15 - Laserfiche WebLink

BACKGROUND In 1991, the seven jurisdictions of Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, Danville, and San Ramon, signed a Joint Powers Agreement to establish the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (MC). The two main goals of the MC are to provide a forum for discussion of projects that may have an impact on the sub-regional transportation system and to create and oversee aSub-Regional Traffic Fee to pay for these impacts. In 1998, each of the seven member jurisdictions adopted the Tri-Valley Traffic Development Fee. The Fee identified eleven sub-regional projects (listed in Table 1) that the fee would help fund. Table 1 - 1998 TVTC Projects (known as "List A" projects) Project Number Project Descri tion Al I-580/1-680 Interchan a southbound to eastbound -com lete A2 Route 84 Ex resswa 1580 to 1680 A3 I-680 Auxilia Lanes A4 West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station -com letel funded A5 I-580 HOV Lanes A6 I-680 HOV Lanes, SR 84 to To of Sunol Grade -com lete A7 I-580/Foothill/San Ramon Road Interchan e A8 I-680/Alcosta Interchan a -com lete A9 Crow Can on Road Im rovements A10 Vasco Road Safe Im rovements A11 Ex ress Bus/Bus Ra id Transit In order to fund these projects, a nexus between the development impact and the associated mitigation needed to be established. The Nexus Study Report completed for the Tri-Valley Traffic Development Fee identified that there was a nexus between the development and the improvements and provided that full funding of these projects may be collected. In 1998, the unfunded portion of these projects totaled $368 million (total cost for the projects was estimated in 1998 to be over $1 billion). The MC determined that although fully funding these eleven projects was possible, it would place too great of a burden on development. The MC decided to apply the fee as a "local match" to help secure State and Federal Funding. The final funding amount was agreed upon at approximately 20% of the unfunded project costs (approximately $73 million). The current MC fee amounts are shown in Figure 1. Page 2 of 8