County transportation planners are preparing to grab nearly $100 million allocated for South Bay road projects to pay for the Crenshaw-LAX light rail line.

South Bay government officials were apoplectic when they belatedly discovered the plans by the Metropolitan Transportation Agency.

Making matters worse, though, is the apparent rationale for what local officials see as the confiscation of money from the region; in 2009, without consultation, Metro officials changed the boundaries of the South Bay so that 60 percent of the transit project is now within what it now defines as the South Bay.

Metro has a policy that essentially states that any transportation project that is more expensive than initially predicted – because of either cost overruns or expansion of the project itself, which both apply here – must largely be paid for by the geographic region that stands to benefit most.

So that means, according to transportation planners, 60 percent of a rail project that runs from Leimert Park in South Los Angeles to LAX is defined as being in the South Bay.

The 8.5-mile-long line will serve Los Angeles, Inglewood, Hawthorne and El Segundo and portions of unincorporated Los Angeles County.

Traditionally, said Jacki Bacharach, executive director of the South Bay Council of Governments, the group has defined the South Bay’s northern boundary as Imperial Highway.

“We are very upset and have gone on the warpath pretty much,” she said. “We want to shout as loud as we can that it’s not keeping faith with the voters and it’s really irresponsible.”

That’s because most of the money for local transportation projects comes from two measures approved by voters throughout the county, Measure R and Proposition C. They each added a half-cent to sales taxes.

Billions are being spent on building transit lines elsewhere in the county, while an extension of the Green Line isn’t expected to reach Torrance for decades.

To offset that, the South Bay was set to receive a relatively small proportion of transportation funds – $906 million spread over 30 years for more than 100 road projects large and small.

But now Metro wants almost $95 million of that to help pay for the $160 million more now needed for the Crenshaw/LAX project. Over three decades the amount that could be taken actually works out to even more – closer to $500 million – because the $906 million is really worth closer to $1.5 billion when factoring in inflation over three decades.

Contributing to those additional costs along the Crenshaw line is that the Metro board recently added two more previously unfunded stations in Westchester and Leimert Park at a cost of $120 million.

A Metro spokesman late Friday declined comment on the plan the agency’s board will vote on at its June 27 meeting.

Local officials are preparing an alternate motion that board member and South Bay county Supervisor Don Knabe plans to introduce at that meeting.

Knabe, who calls the Metro proposal “overreaching and inappropriate,” said his motion has two elements.

One would change a Metro policy that allows for increasing the debt ceiling for a particular transit project that could be covered by, for instance, issuing more bonds.

The other would allow Metro to take nearly $50 million from surplus funds set aside for countywide transportation projects rather than take grabbing funds specifically earmarked for the South Bay.

“We need to take a look at other options,” he said. “(Metro) is pitting one Measure R project against another. It’s an issue of fairness. … We can’t just continue to pull money from other projects.”

The Torrance City Council is expected to approve a resolution at its Tuesday night meeting supporting Knabe’s option.

Other South Bay city councils are being asked to do the same, although not all have regularly scheduled meetings between now and the June 27 Metro board meeting.

It’s unclear what South Bay projects would be on the chopping block should Metro move forward with its plan despite Knabe’s alternative.

Further complicating matters is that Metro is attempting to accelerate the timeline of various transportation projects by as much as 16 years.

That, too, could take away money the South Bay had planned to spend in the second and third decades of the Measure R work plan.

For instance, Bacharach said that means Metro could be boring as many as three separate Metro rail transit projects at a time.

She questions whether the “overly aggressive” schedule allows the agency to cost effectively do that amount of work at once.

South Bay cities are concerned that if they can’t complete their highway projects by the 2023 deadline in the acceleration plan, Metro could also steal remaining highway funds – promised to improve South Bay freeway and highway operations – for rail construction cost overruns, Bacharach said.

Rob Beste, Torrance’s public works director, said it’s important for the South Bay to preserve as much as it can.

“The South Bay is a net donor to the Measure R project,” Beste said. “We generate a lot more sales tax than we get back.

“The amount of money we have is very small compared to what other regions will get out of Measure R,” he added. “What we’re trying to do is protect the small amount we have.”

nick.green@dailybreeze.com

Follow Nick Green on Twitter at http://www.Twitter.com/nickgreen007