News

Santa Cruz County has some real tooth-rattlers. A 2011 report found its rural roads were “failed.”

Santa Cruz County has some real tooth-rattlers. A 2011 report found its rural roads were “failed.”

Santa Cruz County voters might have to decide this November if local roads are worth $10.

The per-vehicle  registration fee, which will face a vote at the Regional Transportation Commission next month before going on the ballot, would produce an estimated $2.2 million annually and need a two-thirds majority to pass. A preliminary poll showed 69 percent of respondents in favor of it—right there in the margin of error.

Just how bad are the county’s roads? A report from Richmond-based Nichols Consulting Engineers last year rated Santa Cruz County’s roads the third worst in the state,  ahead  only of Monterey and Sonoma counties. Especially bad were Santa Cruz County’s rural roads, which collectively scored just 23 out of a possible 100, putting them solidly in the “failed” category for pavement condition. (The county’s roads scored a 49 overall—a point shy of “at risk,” but alas, in the end just “failed.”)

Some roads scored lower than others. Thompson Avenue,  a residential road in Live Oak, scored a 14 out of 100. San Andreas Road in Aptos scored a 27. Soquel Drive, an important mid-county artery running parallel to the Highway 1, scored 56.

Steve Wiesner, assistant director of the county public works department, says the measure would provide enough dollars to resurface the roads and “maintain” their current state, which is the measure’s goal—not a total transformation of local roads that would put us on the top of the state’s list.

“It’s to get us closer to where we need to be,” Wiesner says. “Every little bit counts.”

The measure would come at a time when Californians are keeping a closer eye on their bank accounts and when several ballot measures aim to offer solutions to financial woes at the government level. November’s ballot will also include three statewide tax measures, including a plan from Gov. Jerry Brown to hike sales tax and income taxes for those making more than $250,000 a year.

Napa County announced a ballot measure for a half-cent sales tax last week to help fund local roads. Monterey and Sonoma, the only two counties worse than Santa Cruz, according to last year’s report, have yet to announce similar tax proposals, but watchful eyes may be on Santa Cruz from the other side of the bay.

Debbie Hale, executive director for the Transportation Agency of Monterey County, doesn’t think voters in her county would approve a tax or fee increase this year. But she is curious to see how it goes here.

“Let’s see what happens in Santa Cruz, and if they’re able to move forward maybe we’ll look at it next time,” Hale says.

  • https://www.santacruz.com/news/2012/07/17/rtc_weighs_roads_measure Don Honda

    Jacob—nice little spin, “Santa Cruz County voters might have to decide this November if local roads are worth $10.”  You don’t delve into how the proposed measure does not have a sunset clause, that is open to fees increasing in the future, that at the onset, at least 20% is earmarked for non-road related venues.  This is besides the point that the RTC receives funding for road maintenance but disburses it to other budgetary items.  See:  http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_highway_fy1112.html to find out how much Santa Cruz County receives from the State alone, then add how the city of Santa Cruz has financial obligations (through past measure H to fix our local roads.

  • https://www.santacruz.com/news/2012/07/17/rtc_weighs_roads_measure Don Honda

    Add:  That it will be stipulated that the funds be used at the discretion of the municipalities receiving them.  That 20% off the top is minimal—it could get up to 100% with no oversight as to how it is spent.  The only restriction is that no more than 5% be used for administration costs.  This is based on SB 83 (2009).

  • https://www.santacruz.com/news/2012/07/17/rtc_weighs_roads_measure Bill Smallman

    It’s important to note the amount of money collected for road repair to date.  I believe the amount taken out of property taxes is $56 per parcel per year.  On top of that 67.7 per gallon of gas,(49.3 cents State, 18.4 cents Fed), also gets collected for this purpose.  Being that roads are high on the list of what citizens expect the government to maintain, the $56 figure is quite low.  In my humble opinion, yes, $10 is not a lot, but when will asking for more money stop, and the inefficient poor use of money by the government stop? Send government a message an reject this measure.  Cut costs on programs that you do not want to pay for, and increase the $56 to around $250. And provide that all of the 67.7 cents per gallon go directly into an account for this purpose, with none going to government bureaucrats.

  • https://www.santacruz.com/news/2012/07/17/rtc_weighs_roads_measure Don Honda

    Add:

    DMV/CHP had an excess $500 Million in funds.  It was just raided for $432 Million by Gov. Brown to put into the General Fund.  I have this verified by email from a State Finance Officer.  It sure could have fixed alotta roads!

    Response:  The Motor Vehicle Account is used primarily for state operations of the Department of Motor Vehicles and the California Highway Patrol.  The fund condition published in the Governor’s Budget did show a $500 million fund balance.  The May Revision proposed a $300 million loan from the MVA to the General Fund.  In addition, the budget passed by the Legislature increased the loan to $432.2 million, which will result in a fund balance of $109 million.  The budget requires repayment of the loans by June 30, 2016.

  • https://www.santacruz.com/news/2012/07/17/rtc_weighs_roads_measure Ian

    It’s important to note the amount of money collected for road repair to date.  I believe the amount taken out of property taxes is $56 per parcel per year.  On top of that 67.7 per gallon of gas,(49.3 cents State, 18.4 cents Fed), also gets collected for this purpose.  Being that roads are high on the list of what citizens expect the government to maintain, the $56 figure is quite low.  In my humble opinion, yes, $10 is not a lot, but when will asking for more money stop, and the inefficient poor use of money by the government stop? Send government a message an reject this measure.  Cut costs on programs that you do not want to pay for, and increase the $56 to around $250. And provide that all of the 67.7 cents per gallon go directly into an account for this purpose, with none going to government bureaucrats. Money On Toast