HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1982/07/06 Item 9COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item q
Meeting Date 7/6/82
ITE TITLE: Resolution /~ 9a~ Approving Local Option Fuel Tax Ballot
Proposition and greement
SUB ITTED BY: City Engineer ;_~`~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
Rec nt California legislation empowers the people on an individual county
basis to determine by vote whether to impose a local tax on themselves to pay
for better local roads. On February 23, 1982 I submitted a report on the
va ious options available under legislation. It was my recommendation that
Co cil support a county-wide election for a two cent increase in Gas Tax,
wi revenues to be distributed per a specified methodology. Council
un nimously accepted my report. In order to submit such a Local Option Fuel
Ta (LOFT) proposal to the voters in November it is necessary that a Ballot
Pr position and Written Agreement with respect to allocation of the revenues
be een the County and the Cities first be approved by the County Board of
Su ervisors and a majority of City Council involved. It is my
RE OMMENDATION: That the City Council
1. Approve the attached LOFT Ballot Proposition.
2. Approve the attached multi-agency LOFT Agreement.
3. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement in behalf of the City.
BO D/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
On~May 26, 1982, the Board of Supervisors made the following decisions on the
Lo al Option Fuel Tax (LOFT).
Do not support a 4¢ Local Option Fuel Tax or a 1/2¢ Sales Tax at this time.
2.
3.
Approve the proposed Ballot Proposition and Written Agreement for a 2¢
Local Option Fuel Tax to be submitted for voter approval at the
November 2, 1982 election.
Direct the Director, County Department of Public Works to distribute the
Ballot Proposition and Written Agreement to the 16 cities for their
consideration and approval.
Th Board of Supervisors through County staff has subsequently requested that
ea h of the city councils within the County approve the attached LOFT Ballot
Pr position. Such approval will not constitute an endorsement of the LOFT,
bu merely recognition that the issue should be submitted for voters'
co sideration. In order to be placed on the County-wide ballot in November
th ballot proposition must be approved by the County and a majority of the
ci ies representing a majority of the incorporated area population.
Page 2, Item 9
Meeting Date 7/6/82
The County also requested approval of the attached LOFT Written Agreement.
Thi agreement is to distribute the LOFT revenues between the Cities and the
Cou ty. The method of distribution incorporated in the agreement would
ann ally give each City and County a base amount of $100,000 with the
rem fining revenues being spread on a 75% population, 25% street mileage basis.
If he proposed 2¢ LOFT receives voter approval, Chula Vista is estimated to
rec five an additional $693,000 annually. Per the proposed proposition such
funs could be used for maintenance, construction, repairs and safety
imp ovements on local streets.
Per Senate Bill 215 the Written Agreement must be approved by the County and
all of the Cities in order to become effective if and when the proposed ballot
pro osition is approved by the voters.
I elieve it essential that this community's system of streets be preserved
thr ugh adequate maintenance. Failure to do so will eventually lead to such
det rioration as to necessitate massive replacement. Maintenance is
unq estionably the less expensive and more practical of the two choices.
The LOFT proposal appears to be a reasonable and equitable means of obtaining
additional funds for street purposes. I believe that the voters should have
the opportunity to consider it on the November ballot.
WEH:dI/LY073
WPC 0054E
!~ by tf~e City Co.arcii of
~~uia 1~ast~, Ca~if~r~~a
G~-,~o9~7