Regional I-5 fix DOA in Anderson

Following more than three years of negotiations on the concept and a $400,000 study paid for with federal and state grants, the Anderson City Council voted 4-1 against a county-wide regional improvement plan to widen Interstate 5 and improve interchanges along a 25-mile stretch of the federal freeway between Cottonwood and the City of Shasta Lake.

That same evening, Tuesday, April 21, the City of Shasta Lake's governing council approved its share of the Shasta County Regional Improvement Program and Fix 5 partnership agreement by a 4-1 margin even though the Anderson council's action effectively killed the initiative that would have increased local development fees throughout Shasta County by nearly $1,700 per home once the county's population starts growing.

The Redding City Council has advertised a public hearing May 5 to consider its portion of the four-way agreement and is expected to vote on the matter at that time.

However, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors will forego any further action on the agreement, said Larry Lees, the county's administrative officer.

"In order for it to work, all four entities had to vote in favor of it," Lees said Friday, April 24.

Although the agreement is "now considered to be DOA (dead on arrival) in its present form, it could come back looking like something else" at a later time, with or without the city of Anderson's participation, Lees commented.

A public hearing prior to the Anderson council's discussion and ultimately fatal vote drew passionate arguments from both sides.

"There is no reasonable reason why local officials are considering enactment of fees such as this during the worst economic recession we have experienced since the Great Depression," said Mary Machado, executive director of Shasta Voices, who said she was speaking on behalf of her organization's 689 members.

To back up her argument, Machado noted that the current agreement was reached just two months after a previous Fix 5 study was ruled as inadequate even though it had taken nearly three years to conduct all of the studies for that previous incarnation.

"That appears to be inadequate time for citizens as well as elected government officials to study the proposal," Machado added.

One of the chief inadequacies of the previous agreement was whether local property taxes, collected through a traffic impact fee, could be used to improve a state and federal highway.

Kent Dagg, chief executive officer for the Shasta Builders Exchange, also questioned the agreement on behalf of his association's 800 contractors and construction-related subcontractors.

"Our organization has taken opposition to Fix 5 and Son of Fix 5, which is known as SCRIP. That is a fasinating acronym that many think stands for Shasta County, Rest In Peace," Dagg quipped.

Dagg noted that he, like many others interested in the outcome, had attended a joint public meeting held April 9 that included representatives from all three city councils as well as the county's board of supervisors.

"I was personally insulted by the fellow from CalTrans who, in essence, threatened you by noting that CalTrans would help the self-help counties before it helped you," Dagg said, referring to remarks made during that meeting by Will Kempton, director of California's Department of Transportation, in reference to 19 largely metropolitan counties in southern California and the San Francisco Bay area that have instituted local fees to address regional transportation issues.

On the opposite side of the fence, Ronald Reece, representing Citizens for Smart Growth, urged support of the agreement.

"Contrary to opposing voices," Reece said, in part, "the SCRIP-Fix 5 program is only asking new development to pay for 5 percent of the I-5 expansion, which will then leverage the 95 percent funding from state and federal resources."

Developers, constractors and business owners initially lobbied for the freeway more than 50 years ago, Reece noted.

"Ironically, they are the ones opposing the I-5 expansion even though they have economically benefitted the most and their (growth) is the key reason why infrastructure expansion will be needed," Reece added.

Phil George, senior engineer for Stimpel-Wiebelhaus Associates, a general contracting firm, also urged support of the agreement.

"For every tax dollar of gas tax that we raise here in Shasta County, we get $3 that is spent up here on our roads and bridges," George noted. "The people in L.A. are already paying for our highways up here. We can't just wait for the state to come fix our problems."

However, when the public testimony ended and Anderson's council members had their chance to speak, Vice Mayor Norma Comnick said she has "consistently opposed" the regional agreement because "the federal government and the state contunue to rob our transportation funds."

Melissa Hunt, who admitted that "my head is swirling" since both sides had presented strong arguments, questioned why federal and state agencies had not set aside more funds for highway repairs and expansion as population everywhere increases.

James Yarbrough, the council's newest member, said, "I did feel that we did receive a threat by the gentleman from CalTrans" and wondered aloud whether, by taking care of the state and federal obligations, that would relieve those agencies from any further responsibility.

Mayor Butch Schaefer noted, "We are taxed to death on gasoline."

Only Keith Webster voted in favor of the agreement, noting, "I have absolutely been spoiled with our short commute times."