HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08152000 - SD5 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
contra
FROM: TRANSPORTATION, WATER AND INFRASTRUCTURE Costa
COMMITTEE _ County
DATE: JULY 31, 20010
SUBJECT: Legislation: AB 2929 BART Buy-1n Bili)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Adopt a position of Support with Amendments for AB 2929 (BART Buy-in Bill). Authorize
the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign a letter to Assemblymember Torlakson and
the County's legislative delegation that would: 1) indicate the Board's position and 2) ask
that the bill be amended to specify the method by which the buy-in amount is determined
and to specify that the amount of the buy-in be publicly disclosed.
FISCAL IMPACT
AB 2929 (Torlakson-D) has no direct fiscal impact on the County. Legislative approval of
the bill would provide funding for long-sought extensions of BART services and facilities
to Antioch and Livermore, if there were to be a BART extension to Santa Clara County.
BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On July 18 the Board considered AB 2929 (Exhibit A). Supervisor Canciamilla referred the
matter to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee to review all
amendments to the bill and determine the definition of "buy-in". Staff reviewed these
additional items and finds the following. 1) All amendments to date are favorable to the
County's interests and General Plan policies for extending rail transit further into East
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
i
SIGNATURES : (SINPERVISDR JOHN GIOIA SU RVISOR SAYLE B. UILKEMA
ACTION OF BOAR ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED , 1HfR„f
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
,} UNANIMOUS (ABSENT : ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
SHOWN.
Contact: John Greitzer(9251335-1201)
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) ATTESTEDr ' -
M. Shiu, Public Works Director PHIL OATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
SAAdv-TranalJohn Gwarjorie\board order ab2929.doe BY L' PUTY
Legislation:AB 2929(BART Buy4n Bili)
JULY 31,2000
Page 2
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED
County. The original AB 2929 dealt with another subject (Caltrans responsibilities in data
collection for congestion management programs). The amendments changed it into a bill
about BART buy-in. No further amendments have been made since AB 2929 became a
BART buy-in bill. 2) While the bill does not precisely define a buy-in amount, it refers to
a "financial contribution comparable to the historical sales and property tax contributions
made by the original BART counties."
The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee reviewed and discussed the bill
on July 31. The Committee expressed its support for the concept of an equitable buy-in
to BART by Santa Clara County, but sought to have specific information included in the
bill that would specify the process by which the buy-in amount will be determined.
Committee members believe the language currently in the bill r.. calling for an amount
"comparable to the historical sales and property tax contributions made by the original
BART counties" -- is not specific enough. The Committee recommends that
Assemblymember Torlakson amend the bill to specify a process by which the amount will
be determined, and that the amount of the buy-in should be publicly disclosed when it has
been determined. These recommendations are shown in the draft letter in Exhibit B.
%7'
EXHIBIT A
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 24, 2000
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-1999-2030 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2929
Introduced by Committee on Transportation (Torlakson
(Chair))
March 20, 2000
An act to amend Seetieft 65089.3—ef the Government Code
add Section 29035.5 to the Public Utilities Code, relating to
transportation.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DICIEST
AB 2929, as amended, Committee on
Transportation. Transportation:
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Act
established the San Francisca Bay Area Rapid Transit District
to fund and manage transportation in the San Francisco Bay
Area, as defined.
This bill would prohibit the district from extending area
service outside the existing district until the district has made
specific commitments to extend services to specified cities.
The bill would also prohibit any extension of services into any
county that is not part of the district unless the county adopts
a resolution to provide funding, as prescribed. The bill would
also make related findings and declarations.
98
`s
AB 2929 —2---
pfegram to menifer the implementatien of all elements ef the
highwetys, unless the ageney designates that responsibility to
anether-en+ify-.
This bill weeld remove the pr visien that emthefizes the
the dep&rtfnefit�
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
2 SECTION 1. Section 29035.5 is added to the Public
3 Utilities Code, to read.
4 29035.5. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of
5 the following:
6 (1) Regional equity is a vital principle in any regional
7 transportation plan. All parts of the San Francisco Bay
8 Area must have a chance to benefit and meet the specific
9 needs in their areas.
10 (2) The original San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
11 District (BART) collected its first property taxes in 1958.
12 The Legislature, in 1969, approved a one-half of I percent
13 sales tax in the counties that make up the BART district
14 to provide additional funding necessary to complete
15 construction of the system.
16 (3) Residents of the BART district made up of
17 Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco counties have
18 paid BART sales taxes and property taxes for nearly four
19 decades. Santa Clara County never ,joined the BART
20 district and the residents of Santa Clara County have
21 never been required to pay BART taxes.
22 (4) The Governor's Trak Congestion Relief Plan
23 released in April 2000, included seven hundred
24 twenty-five million dollars ($725,000,000) from the
25 General Fund for an extension of BART service to San
26 Jose, currently estimated to cost four billion dollars
27 ($4,000,000,000).
