North Coast roads could get relief from state transportation bill

Revenue from a sweeping transportation bill announced Wednesday in Sacramento could help with much-needed repairs for North Coast roads, but won’t take care of big-ticket projects such as completing widening of Highway 101 through Petaluma, local transportation officials said.

Sonoma County would receive an estimated $20.2 million annually over a decade for road repairs under a combination of gas tax increases and vehicle license fees outlined Wednesday by Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative leaders.

Of that amount, $12.3 million would be available for use in unincorporated areas. The rest - roughly ?$7.8 million - would be divvied up among cities according to size, with Santa Rosa projected to get nearly ?$4 million annually, followed by Petaluma ?($1.4 million) and Rohnert Park ($940,000).

State Sen. Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, said the funding package amounts to the most significant investment in roads, highways and bridges in California history. He noted that the $12.3 million earmarked for unincorporated areas of Sonoma County is more or less what the county spends annually on its repaving program.

“The longer we wait, the more expensive it’s going to be,” McGuire said of the need for Sacramento to act.

Local transportation officials said they’d welcome the money while acknowledging it wouldn’t be enough to solve every pressing need.

The cost to complete widening of Highway 101 from Petaluma into Marin County is pegged at more than $200 million.

“I don’t think it’s going to be a panacea for Sonoma County,” said Supervisor David Rabbitt, who is on the boards of several regional transportation agencies.

Caltrans has identified the widening project as a priority, which means some money for the highway work presumably would be found under the proposed transportation bill, according to Suzanne Smith, executive director of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority.

“Having said that, it’s unlikely we would get full funding,” Smith said.

Local officials are likely to push for an extension of Measure M, a quarter-cent sales tax approved in 2004 to fund local transportation projects.

Officials are considering asking voters to support raising the tax to a half-cent to generate more money. Under that scenario, a 20-year extension of Measure M, when combined with the remaining years left on the current initiative, would generate about $1.7 billion over its term.

“There’s not a single source of money, or single approach, that’s going to fix the problem,” Smith said.

There’s also no guarantee that the transportation funding package unveiled Wednesday will be approved. The initiative faces significant political headwinds, including from taxpayer groups, Republican lawmakers and even some Democrats.

Assemblyman Marc Levine said Wednesday he’s not opposed in general to supporting an increase in the gas tax, saying there is “broad agreement” it’s too low. But the Marin County Democrat said he’s withholding judgment on the bill until he has had time to read it.

“Sacramento is no place for drunken sailors. We have to do our job responsibly,” he said. “We have to actually read legislation, especially when we are going to raise taxes on people who have to drive long distances to get to their jobs.”

A spokeswoman for Assemblyman Jim Wood, D-Healdsburg, echoed the same sentiment, saying Wood needs more time to determine how the bill will impact his constituents.

Backers of the bill have sought to address one long-standing criticism of previous funding packages by including a constitutional amendment that would require the money be spent solely for transportation needs.

Funding for California’s roads has eroded over time for a number of reasons. They include flat or declining revenue from gas taxes, a main source of repair money, driven partly by increased fuel efficiency. At the same time, inflation has driven up the cost of road repairs.

The 10-year funding package announced this week would generate an estimated ?$8 billion less than other proposals weighed by Brown and lawmakers. That means less money for communities to spend, but also less of a burden financially on motorists. Current projections are the bill would cost motorists an average of between $6.50 and $7.50 monthly in increased expenses related to higher taxes and fees.

Supporters say the increases are justified.

“Improved state funding together with continuing funds from the supervisors couldn’t come at a more urgent time, given the destructive rainy season that seems to be slowly coming to an end,” said Craig Harrison, co-founder of Save Our Sonoma Roads, an advocacy group.

But Dan Drummond, executive director of the Sonoma County Taxpayers Association, opposes the funding package on the grounds that it does not address pension liabilities.

“It’s obvious we need some adjustment to gas taxes, and the roads are in sorry need of additional funding,” Drummond said. “But this is treating symptoms and not the cause.”

You can reach Staff Writer Derek Moore at 707-521-5336.