BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
AB 2382 (Gordon) - Department of Transportation: Innovative
Delivery Team Demonstration Program.
Amended: August 6, 2012 Policy Vote: T&H 8-0
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: August 16, 2012
Consultant: Mark McKenzie
SUSPENSE FILE. AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED.
Bill Summary: AB 2382 would require the Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) to enter into an agreement with the
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) by July 1,
2013 that enumerates the roles and responsibilities of each
entity with respect to a demonstration program for innovative
project delivery in Santa Clara County.
Fiscal Impact:
Estimated Caltrans costs of up to $100,000 (State Highway
Account) to negotiate the memorandum of understanding (MOU)
with VTA.
Minimum dedicated Caltrans staffing costs of at least
$500,000, and potentially as high as $700,000 (State Highway
Account). As existing staff positions, these are not new
costs, and it is assumed that some portion of these costs
would be shifted to VTA through the MOU.
Potential increased costs to Caltrans to the extent that
dedicating specified management staff to Santa Clara County
creates staffing pressures in Caltrans District 4 to cover
ongoing necessary workload elsewhere in the Bay Area (State
Highway Account).
Unknown costs to Caltrans to develop and implement the
demonstration program. Any cost-sharing arrangements with
VTA would be subject to the MOU (State Highway Account).
Potential future cost savings to the extent that the
demonstration program creates efficiencies or project
delivery cost savings that can be applied statewide.
AB 2382 (Gordon)
Page 1
Background: Under existing law, Caltrans is responsible for
overseeing the design, construction, maintenance, and operation
of the California state highway system. Caltrans maintains 12
district offices to work more closely with regional and local
transportation agencies. Caltrans' District 4, responsible for
delivering projects and working with partners in the nine-county
Bay Area from Santa Clara to Sonoma, is currently involved in
over 750 projects across its jurisdiction. Over 3,400 Caltrans
staff currently work out of District 4.
Existing law establishes VTA as a congestion management agency
with responsibility for countywide transportation planning,
including congestion management and design and construction of
specific highway, pedestrian, and bicycle improvement projects.
In 1984, voters in Santa Clara County approved the first cent
sales tax measure in California dedicated to fund transportation
improvements. According to its long-range, countywide
transportation plan, VTA will manage a transportation program
expected to cost more than $15 billion over the next 25 years.
Proposed Law: AB 2382 would require Caltrans to enter into an
MOU with VTA by July 1, 2013 to implement an Innovative Delivery
Team Demonstration Program. Specifically, this bill would:
Require Caltrans and VTA to develop the program to test
specified features of an innovative business model to
deliver transportation projects and local assistance
services in a responsive, cost-effective, and efficient
manner, as specified.
Require the MOU to define realigned roles and
responsibilities, a conflict resolution process, delegation
of decision making authority to co-located Caltrans
managers, empowerment, performance metrics, and financial
support.
Require Caltrans to assign existing staff to VTA
headquarters, including a minimum of one program manager, a
local assistance liaison, and at least one project manager.
VTA would provide any necessary space, equipment and
resources.
Assign responsibility to VTA for preparing and
certifying project study reports, acquiring rights-of-way,
serving as the lead agency during the environmental review
process, administering construction projects, and managing
the local assistance process with respect to projects on
AB 2382 (Gordon)
Page 2
the state highway system.
Require VTA to submit a progress report to the
Legislature by July 1, 2015, and a final report evaluating
the demonstration program by July 1, 2018, as specified.
Sunset the demonstration program on January 1, 2020.
Staff Comments: This bill is intended to create efficiencies in
the delivery of projects on the state highway system in Santa
Clara County by co-locating Caltrans management staff at VTA
headquarters, which is expected to expedite decision making and
streamline project review and approval.
The concept of co-locating Caltrans staff in a local
jurisdiction to create a more efficient working relationship is
not new, but it has historically been predicated on having
sufficient work to support this business model. For example,
Caltrans assigned an entire design team to Santa Clara County in
1984 to facilitate workload associated with highway improvements
funded by a local transportation sales tax measure. Caltrans
maintained staff on-site following the passage of another
transportation sales tax measure in 1996 and continued to assist
in the delivery of highway and transit improvement projects
until 2004, when state staff were redirected during a period of
consolidating field offices with insufficient work. Considering
the history of the working relationship between Caltrans and
VTA, it appears that the goals of the bill could be accomplished
administratively.
There are currently 16 state highway system projects underway in
Santa Clara County: six are in the project study and planning
phase, six are in the environmental phase, and four are actually
under construction. VTA is identified as the lead agency on 14
of the projects, and only three out of the 12 projects that are
not in the construction phase are fully funded. The Committee
may wish to consider whether this modest workload on the state
highway system justifies the co-location of senior Caltrans
staff with VTA.
The bill seems to imply that the diversion of management-level
staff to VTA would facilitate the decision making process, and
reduce any delays experienced by VTA in getting project reviews
and approvals. While this arrangement may indeed result in
efficiencies for VTA, it could create commensurate
inefficiencies in Caltrans' District 4 as these management
AB 2382 (Gordon)
Page 3
personnel would essentially be on a special assignment and would
be unavailable to perform regular duties and responsibilities
that are not associated with VTA's jurisdiction.
Proposed amendments would add a "local request disclaimer" of
state reimbursement for any mandated costs incurred by the VTA.