98
-3— AB 2929
1 (.5) Before BART service is extended into a county that
2 is not part of the BART district, any counties that are not
3 currently part of the BART district should make a
4 financial contribution comparable to the historical sales
5 and property tax contributions made by the original
6 BART counties.
7 (6) In 1988, the Metropolitan Transportation
8 Commission adopted Resolution 1876, a regional rail
9 agreement that provided for the extension of rail service
10 outside the boundaries of the BART district. The
11 landmark agreement embodies the buy-in concept, and
12 the practice of using these contributions to extend BART
13 within current service areas. tinder terms of that
14 agreement, San Mateo County agreed to fund six
15 hundred million dollars ($600,000,000) in regional rail
16 projects, including two hundred million dollars
17 ($200,000,000) for East Bay BART extensions, in exchange
18 for a BART extension to the San Francisco International
19 Airport.
20 (7) The buy-in principle was a main element of
21 Resolution 1876, and it must remain a main focus as the
22 state looks forward to the next phase of transportation
23 investment in the bay area.
24 (8) This buy-in could lay the framework for a 21st
25 century version of Resolution 1876. This landmark
26 regional rail agreement brought the bay area together
27 and created the groundwork to build the rail extensions
28 that are enjoyed today.
29 (b) Accordingly, it is the intent of the Legislature that
30 Santa Clara County make a "buy-in" comparable to the
31 historical contributions from the BART counties.
32 (c) The district may not extend service to any area
33 outside of the existing district boundaries until it has
34 made specific commitments to extend district services
35 and facilities to the Cities of Antioch and Livermore.
36 (d) The district may not extend service into any
37 county that is not a part of the district unless that county
38 has formally adopted a resolution, with approval from the
39 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, to provide
98
Y7
AB 2929 —4-
1
4-1 funding for the completion of specific extensions of
2 service within the current district boundaries.
3 Gede is amended to read-
4 65089.3. The ageney shall ffle"ifer th-e
5 implementa6en of Ed! elements of the eenges
6 management pregfafn. The dep&-tfneat is responsible
7 dMa eelleetieft and anEdysis en state highways.
10
11
12 depafttaent and ether affeeted owners and eper-ater-9 in
13
14 sehedeles prier te pfegram adeptieft. At leftst bienaiaHy-,
15
16 eeafemiing to the eengestieft managemeat pregrafa-,
17 ifteluding, but net lifrAted fe,
1$ ,
19 emeept as provided iftSeefien 65089A.
20
21 malyze the impaets of land use deeisions, ifteluding
22 estimate of the eests asseeimed with fitifigating
23 impaefs.
24 (e) Adoption and implefaentafien of a defieieney plan
25 pursuant to Seetien 65089.4 wheft highway and r-eadway
26
27
ef the designated systefft:-
0
98
77
The Board of Supervisors 1�.,; Phil Batchelor
Contra EXHIBIT B cfi / "� Clerk of the Board
oto and
County Administration Building County and
651 Pine Street, Room 106 (925)335-1900
Martinez, California 945531.293 ounLy
Jahn Giola, 1'District
Gayle B.Ullkema,2111 District
Donna Gerber, 3" District DRAFT COPY
DeSaulnier, 411 District 1 �
Jere Ganclamilia, 5"' District
August 15, 2000
Tom Torlakson
11 th Assembly District
815 Estudillo Street
Martinez CA 94553
Dear Assemblymember Torlakson
I am writing to offer you the views of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors regarding AB
2929, which you discussed with the Board on July 18.
On August 15, 2000, the Board of Supervisors adopted a position of Support with Amendments for
AB 2929. We strongly support the concept of an equitable buy-in by Santa Clara County to help
finance extensions of BART services and facilities to Antioch and Livermore, as called for in your bill.
We believe such an arrangement is a matter of fairness to those residents of Contra Costa County
and elsewhere in the BART District who have contributed to the system for many years. We agree
with the stipulation in your bill that calls for the funding arrangements for the Antioch and Livermore
extensions to be finalized before any extensions can be made outside the BART District.
The Board believes the bill could be made stronger by an amendment that would clearly specify the
method by which the buy-in amount will be determined. In its current form, AB 2929 refers to a buy-in
amount that would be "comparable to the historical sales and property tax contributions made by the
original BART counties." However, the bill does not indicate the amount of this contribution or the
process by which the amount would be determined. The term "comparable" is not defined.
The Board seeks to ensure that the buy-in amount is adequate and fair to all parties, and that the
amount is publicly disclosed when it has been determined. This will provide accountability for the
estimation process and the buy-in amount. Through such an amendment, the bill would ensure an
appropriate buy-in and maintain public confidence in the process.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Donna L. Gerber, Chair
Board of Supervisors
cc: L. Leach, 1 Sth Assembly District
D.Aroner, 14th Assembly District
R. Rainey, 7th Senate District
D. Barry, Community Development Director
M. Shiu, Public Works Director
Smith &Kempton