HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09291987 - 2.7 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on _September 29, 1987_, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson, McPeak
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Proposed BART/SAMTRANS Agreement for a BART Passenger
Station at Colma
Supervisor McPeak spoke on the recent action of the Board of
Directors, Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) , authorizing its
General Manager to negotiate the terms of tentative written agree-
ments with the San Mateo County Transit District for the eventual
construction and operation of a BART passenger station and related
facilities at Colma. She expressed outrage that the BART Board did
not give adequate cnsideration to the taxpayers in the current BART
District who have been contributing to the BART system for over 25
years. She specifically emphasized the contributions made by the
taxpayers in East County who are not receiving BART service. She
expressed her belief that the primary responsibility of the BART
Board should be to the residents of San Francisco, Alameda, and
Contra Costa counties who have incurred a bonded indebtedness to
finance the system.
Supervisor McPeak recommended that the Board direct County
Counsel to review the feasibility of legal action against the BART
Board, to look at whether or not the previous policy principles can
be reinstituted to ensure that BART constructs project extensions
in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, and to review the equity
formula compiled by the BART staff and determine if it is in
accordance with the contributions of this County' s taxpayers. She
also recommended supporting the efforts of this County' s
legislative delegation to block any funding to the SAMTRANS
project.
Supervisor Schroder expressed concern with diminishing
federal funds for projects in the three-county area and that
competition for federal funds would worsen with the addition of the
Colma project. He referred to the recent action of the Board of
Supervisors opposing the Cal Train extension because of the impact
on Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
Supervisor Torlakson noted that Contra Costa County was not
afforded the courtesy of notification that the matter was to be
considered by the BART Board. He recommended seeking assistance at
the State level to block the Colma extension.
Supervisor Fanden called attention to the fact that in
addition to East County there are areas in West County that are not
receiving BART service. She expressed support for initiating legal
action against BART.
Barbara Neustadter, Deputy Director of Transportation,
commented on the BART/SAMTRANS Principles of Agreement applicable
to the Colma Station Project. She noted that there are a number of
factors of the SAM/TRAN proposal that would have a negative impact
on Contra Costa County. She presented the motion as adopted by
the BART Board:
-1-
That the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Bay
Area Rapid Transit District authorized and directs
the General Manager to negotiate the terms of tentative
written agreements with the San Mateo County Transit
District for the eventual construction and operation of
a BART passenger station and related facilities at
Colma, said agreements to be based upon the principles
set forth in the attached "Colma Station Project
Principles. " These agreements will be submitted to
this Board for approval prior to execution. In
addition, construction of the Colma Station and one
new station each in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties
shall commence simultaneously, provided, however, that
if local funding is not available for any one station,
the other station or stations which have obtained local
funding shall proceed, but if either of the Contra Costa
or Alameda County projects has raised the local matching
funds, then federal matching funds must be available
for the county or counties raising such local matching
funds before Colma can proceed.
Nello Bianco, Director representing Contra Costa County on
the BART Board, voiced his disagreement with the actions of his
Board. He recommended that the Board of Supervisors commence legal
action against BART. He, too, expressed concern with the lack of
available federal funds to finance transportation projects. Mr.
Bianco advised that he did not receive a notice of the agenda that
the BART Board of Directors was considering extention of service to
Colma. He noted that San Mateo County will pay $25 million for the
Colma station, an amount he considered to be too low in contrast to
what is has cost San Francisco, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties
to develop and construct the system.
Supervisor Schroder advised that he is Chairman of the Work
Committee of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) ,
which reviews grant applications. He recommended that this matter
also be referred to MTC for investigation.
Supervisor Torlakson recommended writing to the San Mateo
Board of Supervisors explaining this County' s position. He also
recommended the initiation of a public relations effort through the
issuance of press releases to newspapers serving San Mato county to
advise people in that area of this situation. He also concurred
that a legal review be conducted by County Counsel to determine
adherence by the BART Board to provisions of the Brown Act.
