The following comes from the San Mateo County Transportation Authority website -
Local
Streets and Transportation
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Beginning in 2009, 22.5 percent of the funds generated by Measure A
every year will be distributed to local cities and San Mateo County for
improvements to local transportation, many of which would not be
completed otherwise. This is estimated to be $338 million over the life
of the measure.
The funds, which are distributed on a formula based on population and the number of road-miles can be used to: maintain local streets and roads by paving streets, repairing potholes and sidewalks; promoting and/or operating alternative modes of transportation such as shuttles, sponsoring carpool, bicycling and pedestrian programs; and to develop and implement traffic operations and safety projects including signal coordination, bike/pedestrian safety projects that eliminate hazardous conditions or acquiring right-of-way.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Posted by Steve Sinai |
19 comments:
To the notion that Pacifica suffers because of relationship problems with the county, does the above table support the thesis?
Right, a relationship to the measure A traffic funding tax based upon road miles, Richard. Pacifica had the largest land mass in San Mateo county prior to ridding itself of 50-60% of its land to "open space".
The following is the prior Measure A Funding Agreement (approved 7/7/1988), 20 years until 12/31/2008. The new tax agreement includes an additional 25 years from 1/2009. "22.5% of the total tax revenue generated by the Transactions and Use Tax".
MEASURE A TRANSPORTATION TAX AGREEMENT
Land mass appears to have nothing to do with Measure A allocations.
Nor does any supposed perception issue between the city council members and the "County".
So, a direct answer to my question would have been, "No, the above table does not support the thesis that Pacifica suffers from relationship problems with the county."
Pacifica's always taken more from the county than it's contributed. That's one of the reasons we're held in such low regard by folks at the county level.
The primary Measure A funding relationship = ROAD MILES, and other transportation services as well as stated in the article, Richard.
City council periodically brings-up the large number of road miles this city has. These road miles exist because Pacifica WAS not a small city prior to the continued land hair-cut over the past 8-12 years. Included in the active of list of those who worked to cripple the potential of this city include: Vreeland, DeJarnatt, Lancelle, Digre.
Steve brings-up the general Pacifica "taker thesis" many of us seem to recognize having lived in this city many years. The colloquial "Pathetica" name may or may not be related.
Using the above ROAD MILES relationship, I wonder if the "old county roads" (50+ year roads) are included. The city just taxed residents who live on these roads for upgrade and repair. Assuming these roads have been part of this city for the last 50 years, and are part of the Measure A road money calculation-- how fair is that?
How much of the Measure A $555,890 annual average county allocation to Pacifica for roads actually went to trails, "the shuttle", etc.? For more than a half-million annual funding you'd think our roads would be in better condition.
Always working the angle to try to put the council in a negative light, eh? This funding doesn't prove anything, one way or the other, about the city's relationship to the county. The funding mechanism is miles+population as a percentage of the funding pie. All participants use the same formula, so there's no unfairness about the allocation.
91 miles of road to maintain, $555,890 a year, with encouragement to spend some of it on alternative transportation modes, I don't know why you'd think that was a lot of money.
Looked at road maintenance costs lately? http://www.sacog.org/mtp/pdf/MTP2035/Issue%20Briefs/Road%20Maintenance.pdf
Richard, I never said this is a lot of money, nor did I say the funding was unfair, nor did I attempt to "prove anything" but simply state the obvious.
The formula for funding is generally stated in the article. Getting a breakdown of money spent on roads in Pacifica is possible, maybe. However, some of our roads are really sub-standard, but what does it matter, this city doesn't seem to have money for such maintenance anyhow.
And since you're bating me, let me ask you do you really think its fair for some citizens to pay for their own road repair, whereas others do not?
Okay, Richard we know the cost of road repair has gone up, while this city has done little to improve the cost of inflation and the cost to maintain this city. That's clear enough, but thanks for the generic visual anyway. A breakdown of Measure A money spent in this city over 20 years would be better.
You lost me on "this city has done little to improve the cost of inflation". I have no idea what you mean with that phrase. (so the phrase, "That's clear enough..." gave me a chuckle).
Some of my earlier response was to similar but different comments others have made. The pattern is always about how inept or misguided the city council is. Sometimes the criticisms are valid. Sometimes they sound valid, but aren't.
About who pays for road repairs, the answer is, "It depends." If the county never dedicated the roads over to the city, then it's up to the county's rules, right? I think the county's rules stink, but the county is harder to deal with than the city.
For background on the principles involved, see County Tree Maintenance and County Right of Way
If you have specifics about the Pacifica road situation, I'd be happy to learn about it.
Dick,
you are lost period.
Thanks for information on the county right of way roads (tree trimming and such), I thought from the city council discussion we were talking about regular roads here prior to Pacifica being a city. My recollection is that this exchange and new ordinance occurred toward the end-of-the-year, but don't seem to find the documents in the city council agendas, hence to be continued...
The entire sentence you're referenced includes "..we know the cost of road repair has gone up, while this city has done little to improve the cost of inflation and the cost to maintain this city." That was in reference to you your "cost of road maintenance" glossy. However, mostly costs for labor intensive work tends to increase.
as do costs for anything relating to oil, such as asphalt, crack sealer, heavy machinery, etc...
But I still don't quite get what you're saying. Are you saying that the city is supposed to control the cost of inflation?
Why does anyone respond to Dick?
Because it's important, and sometimes even fun, to debate issues with people who don't always agree with you.
Without people like Richard, Barky, Ian, and even that most dastardly Snotty Scotty, we become nothing more than an isolated, inbred echo-chamber.
Hell, I pretty much always agree with you, Sinai.
Richard and Ian are a different story.
Richard think you can figure-out what a city is suppose to provide for its citizens. We live in a metropolitan area, and the city is run like the last mission to the outback. Rather than support economic improvement, for the last 8 years city council has promoted economic recession.
For some reason you seem to be stuck on "inflation". You brought up the increased cost of road building-- that's one form of "inflationary cost", including all the oil based products you again mentioned. You're now suggesting the city should NOT factor into its budget inflationary cost? Several days ago we discussed payroll inflation.
Without economic development tax revenue how will this city pay its bills, repair its city infrastructure, and make improvements for its citizens? Or, are you suggesting enjoy the failure and tax the citizens?
Kathy, I was just trying to understand what you wrote. It sounded like you were saying that the city should control inflation itself. If what you were saying was that the city needs to factor in inflation as part of what it's got to cover to run the city, well, we agree.
anyone with an iq over 87 understands that when you defer maintenance on roads, the cost of inflation makes it more expensive to fix at some future date. city adjusts for inflation by expanding the revenue base and keeping up with the price of doing business. city also spends that measure a money to augment what should be in budget to fix roads instead of deferring maintenance, which they clearly haven't done.
i hate reading your posts, dick. its like talking to a 4 year old about quantum physics.
I'm assuming this city has factors-in inflation and other contingencies into their budget, normal business procedure. I don't know why this caused any confusion for you Richard.
Beyond default planning it would be beneficial for this city to also factor in paying down debt, maintenance, advancements, and a reserve. Back to the reason this city needs a higher level stream of tax revenue producing income to bring our economy and services provided by the city all the way up to "average" in the county.
Generally being "dead last", and holding out our tin-cup for the next disaster grant is uncomfortable, irresponsible, expensive and to some extent embarrassing. What city do you live in? Pacifica. Oh.
Post a Comment