HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12081987 - S.3 w 53
TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: " ' Contra
Harvey E. Bragdon, Community Development Directo
Barbara A. Neustadter, Dep. Dir. TransportationCpsta
nn,,��,, 11
DATE : Introduced Nov. 18 , 1987 ; Discussed on QY l�ourity
SUBJECT: Dec. 1 , 1987 ; Action on December 8, 1987
Report on Activities Related to BART and Requested Approval on
Items for Board Policy
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION•
The Board of Supervisors approves the following items related to the
BART issue of the proposed Colma Station and extension of the BART
system outside the District:
a. Accept report on the meeting with San Mateo County Supervisor
Tom Nolan . (Attachment A)
b. On September 29 , 1987 , the Board of Supervisors unanimously
"requested the County' s State Legislative Delegation to take
necessary actions to support the effort to get restoration by
BART of its previous commitment to Contra Costa and Alameda
counties" .
The Board must provide guidance to the State Delegation in order
to assure that Contra Costa' s interests are protected.
Attachment B outlines the guidance proposed by Supervisor McPeak
and Supervisor Torlakson for transmittal to the State
Delegation. It should be noted that these actions do not
preclude nor obstruct efforts to achieve a regional consensus on
a rail program.
C. BART is requested to table further consideration of the Colma
agreement until the affected parties have met.
d. This effort should begin early in 1988 and be coordinated with
MTC' s New Rail Starts and Extensions program. As proposed by
Supervisor Schroder, the Board of Supervisors will host a summit
meeting( s) with Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa
Clara counties and the BART Board in an effort to create a
regional rail program. In addition, staff is directed to
convene a Task Force of staff from the above named jurisdictions
to develop a proposed regional rail program.
dp10 :McPbo.tl2
X
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATURE: 144900—��
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION FOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATUREISI:
ACTION OF BOARD ON , December 8, 1987 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X
Also, APPROVED proposed guidelines for legislation regarding BART extensions out of the District;
COMMENDED Assemblyman Bob Campbell for his sponsorship of legislation regarding BART extensions; and
REFERRED the issue to the Contra Costa Transportation Partnership Commission for review.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT; ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: CAO ATTESTED _ J<171 A. A eo
CDD PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
County Counsel SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY �J ,DEPUTY
M382/7-83
e. Copies of this board order should be forwarded to the Contra
Costa Transportation Partnership Commission and its Advisory
Committee.
BACKGROUND:
The attached reports provide information for action items (a) , (b)
and (c) above. It is important that the Board of Supervisors have a
well-defined, united position on these matters.
dp10:McPbo.t12
Phil Batchelor
The-:Board of Supervisors Contra Clerk of the Board
and
County Administration Building Costa x(415)372.2371 ministrafor
651 Pine St., Room 106 County
Martinez, California 94553
Tom Powe tat District
Newry C.Fohdsn,2nd District ��
Robert 1.Schroder,3rd District / ��\
Sunne WrWd YePeek.4th District
w (�jJ�V
Torn Todehn,5th District ��//�/ O
�0 ATTACHMENT A
TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: December 8, 1987
FROM: Sunne Wright McPeak
SUBJECT: Meeting with San Mateo County Representative
On November 11, 1987, Barbara A. Neustadter, Nello Bianco, Vic Westman and I
met with Supervisor Tom Nolan, Chair of the San Mateo Board of Supervisors
and member of SAMTRANS, to discuss the issues surrounding the proposed Colma
Station and expansion of the system outside the existing BART District.
We expressed our interest in working towards regional cooperation and
resolution of our differences over the proposed Colma Station and
"principles of agreement" approved by the BART Board and SAMTRANS. We
explained why we will continue to oppose the Colma. Station as it was
proposed and will take whatever steps necessary to block the agreement as
currently presented. We also indicated our interest in working toward a
regional approach to the implementation of a rail extension program. We
envision this program focus as full line extensions with financial and
construction phasing as necessary.
We outlined our current position on the Colma issue. We indicated that a
compromise may be possible on the Colma Station only provided there was:
1. A reinstatement by the BART Board of Directors of the Bianco "station
for station" policy without the requirement that counties have to raise
the money for the stations;
2. A fair, equitable contribution from SAMTRANS for the Colma Station "buy
in" to the system and in no case an amount less than that needed to
provide the local match for the start of new stations in Contra Costa
and Alameda counties and a project in San Francisco (simultaneous with
the construction of the Colma Station) . The $25 million proposed for
Colma is categorically rejected as too little to be reasonable;
3. Agreement by BART and SAMTRANS that no further extensions to the system
would occur without the county joining BART and contributing its fair
share of taxes to the capitalization and operation of BART and that the
"station for station" construction policy would continue to prevail .
