Santa Cruz County, Calif., residents who have been following the local attempt to buy a 32-mile railroad branch may have a sense of déjà vu, The Post reports. The Regional Transportation Commission is expected to vote again on issues surrounding a state grant of $10.2 million on Aug. 5. For some commissioners and members of the public, the required votes are just a formality, confirming actions already taken this spring.

For others, among them the 124 people who wrote to oppose the plan before the state commission vote, it's a last chance to keep the agency from making what they believe may be a very expensive mistake.

When the California Transportation Commission unanimously approved the $10.2 million application for Prop 116 funds, state commissioners made it clear that the money is for a rail line. Most of the conditions it put on the approval revolve around promises to provide such services into the future, and guarantee that the uses are for train transportation.

On Aug. 5, the local RTC will be asked to pass resolutions committing to initiate recreational passenger service, continue freight service, take responsibility for any hazardous material cleanup and pay the state back if rail service ends at any time.

How big a promise is the payback? The RTC is currently asking the state for $14.2 million to buy the branch line and plans to request another $5 million for improvements. That money comes from a combination of rail-only Prop 116 money and other state transportation improvement program (STIP) funding that would typically be used for road projects or bicycle lanes.

In other words, it is a huge investment for an area that doesn't have any viable mass transit rail plans, according to its own studies. Once awarded, if the commissioners agree to all the state's approval conditions, all of that $19.2 million would have to be repaid if trains stopped running on the line, confirmed Luis Mendez, deputy director of the Regional Transportation Commission.

The state wants assurance that the branch corridor will be used for trains for two main reasons. The first is the Prop 116 money, which is restricted to passenger rail use. The second is worries about who would own the many parcels that make up the 32 miles of track if freight rail use ended. This part is only newly revealed in a memo leaked to The Post.

An email released by state staff discusses "potential for multiple lawsuits to settle title." That's because access to some of the land comprising the Union Pacific right-of-way sits on easements, and is not owned by UP. What Union Pacific doesn't own it can't sell. If rail use ended, the landowner could remove the easement and take back full control of the property. The state wants to protect itself from the "prospect and magnitude of the potential title problem," as CalTrans attorney Matthew George wrote June 28, just before the state commission meeting. And in the 130 years that trains have been running on the line, there have been many easements granted.

The RTC's Mendez pointed to a list compiled in 2006 by an assessor trying to track titles, and it has 112 different parcels. A surprising number of those are listed as questionable titles. "It's a bit of a challenge," Mendez acknowledged. In addition to all the easements for at-grade crossings over public streets, some private property access is just an easement and some parcels have nothing recorded, he said. The RTC has some wiggle room to stop freight service and yet retain easements through a process known as "railbanking." The agency can apply to the Surface Transportation Board to cease operations but retain the line for future rail use. However, it is at the mercy of the board's decision and without constant maintenance, rail lines fall into disrepair.

Related to the title concerns are ongoing questions from Caltrans about how the RTC appraised the rail. Three different firms came up with three values, but they did agree that since it is not a profitable business, the best way to set a price was basically what the land would get if sold off separately. Within its resolution approving the grant is a requirement that the methodology be explained. That concern surfaced again in the funding allocation, with Caltrans noting it had "insufficient information to make a recommendation" in June. At the time, Supervisor John Leopold said the methodology rationale had been explained and simply needed to be put in writing. Recently Mendez said vacation schedules have slowed efforts to confirm the RTC's current explanation is OK. Union Pacific originally wanted $20 million, but has kept dropping the price. With the closure of the Cemex plant in Davenport, very little freight currently runs. And the RTC expects to spend $5 million on repairs in just the first five years of ownership, and doesn't yet have a plan to keep the rail tracks in good repair for freight. Passenger rail is estimated to cost more than $100 million because the rails are not capable of supporting passenger service without major upgrades. A Caltrans spokesperson said the valuation is an ongoing issue that will be discussed at the CTC's Aug. 10 meeting.

Continuing the passenger piece is non-negotiable to meet state conditions. And the RTC still does not having an operating agreement yet with a passenger train operator, although it has been negotiating with Sierra Northern Railway to provide both the freight and recreational operations. In February, the agency announced a plan by Sierra Northern to offer scenic rides and a dinner train between Santa Cruz and Davenport in order to meet the state's requirements.

"We're down to the last few items," said the RTC's Mendez in late July, but he did not expect that the final agreement would be ready by the Aug. 5 meeting. That concerns Dene Bustichi, who represents the Metro transit board on the RTC and is also a Scotts Valley council member. He wants a chance to study the operating agreement before "signing a blank check for the future." When the RTC last met in late June, he said the sides were still far apart.

The Metro board has been concerned that some of its funding could be siphoned off to support rail. The RTC has long promised that the rail purchase deal would not require a subsidy for ongoing operations.

Engineer and former commission representative Bill Comfort is not so sure that the community is as enthusiastic about the rail purchase as the current RTC board. Comfort traveled to Sacramento to speak against the project before the CTC, and said by June 30 the commission had twice the number of letters opposing the application as supporting it. Comfort did not get to speak because the commission, thinking only supporters were there, called only some representatives. He was given time later when the actual allocation deferral was discussed. He shares Bustichi's concerns that the RTC will end up subsidizing what he calls an "amusement ride" rather than a transportation project.

Should all the votes and agreements proceed to clear the way for the purchase, Mendez noted that his agency would still likely have to wait for the money. That's because it comes from the sale of bonds. With the state budget once again overdue and an ongoing deficit, California's bonding capacity is greatly reduced. The situation affects both pools of money, the Prop 116 and STIP. In fact, the STIP money was originally programmed back in 2000, which is the agency's way of planning to spend money it expects in the next two years. The actual allocation has been pushed back several times. Most recently, the RTC agreed to hold off requesting part of the STIP funds for the rail purchase. It will need $4 million to complete the initial sale, and then another $5 million for repairs. The agency is putting off the $5 million request for repairs until the after the purchase is complete and it would be ready to begin work on the line, explained Mendez.