Road projects lead to talk

Asking Calaveras County voters in November to support another bond measure is among options county leaders are considering as they search for ways to pay for nu-merous multi-million-dollar road projects.
 One concrete step they took was raising one of the fees on new dwelling units constructed in the county.

Among the top five projects on the county’s roadwork priority list are widening the winding and accident-prone Murphys Grade and Mountain Ranch roads.
 

These five projects alone have a total price tag of nearly $75 million. Completing the full list of 14 projects would cost nearly $271 million, the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors was told Tuesday.

Board members have until Aug. 7 to decide whether to put a bond measure on the Nov. 3 ballot, but some are already expressing doubts about the chances of it passing.

County voters in November 2007 narrowly approved the $31 million Measure J, which along with matching state money, is to cover the design and construction of a new 240-bed jail and emergency dispatch center.

The measure is based on private property values and adds about $18 a year per $100,000 in assessed value to property taxes over the next 30 years.    

Pitching another bond measure based on property values to voters, Board Chairman Russ Thomas said Wednesday, “has a snowball’s chance in hell.”

Supervisors heard a presentation Tuesday on the county’s Road Impact Mitigation, or RIM, fees program intended to help cover the impact new residents have on county roads.

Both Murphys Grade and Mountain Ranch roads are increasingly busy, have claimed several lives in recent years, and are in need of extensive repairs and improvements, board members noted.

Also among the five priority projects are upgrades to the highway 12/26 intersection in Valley Springs and to Jenny Lind and Milton roads.

RIM fees, noted Supervisor Merita Callaway, are only for projects that will allow more traffic, or capacity, on certain roads. But while accomplishing that, the roads can also be made safer, she said.

But the RIM fees that the board in 2004 approved — $3,300 per new house or dwelling unit, such as an apartment — have not been raised since then.

Acting Public Works Director Robert Pachinger said the county currently has about $7 million in these fees for the five priority projects, meaning about $68 million of the costs need to come through other funding sources, such as grants or voter-approved measures.

As recommended by Pachinger, board members unanimously approved raising the RIM fee to $4,062 per new dwelling unit, an increase of $762. But that fee increase won’t be enough, Public Works officials said.

The notion of turning to voters for the many millions more needed for the road work was then discussed with supervisors by consultant Jonathan Edwards. He represents Government Financial Services, of Sacramento, which handled much of the Measure J campaign.

Edwards listed four taxing sources that could be put before voters: a sales tax, gas tax, transient occupancy tax charged on visitor accommodations, or a parcel tax. A parcel tax of $75 per parcel and raised 2 percent a year, his calculations show, would be the only option for raising enough to pay for the five priority road projects.

Community meetings on the roads projects and funding options have already been held in Murphys, Rail Road Flat and San Andreas. Meetings in Valley Springs, Arnold and Copperopolis will be held over the next few days.
 

Pachinger said the meetings are not intended to generate support for a bond measure and are designed only to let residents around the county know of the projects that need to be done and the funding challenges that will need to be resolved.

“We’re not going to these community meetings to convince anyone of anything,” he said. “We’re just showing them this is what it is.”

In agreeing that raising the per-dwelling RIM fees is a start to generating more road money, Callaway said the board should have called for higher fees back in 2004.

“The board needs to do the right thing and make some difficult decisions,” she said.

After Edwards’ presentation, Supervisor Steve Wilensky questioned him about the chances of a parcel tax winning support from enough county voters, and suggested that a bond measure to cover more than just road work might have a better chance at the polls.

Thomas agreed when asked about the matter Wednesday.

He mentioned improved senior citizen services or boosting emergency services as possible additional bond measure beneficiaries.

“I would certainly be in favor of trying to package something like that, so it could be more appealing,” Thomas said, “have more widespread benefits.”

Regardless of what supervisors ultimately decide on calling for a bond measure or not, Pachinger said the Public Works Department will continue to aggressively seek state and federal funding to cover as many road improvement projects as the county can afford to do.