyze the traffic impacts of new development (KernCog has such a computer model). o The Program must be submitted to the regional agency (KemCog) for a finding of consistency with the regional transportation plan. o The responsible agency must annually determine if the County and cities are conforming to the program. o If the responsible agency finds a city or county in "non-conformance," road1 maintenance funds will be withheld by State Controller until the agency determines that a city or county is in conformance. 1Amendments to the original Legislation have made this much less likely. Local agencies are now allowed to adopt a nc~ency plan," wkich, if approved by the Agency, exempts the~ local ,,der. . jurisdiction from fully meeting Congestion Management Plan requirements. Further, a number of specific types of traffic (inter-regional, low income housing generated), are exempted from the standards, which will make "conformit3/' requirements easier to implement. Intergovernmental Relations Committee JUlYPage 2,3 1990 DRAFT Given the complexity of the legislation, and the importance of ongoing requirements for program updates and conformity findings, there are several options which merit the most serious consideration. These include, in order of increasing complexity, the following: 1. Designate KernCog--with a requirement that the program, including all annual updates, be concurred in by the County and a majority of cities representing a majority of the incorporated popUlation. This approach is the simplest. It will assure that both Kern County and the City of Bakersfield have effective "veto power" over the initial program and annual updates. However, KernCog woUld retain the responsibility for reviewing the conformance of each city and the county with the program. 2. Create a Congestion Management 'Agency with representation roughly reflecting population. (Possible Membership: Kern County (2), City of Bakersfield (1), small city representative (1), GET (1)). The Agency coUld contract with Kern County, City of Bakersfield, or KernCog to prepare the program documents and do the required analysis. The major advantage of this approach is that the responsible agency would be reflective of the agencies most effected by the Congestion Management Program. The primary disadvantages are: (1) it may be difficult to "sell" to a majority of cities, (2) it will require significant staff support--possibly more than initially visualized by City and County Public Works, and (3) it may require capital investment in the necessary computer hardware and software. 3. Restructure KemCog membership prior to designating KemCog as responsible agency. (Possible weighted votes: Arvin (1), Bakersfield (16), California City (1), Delano (2), Maricopa (1), McFarland (1), Ridgecrest (3), Shafter (1), Taft (1), Tehachapi (1), Wasco (1), Kern County (26), GET (5)).2 This approach has the significant advantage of integrating development of the congestion management plan with other regional planning efforts within a balanced structure. It would also resolve other, long-standing County concerns regarding the KernCog voting structure. The only disadvantage of this proposal is that the likelihood of a successfully negotiated restrucling of KernCog is very low. 2Weighted votes based on one vote per 10,000 popUlation (total votes equal 60). All jurisdictions guaranteed one vote, Kern County population figure includes unincorporated population only, and GET was assigned arbitrary weight to reflect size and single purpose function. Intergovernmental Relations Committee JUlYPage 2,4 1990 DRAFT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City and County propose formation of a Congestion Management Agency. Formation of such an agency will require significant staff time from the City and County. While some revenues may be available to fund the Program, it cannot be expected that all costs will be recovered. Further, to "sell" this approach to the smaller cities, something will probably need to be offered other than simply an argument that it is "fairer" to the County and City of Bakersfield. That "something" may be a willingness to absorb some of the staff costs so that more road maintenance dollars are passed through to the cities than if KernCog were to manage the Program. If the City and County are unwilling to absorb some of the costs, then it is probably best to pursue option #1. After all, if KernCog's voting structure were more equitably, it would be the logical agency to implement the Congestion Management Program. JH/ce/jhirc