SCOTTS VALLEY — The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission affirmed its support for pair of Coastal Rail Trail segments in Mid County and pledged to seek solutions to financial shortfalls after progress was recently put on pause by the county Board of Supervisors, which is the lead agency for the project.
Among the actions approved by the commission at its special meeting, called Thursday in the Scotts Valley City Council Chambers, was to explicitly support continuation of the project with the trail alongside the Branch Rail Line known as the “ultimate” configuration, ask its staff to work with local partners on efforts to reduce costs, including negotiations with Roaring Camp Railroad to assume the burden of relocating tracks in some areas, as well as a commitment to fully fund the project through state, federal and local funding sources.
“It’s no guarantee that we’re going to be able to do this project ultimately; that we’ll have the money,” said Andy Schiffrin, the alternate for Commissioner Justin Cummings. “But by approving the project — or urging the county to approve the project — we make it possible to potentially do it and we stay on track.”
Segments 10 and 11 of the Coastal Rail Trail stretch 4.7 miles from Live Oak to Aptos and the county is assigned as the lead agency while the local commission is a support that has some discretionary approval but doesn’t hold final responsibility.
The vote of confidence comes in contrast to a decision last month by the county board to approve an environmental report for the project while declining to move forward with design plans and a process to formally accept a $67.6 million grant awarded by the California Transportation Commission in time for its June meeting.
Disputed design
The decision in March reignited a debate among local representatives and advocates. Some fear, citing comments from county and commission staff, that the delay could jeopardize the state grant or call into question the county’s ability to deliver on projects among state authorities when it comes time to assign future grants.
Others, namely county supervisors Bruce McPherson and Manu Koenig who sunk the board’s vote to move forward last month, say the $27 million to $28 million estimated cost overruns warrant a pause and a deeper look at the numbers, among other environmental concerns.
These perspectives were reinforced at Thursday’s meeting by Koenig and McPherson’s representatives on the commission, both of whom voted against the motion to approve all staff recommendations.
Virginia Johnson, the alternate for McPherson, said the growing cost of the segments in the face of a massive budget deficit that is projected in the coming state budget, made her skeptical of securing state grants to finish the project that, in turn, threatens funding for future segments. She added that this is part of why she’s uncomfortable voicing support for only the ultimate option without ruling out the possibility of “interim” designs, meaning, designs that put the trail in place of the rail tracks, which was estimated by staff to cost about $2 million extra.
“That is not saying ‘no’ to ultimate. That’s saying ‘let’s have a plan,’ ” said Johnson. “If we ignore the feasible, financial constraints we have before us today, we are not filing out fiduciary responsibility to the public.”
Mckeithen said he also had concerns that, should the commission fail to receive future grants, it would threaten funding for subsequent trail segments in South County as money from the 2016 Measure D sales tax dries up.
“I am led to believe that South County is contributing its fair share to Measure D but will be further disenfranchised by staff’s recommendation,” he said.
Alternate Robert Quinn, who voted for the motion, said he felt people in South County should feel “ripped off right about now.”
Mckeithen brushed aside concerns that requesting an extension of the grant from the state commission would threaten the funding. He pointed to comments from Mitch Weiss, interim executive director for the Santa Cruz commission and former executive director of the California Transportation Commission, who said at a meeting a few weeks ago that the state’s program approved 18 time extensions at its June meeting last year.
“It’s not something the (state) commission wants to see,” said Weiss earlier this month, “but I do not envision a short time extension jeopardizing this project.”
Frustrated response
Mckeithen and Johnson received strong pushback from Schiffrin and Commissioner Mike Rotkin, who said the passenger rail option is specifically why the project was appealing to Caltrans and was a critical factor in winning the grant money that makes any trail possible in the first place.
“One hope that I have out of this is that we can end this discussion about the ultimate versus the interim trail — it is a diversion,” said Rotkin.
Schiffrin said he felt it was “disingenuous” to oppose the motion on the basis of advocating for South County because “helping South County is figuring out a way to get grant money to do the segments in South County and having a trail that goes from Santa Cruz to South County.”
Commissioner Sandy Brown, acting as temporary chair of the commission in the absence of Kristen Brown, suggested the “no” votes were obstructionist.
“If you oppose this, why not just be honest and make a motion to return that money to the CTC? Because that is what the reality is,” said Brown. “I do feel that obstructionism is occurring and it’s very frustrating.”
The approved motion also included a request, suggested by Commissioner Eduardo Montesino, for staff to prepare an analysis by June that includes a breakdown for allocating Measure D funds specifically for South County rail trail segments and maintenance fees.
County calls
Rob Tidmore, the county’s lead planner for the project who attended the meeting, told the Sentinel that county staff will request a grant extension from the state ahead of an April 29 deadline for the “maximum amount of time” in light of the county board’s decision last month not to formally sign an agreement accepting it.
He said staff will simultaneously request an on-schedule allocation of the funds in case the board reverses course at its April 30 meeting and formally signs on to the grant. But even if that happens, he added, meeting the months-long timeline to submit that agreement to the state is “really unlikely.”
But what if the county board refuses, again, to agree to formally accept the grant from the state?
The county transportation commission, as part of its approved motion Thursday, directed its staff to identify the necessary steps for the state commission to reassign the nearly $68 million grant from the county to the Santa Cruz commission, “should it be desirable and beneficial.”