The San Benito County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously March 14 to issue a letter of support concerning California Senate Bill 1 (SB-1), which would create the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program to address deferred maintenance on the state highway system and the local street and road system. SB-1 would annually set aside $200 million of the funds available for the program to fund road maintenance and rehabilitation purposes in counties that have sought and received voter approval of taxes or that have imposed fees, including uniform developer fees, through which taxes or fees are dedicated solely to transportation improvements.
Ray Espinosa, county administrative officer, introduced the agenda item by stating that Supervisor Anthony Botelho brought it up after attending a meeting in Sacramento, and that it was an urgent matter for the board to send a letter to show its support for the bill.
Botelho said he was part of a committee representing the San Benito County Council of Governments (COG) in discussions in Sacramento that concerned road funding. He said the county is in a crisis and that all members of the board have heard repeatedly from their constituents about flat tires and broken axles due to potholes. He described how he left photos of potholes with the governor’s office to make a visual impact.
“The bottom line is that SB-1 is being debated up in Sacramento and if nothing happens before the spring recess, the likelihood of any sort of revenues in the way of tax increases or decreases for transportation for our road networks will die and be gone for three or four years,” he said. “Sacramento just has to do the right thing for once and move forward with a much needed increase in gas taxes, (DMV) registration fees, and (truck) weight fees.”
Botelho said the road problems were just beginning and that the county needs to help itself through another tax measure in 2018 to support its infrastructure.
“We need to be a self-help county and leverage even more funds to repair and maintain our roads,” he said and asked the board to support the letter, even though he thought it was not as strong as it should be. “Now is the time for action. We can play politics, but there comes a time that you either play the cards in your hand or you fold and you’ve lost everything.”
Supervisor Robert Rivas said he has been following the progress of SB-1 on its website that tracks roads throughout the state. He said the county’s roads are in the same poor condition as most are in California.
“You drive in any direction and you will soon realize our roads are a mess,” he said and then referenced a New York Times article that he thought at first might be fake news because of the outlandish solution the City of Omaha took concerning its deteriorating roads. “Omaha introduced this concept of ‘reclaiming’ roads. The process includes grinding paved streets into gravel, making them dirt roads. They came in, grinded them up, and never came back.”
Rivas said even though he supports the bill, it is unlikely any of the money will come to the county.
“We need a plan to improve and fund our local road repairs,” he said. “I refuse to resort to the unusual solution that Omaha has adopted, which of course is under litigation, but if we don’t act quickly we may have no choice but to resort to reclaiming our local roads. We need to pursue another tax, but we need to change the discussion from funding Highway 25. This has to absolutely be about funding local roads.”
Supervisor Jerry Muenzer recounted how he and his wife drove along Cienega Road looking for potholes and even though he was driving slowly, he almost crashed into one. He said the roads can only be fixed through public support for a tax measure.
“The day after Measure P failed, I was getting calls about potholes,” he said. “It was frustrating, to not get the public’s support and then asked what are we going to do about it.”
Reed Sanders, representing Senator Anthony Cannella, said as a life-long resident of the county, he understood what the people of the county were experiencing. He said federal and state funding are uncertain, but support must continue on a local level to put pressure on Sacramento.
Resident Cathy Alameda suggested that if SB-1 were to pass, the county still needs to do its due diligence by devising a priority list of local projects and why they are important.
“The last measure (P) did not,” she said. “The vast majority of the money went to Highway 25. I voted against it. I didn’t feel it met the needs of us locals or our local roads.”
Marty Richman questioned the logic of supporting both local road repair and SB-1, which he described as a “boondoggle.”
“It’s a typical California Senate bill,” he said. “First of all, they take all this money and then they’re going to take out an enormous amount ($300 million) for high speed rail. Then after they reserve $200 million for road repairs they’re going to take $80 million of that and give it to Caltrans, which is not going to come down here and fix our roads.”
Richman said a 12 cent increase in gasoline tax and weight fees would only result in the county receiving less than $170,000.
“What are you going to build for $170, 000?” he challenged. “This bill supports the State of California’s enormous overhead costs, and they’re going to put in a new inspector general’s office to make sure everything runs right. Who’s going to pay for that? We are with this tax. You’re going to take a lot of money out of people’s pockets and when they have no disposable income left you’re going to come back and say ‘we’d like to increase the tax to pay for local road repairs.’”
Botelho did not agree with some of Richman’s calculations. Instead of refuting Richman’s data, though, he asked Mary Gilbert, executive director of COG, if she had any figures. She said she had estimates from the legislative analyst’s office based on $2.2 billion in new funding for local street rehabilitation.
“That would equate to about $3.1 million annually to San Benito County,” she said. “The City of Hollister, $1.3 million, and San Juan Bautista, less than $100,000 annually.”
Botelho responded, “Anything that comes out of Sacramento is generally bad. I agree with you, Marty, but for a lack of anything else going on, we need some help and that’s why I’m supporting this letter.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.