This is the latest on the Fix 5 solution...from a reporters point of view. Bottom line...it is a tax and is it needed. Let's be real, folks. Good job reporting...now the citizens that will be paying the tax can complain.

Shasta County supervisors question I-5 plan

By Kimberly Ross (Contact)
Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Shasta County supervisors posed plenty of questions and some skepticism Tuesday for a revised plan to create hefty development fees for improving the north state's stretch of Interstate 5.

At a public workshop, the board of supervisors heard a presentation on the Fix 5 project, now called the Shasta County Regional Improvement Program. If adopted by the county and its three cities, the plan would charge $1,697 for building each equivalent of a single-family home.

Shasta County Regional Transportation Planning Agency Executive Director Dan Little said I-5 use in 2005 was at 68 percent of its capacity. In 2015, it will hit 90 percent of capacity, and it will be at 114 percent in 2030. That means what is now a 50-minute drive across Shasta and Tehama counties would grow to 2 hours and 20 minutes in 2030.

"If this were a capacity issue like a sewer, a water line or a storm drain, we probably wouldn't be talking about it this late in the game," Little said.

Supervisor Leonard Moty said that he sees the need for I-5 improvements. But he wonders whether a local transportation or gas tax could be raised instead to better charge all motorists regularly using I-5.

"I am somewhat concerned that we're ... putting this onto a particular group, and not on everyone who drives," he said.

Little said that the development fee would make up just 5 percent of I-5's mainline improvement costs from Cottonwood Creek to Mountain Gate. The rest of the $232 million cost over about 20 years will come from state and federal money, which is provided by taxpayers.

Supervisor David Kehoe shared a similar concern for burdening future local development exclusively, and asked whether a toll road or use of hotel taxes had been considered.

A sales tax is an option, but a toll road would be legally barred because the interstate already exists. Diverting transient occupancy taxes could be a viable solution, but would likely be considered too unrelated and create opposition with a new group.

Moty also questioned whether the interstate needs to be widened across two counties when transportation officials agree I-5 is used much more for short, local trips.

"If what we really need are eight lanes between Cypress (Avenue) and Highway 44, that's a big difference," he said.

Little said it's difficult to convince two-thirds of voters to tax themselves, as required by law. Residents who live in the area already reject the idea that they should pay for future residents' use of I-5, he said.

Supervisor Les Baugh wasn't concerned that the plan is likely to fuel a legal challenge from opponents, but he did want to know who would pay for defending it.

Willdan Financial Services Project Manager Jeff Kay, who co-presented the project Tuesday, said the Regional Transportation Planning Agency would, using reserve funds for planning and programming.

The RTPA is funded with taxpayer dollars primarily though federal and state funds and special grants, Little said after the meeting. He added that doing nothing also exposes the RTPA to lawsuits for not mitigating impacts on I-5, as Chico and Fresno have for highways in their areas.

"If we don't do it this way, we'll end up in court through other ways," he said.

The workshop's single public commenter, Shasta Voices Executive Director Mary Machado, criticized the plan and said that if the government needs more cash to fix I-5, it needs only to increase the state's gas tax.

"We have a mechanism in place already, and that is the gas tax (collected) at the pump," Machado said.

That method would more fairly raise money from all I-5 users, she said.

Machado said the new proposal is just as legally questionable as its predecessor, faulting it for being based on the old version's 2006 study.

Contrary to Machado's claim, Little said, "we did not revise the program because we felt it was illegal ... We simply amended it because we felt it was better (revised)."

Kay added that the nexus study needs to be updated, and will be, but there's no reason to think its long-term growth projections will be much different.

"I would argue that it isn't necessary to blow up all of the assumptions and start over again," he said.