There being no further discussion, IT IS BY THE BOARD
ORDERED that the following actions are APPROVED:
1. DIRECTED County Counsel to investigate the feasibility
of legal action against BART relative to the BART-Colma
Agreement, to look at possible Brown Act violations in
the conduct of the BART proceedings and notification;
2. REQUESTED all cities in Contra Costa County to join the
Board in any legal action against BART;
3 . COMMENDED, ENDORSED, and SUPPORTED the efforts of
Congressman George Miller to block federal funding of
the BART-Colma project;
4. 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;
5. REQUESTED Alameda County to support these efforts;
6. REQUESTED MTC to investigate BART' s actions;
-2-
7. AUTHORIZED staff to prepare letter to San Mateo County
requesting the opportunity to explain Contra Costa
County' s position; and
8. REQUESTED the Transportation Director to advise on
additional public information actions that might be
taken by the Board.
cc: Community Development Director I hereby certify that this:3 a true and of
Legislative Delegation an action taken and entered on the rnlnute- Uie
MTC Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
Cities ATTESTED:
County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board
County Administrator of Supervisors and County Administrator
By �� �' '`� Deputy
-3-
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT
INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION
To: Board of Directors Date: September 18, 1987
From: Phillip 0. Ormsbee
Subject:
Attached for your information is backup material regarding
BART/SA4Trans Agreement Principles - Colma Station Project,
which is calendared for the Board meeting of Thursday,
September 24, 1987.
Phillip 0. Ormsbee
District Secretary
i
attach.
RECEIVED
`?7
PHIL BATCHELOR
CLERK BOARD TRA COOST Q CpISORS
B
HART/SamTrans Agreement Principles
Colma Station Project
1 . SamTrans to pay BART a capital contribution
a. Based upon present value of BART taxpayers contributions
and a station/track mileage sharing factor.
b. Fifteen million to be paid within six months of signing
agreement, balance when station construction begins. Net
. total to BART project estimated to be $25 M.
2. SamTrans to fully fund construction cost of Colma Station.
3 . SamTrans to guarantee BART's additional operating costs will
be covered.
4. SamTrans and BART agree to work together to seek federal
funding for BART Phase I Extensions.
5. The proposed principles will be utilized to develop a writ-
ten agreement to be presented for approval to the BART and
SamTrans Boards.
Attachment I
Page 1 of 4
COLIMA STATION PROJECT PRINCIPLES
STATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Station Project will include but not be limited to the fol-
lowing physical elements:
1 . Station Building with boarding platforms, elevators, stairs
and escalators.
2 . Trackage including track from the Tailtrack Project to the
station building, a station tailtrack and replacement yard
leads .
3 . Electrification, Train Control and Communication Systems
4. Signage
5. Fare collection equipment
6. Parking garage
7. Pedestrian and vehicular access from local streets and high-
ways to the garage and to the station.
8. Bus parking areas
9/16/87
Page 2 of 4
COLMA STATION PROJECT PRINCIPLES
/ COST SHARING
SAMTR.AN'S RESPONSIBILITIES
1. SamTrans to pay BART a net capital share contribution
towards previously incurred locally funded systemwide capi-
tal costs in two installments based upon Attachment A.
2. Guarantee payment of cost of operating station as determined
by formula set forth in Attachment B.
BART'S RESPONSIBILITIES
1. BART to return SamTran' s initial contribution with interest
earned if Station Project not implemented for specified rea-
sons, such as lack of federal funding or other financial
. reasons.
2. Remit to SamTrans net station fare revenues as determined by
mutually agreeable method, in excess of operating costs
until dollar amount of SamTrans capital contribution actual-
0
ly paid to BART is reached after which excess revenues will
be equally divided between SamTrans and BART.
9/16/87
Page 3 of 4
COLMA STATION PROJECT PRINCIPLES
STATION PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
SAMTRANS RESPONSIBILITIES
1 . Environmental Clearance
2 . Capital Grant Applications
3 . Local share of station capital costs
4 . Acquisition of additional right-of-way
BART RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Preliminary Engineering
2. Prepare Design and Construction Budget
3. Final Design
4. Construction
NUTfJAL RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Work together to obtain federal funding for BART's Phase I
Extensions, including the Colma Station Project.
2. Develop detailed agreement as necessary to cover details of
grant administration and implementation of Station Project.
The detailed Agreement will also prescribe the means and
methods for SamTrans to monitor and review the implementa-
tion of the Station Project.
