HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12081987 - 2.1 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on December 8 , 1987 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson, McPeak
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Transportation Advisory Ballot Measure
The Board received the attached report dated November
24 , 1987 from Victor J. Westman, County Counsel, relative to the
feasibility of a ballot measure to establish a City/County
Transportation Agency to operate light rail extensions in the
County. Mr. Westman recommended that no further action be taken on
such a ballot measure until such time as the County Transportation
Expenditure Plan is finalized.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the report from County
Counsel on local agency operation of BART extensions is ACCEPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Community Development
Transportation Division is DIRECTED to transmit the report to the
Contra Costa Transportation Partnership Commission for their
information.
cc: Transportation Div, CDD
County Administrator
hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered oq the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: �! /w/ f, /9X7
PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
BY, Deputy
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE 001
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA
Date: November 24 , 1987
To: Board of Supervisors ! qp■►T
kaw* �a
From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel NOV 2 41987
f hi::BATCHELOR
CLERK LOARD Of SUDERVIK
Re: CONTRA COSI C
BART extensions, local agency operati n;, 4 yy ,;
On October 6, 1987 (when the Board was considering the
proposed BART/SAMTRANS agreement for the Colma extension) this
office was asked to review the feasibility of a ballot measure to
establish a city/county transportation agency. Based upon
discussions of this matter with other County staff, we understand
the Board' s request to be whether it is possible to propose an
advisory ballot measure to obtain the views of area voters whether
provision should be made for a local public agency (e.g. , a joint
exercise of powers agency) to operate light rail extensions in
this county to be financed as part of a new county transportation
expenditure plan and local sales tax measure to be presented to
the voters .
We see no particular legal problem (if it is desired) to
propose an advisory measure (Elections Code § 5353 ) to obtain
voter opinion whether a local public entity should operate any
light rail extensions for commuter connections to BART facilities .
The results of any such advisory vote do not control Board
actions .
It is our understanding that if any such advisory measure is
to be proposed to the electorate, it would possibly be combined
with a new County Transportation Expenditure Plan measure in 1988
similar to Measure C on the November 1986 ballot. For this
reason, we suggest no attempt be made at this time to draft the
advisory measure language until it is clear what the contents of
the second County Transportation Expenditure Plan are to be.
As you will remember, 1986 ' s Measure C was formulated
pursuant to the provisions of SB 878 (Boatwright, Stats . 1986, ch.
301 ) . In 1987 the State Legislature provided an alternative
procedure to SB 878 by its adoption of SB 142 (Deddeh, Stats.
1987, ch. 786 ) . The Deddeh bill provides for the preparation of a
county transportation expenditure plan and its presentation to the
voters for approval as part of a sales tax and bond authorizing
p;;TP.HUTION
measure':
_. /r 4 :;d !r tubera While it does not appear any final decision has yet been made
_7—LO0untyAdm*tq!9S whether the provisions of SB 878 or SB 142 may be pursued in
- ;—.. sarvile988, attached for your information is a very brief comparison
_ ,1-o:;ir'uni*7&WEI1TffL1t of these two pieces of legislation prepared by the
_,Counsel.
Board of Supervisors November 24, 1987
Metropolitan Transit Commission staff. If you have any questions
concerning the provisions of SB 142 or 878, please feel free to
call upon the Community Development Department' s Transportation
Division or ,this office for assistance.
VJW/jh
cc: Transportation Div. , Community Development Dept.
County Administrator
Attn: Scott Tandy
-2-
- � aet,eOVE®
LOCAL SALES TAX FOR TRANSPORTATION NOV 16 1987
1 COMPARISON OF SB 878 & SB 142 COUNTY COUNSEL
MARTINEZ, CALIF.
l _ "
SB 878(1 ) SB 142(2) .
Applicability: o,9-county Bay Area • Any county in the State
o Santa Clara after 11/1/95
Purpose: a Fund transportation e Same - Funds intended
improvements for which to supplement existing
federal , state, and local revenues and local govern-
funds. may. noz be adequately ments should maintain
available existing commitment of .
local funds
Sales .Tax: o 1/2% or 10% sales tax o 1/2% or 1% sales tax
(Total sales tax may not (Total sales tax may not
exceed 7%) exceed 74.)
o No maximum duration for tax o Tax may be imposed for up
to 20 years
o Maybe continued after 20
years by 2/3 vote of
authority and majority
vote of people
o Approval by majority vote ® Approval by majority vote
at an election at a special election' ..