Page 1
(dpl0:bosMcP.tl2)
v �
Board of Supervisors
(Page 2 of Attachment A)
We also expressed the need for MTC to develop a standard approach to
determining "fair share, equitable local contributions" to transportation
projects to guard against one area of the region getting a greater federal
revenue subsidy simply because they are more successful in special interest
lobbying.
I believe that the above points could provide a solution to the current
problem while generating the revenue to construct a new station each in
Contra Costa County and Alameda County. It would also ensure that all the
stations were of equal priority for federal matching dollars. If the above
position were adopted by BART and SAMTRANS it would mitigate the severe
negative impact on Contra Costa and Alameda counties presented by the
"principles of agreement" for the Colma Station.
SWM:BAN:dsp
dpl0:bosMcP.tl2
J � i
ATTACHMENT B
OUTLINE OF LEGISLATION REGARDING BART
The extension to Colma does not benefit Contra Costa residents.
However, an extension to San Francisco Airport is clearly
beneficial to county residents as long as county extensions are
not sacrificed in order to extend down the Peninsula. Further,
it does not appear logical to financially plan for a peninsula
extension on a "creeping incrementalism" basis. Rather, we
should focus on the entire extension and address the Colma issue
for what it really is - part of a phased program to link the
airport with the East Bay and downtown San Francisco. The same
effort must be undertaken for extensions in Alameda and Contra
Costa Counties. A regional financial program with phased
construction is the only realistic way of expanding the regional
rail system to meet the mobility needs of Bay Area residents.
However, until such a regional plan can be developed, it is
imperative that plans for Colma are shelved. In order to ensure
that Colma does not proceed independent of a regional program,
the following principles should be incorporated into legislation
regarding BART extensions outside of the existing District:
There should be no extension of the BART system outside the
existing District until the county representing the new area
has voted to join the District and:
a) the new county/area has contributed an equitable sum to
the capitalization of the system to match the
proportion of property taxes already contributed by
taxpayers of the existing District; and
b) the new county/area provides an ongoing contribution to
the operation of the BART system comparable to the
sales taxes being contributed by the existing District
residents.
After a county joins the BART District, there must be a
"statiA for station" construction program such that for
each new station1built in the new area of the District,
another station will also be constructed in the original
portion of the District.
V
Attachment B - page 2
- The Legislative Analyst in consultation with MTC should
conduct a thorough investigation and analysis of the
contribution by existing property taxpayers to the capital
construction of the BART system and recommend• to the
Legislature a fair, equitable "buy-in" contribution from
SAMTRANS. The focus of the analysis should be for the San
Francisco Airport extension. Phasing of the "buy-in"
contribution (with specific regard to Colma) should be done
after a complete analysis of the airport extension. The
formula developed for San Mateo County should be applicable
to other counties seeking to join the District.
SMcP:BAN:dsp
dp10:McPboB.t12
12.7.87
ATTACHMENT C
Since the BART Board's adoption of the Principles of Agreement on
the extension of Bart service to Colma, numerous actions have
been taken by a number of jurisdictions. It is clear that the
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and the cities can block
the construction of the Colma Station and the extension of BART
service to northern San Mateo County.
However, it is also clear that such an action would have serious
adverse impacts on extensions in Contra Costa County.
Supervisor McPeak has reported to the Board on a meeting with
Supervisor Tom Nolan who is Chair of the San Mateo County Board.
That discussion is outlined in Supervisor McPeak's memo to the
Board dated November 18, 1987. It is important to note that this
meeting represents the establishment of a dialogue.
If the Bay Area is to effectively compete for scarce federal
dollars, it is imperative that the region be united in that
effort. If it is not, the federal dollars that are available
will go to Los Angeles and other cities that are seeking rail
projects. It appeared from the discussion with Supervisor Nolan
that the Contra Costa Board could be in a position to provide the
leadership necessary to achieve a regional consensus on a rail
program.
While the County is not, and should not be, responsible for the
generation of the local dollars necessary to leverage federal
dollars for an extension, it can be a powerful leader and partner
with BART in achieving regional consensus and assisting a
lobbying effort for the benefit of the Bay Area.
To achieve this goal as proposed by Supervisor Robert Schroder,
BART is requested to table further consideration of the Colma
agreement until the affected parties have met. In addition staff
is directed to seek the participation of the staffs of affected
counties and agencies in compiling data on proposed rail
projects. Staff is to coordinate this effort with the MTC New
Rail Starts and Extension Program currently underway. At a
minimum, the following counties should be asked to participate in
this effort: Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara.
Participation by other agencies including MTC, BART, CTC and UMTA
should be sought as well .
As work progresses, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
will seek to convene the policy bodies of participating agencies
in order to achieve a regional rail program consensus.
(attachment C to Board Order of 12.8.87)
BAN:dsp(12.7.87)
dplO:bosBT128.tl2