Uses of Tax: o Capital , maintenance, "repair a Construction, improvement,
or operation funding for maintenance, and operations
transportation projects of streets, roads and high-
(No significant difference ways and construction,
from SB 142) improvement, 'and operation
of public transit
e May be used to advance
highway projects in STIP
o Must be spent in county of
origin
e No funds can-be used to
replace property tax funds
already committed for- public
transportation
----------------------------------------------
( 1 ) SB 878 (Boatwright) - Bay Area County Traffic and Transportation Funding
Act (Chapter 301 , Statutes of 1986)
(2) SB 142 (Deddeh) - Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act
(Chapter 786, Statutes of 198.7)
LOCAL SALES TAX FOR TRANSPORTATION
" COMPARISON OF SB 878 & SB 142
(CONTINUED)
SB 878 SB 142
Uses of Tax: a BART must agree to provide
(Continued) matching funds from federal ,
state, or other sources in
order to receive sales tax
revenue in Alameda, Contra
Costa and San Francisco
Counties. Funds for capital
projects only•,.
Administration o MTC or newly created a Transportation planning
of Tax: transportation authority agency (like MTC) , county
commission, or newly
created authority
e Salaries/benefits limited a Salaries/benefits limited
to 1% to 1%
Membership of a Approved by voters as part e County- determines with con-
Newly. Created of vote on expenditure .plan currence of majority of
Authority: cities with majority of the
population
e Must be elected officials o Must be elected officials
® County Supervisors must hot
have a majority on the
authority
Contents of o List of projects and o Tax rate and duration
Expenditure Plan: project sponsors
o Priority of projects - e Purposes for which revenue
will be used
e Sources of funds a Bonding authorization (if
any)
e Amount and duration of tax
_ e Bonding authorization
(if any)
" e Make-up of new authority
Who Prepares o Committee(s) as Board of o Authority (newly created
Expenditure Plan: Supervisors and City authority, transportation
Selection Committee deem planning agency, or county
appropriate commission)
-2-
LOCAL SALES TAX FOR TRANSPORTATION
COMPARISON OF' SB 878 & SB 142
(CONTINUED)
SB 878 SB 142
Expenditure Plan o Board of Supervisors a Board of Supervisors
Approval Process in conjunction with City
Prior to Election: Selection Committee defines o Majority of cities with
process for plan develop- a majority of the
ment and schedule population
o. Public Hearings on Plan e Authority adopts election
ordinance
o MTC approves draft plan
based on findings (see below)
o Approval by Board and -
majority of cities with a
majority of the population
o Board of Supervisors adopts
election ordinance
Amendments to o Same approval process as o Annual review possible
Plan: original plan
o Authority to notify Board
and cities of amendments
a Amendments effective 45
days after notice given
Bonding: o May bond if approved by o Legislative intent is "pay
voters as part of expendi- as you go"
ture plan
o 2/3 vote of authority o Voters approve bonding at.
required to issue bonds same time as expenditure
plan
0 '2/3 vote of authority
required to issue bonds
_ MTC Role: o MTC prepares estimates for o. Authority should rely to
federal and state funds extent possible on existing
state/regional /local plans ,
programs , and expertise
3
-3-
LOCAL SALES TAX FOR TRANSPORTATION
COMPARISON OF SB 878 & SB 142
(CONTINUED)
SB 878 SB 142
MTC Role: o MTC approves draft plan a Authority should consult
(Continued) within 45 days subject to with and coordinate
findings: actions on priority
— no negative regional regional highways to
impact integrate with plans of
— sufficient funds available other transportation
— no conflicts exist within agencies affecting county
the plan.;:
= sales tax estimates are c MTC involved if federal or
reasonable state funds are to be used
for projects
e If plan rejected, plan may—
be resubmitted to MTC
Effective Date o First day of first calendar a First day of first calendar
of Tax: quarter 120 days after quarter 120 days after
adoption of ordinance adoption of ordinance
When Authority o Upon approval of voters at o If transportation agency or
Becomes tax election county commission, upon
Operational : designation by Board of
l Supervisors
e If newly created
authority, operational upon.
designation by Board of
Supervisors with con—
currence of majority of the
cities with majority of the
population
Repayment of a Yes, if Expenditure Plan o Yes , if Expenditure Plan
Election Costs: approved approved
CB/blg
2235p
L
_4_