9/16/87
Page 4 of 4
COLMA STATION PROJECT PRINCIPLES
STATION PROJECT OPERATION
i
SAMI'RANS RESPONSIBILITIES
1 . Specify level of service consistent with BART system service
plan. (e.g. Basic Concord - Colma Service)
2 . Recommend to BART a fare surcharge which is not less than
the Daly City surcharge upon commencement of service as in-
creased at the rate of subsequent BART general fare in-
creases. If the Daly City surcharge is reduced or elimin-
ated, the Colma surcharge may be similarly reduced or
eliminated.
BART RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Operate level of service specified by SamTrans consistent
with BART system service plan.
2. Invoice SamTrans for any formula determined operating costs
not covered by net station fare revenues.
3 . Establish fare for Colma Station which is consistent with
BART systemwide fare structure.
4. Adopt Colma surcharge recommended by SamTrans within para-
meters noted above.
MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Develop detailed agreement as necessary to cover day to day
operation of station, allocation of revenues, plus future
modifications and repairs.
9/16/87
41
,d N r4 r- t7T -11 O v td co
w ed$4 rn H m � Z O �
O
0) 0) 1.) 0 v +� •-�
•� C b C U � �
0) H 0) 0) 11 w m
x O
.,
a 0 0 o
O �" •.1 Q. H ).t >�
w .-i y v w to v
ro •11 r-4 w C
U) •Nr-t
1 ed ro 'd to b E
/ vE w w m v
>�V b 10 41 ro v G. 0
d4c c H to a
w aaro, c .� EA .00 U o
N H ri > x to v 4.)
O v •r1 .0 v O 41
54
tHo S!1 ro 9mU A7 O 0 O
LlwAw rr E O v�a H
V4 N
b e �� to v .0 r-1 w ro •14
v C I` c •r•t v H V r-1 v to 0 v y U
ro-r1 m:"' 4) H V
ro A --, to O ro A O C c >1 U td r-q
t� .v •� w a V •O E E m �► A U A
t:) •a s r too
EIu 0 v G v ••i rd (C A H w H v
(� U O U .� to >+ v >+ C v V 41 H ro V
ro > ro 3 H to to b O m A ro
tl) r-1 v r-1 a v a ro c C v U H m r-4
H w to r-4 -4 x a x H .0 rq -r1to
OG t.7 ro 0 41 •ra E 0 0 O vI r-1 r1 C
.c
04 z -..1E H x E V w •v r4 dA r l to •r1
H to
4) 04 v ro MqmC w co 0 4
Z O ro v V 4J E-0 %D O v to •r'♦ O c •o •ra 4-)
O r-4 r 4 V -W 0 U Ln v c V .c U W4 V a C
to to O 0 •r1 m • b► to •r1 V v 0 Aj ro v
W U > OH HvM ro A m H cU E
O H 4-) r-4 ao m ed w 0 b v r-i
H a r--1 mroco c UOv v v HV r1
0 a ro •r+ to - c .r1 .c >+ V H v to
U I x v 4J A N 10 lT 41 +1 C O C 1)
C O '044. to v v v v O U to
v
141 HC A xOw m 0 w C
H
94 it m w r-1 O m to U C O -rt
oo ro a "-1 O c v to c A to �
C� H .0 H + m e 0 .0 > V 0 •r1 m r-1
to u O 04-j 0 •.-1 V c •-I o b b y 0
m V w -•-1 C O V H O V v v m +1
r-1 OU m OVO ri U 44ro0 a m m0 v
V roU ro C to b O V E $4 w m a .r1
Aj w C O d m > H >4 to O C v H c
•r1 r4 0 .,l :1•rt ro Aj m +1 v H +1
a td M •r1 4J r4 f-4 14 O to c 0) m H a a
ro v c 41 ro 90 .000 b•r1 C 4) 04 to a x a)
U —4-It to 41 > O to 0 4J O E m 4J to Cl 14 14
A H 4J m >, td U r-i to c m a o to
r-1 to to to tl 41 r•t A v O 41 44 c
ov U .0 r•1 0 to .0 td C •rt C 0 0) M
w to a ro to 0 U v v •-a Ai v H H m
O 0) v w b 3 -H m .0 E to O b A► r-4
H C O 0) b C H H r-1 4 C m IE
II id 3UW y c 41 V a U
11 0) a 0 w C b Aj 0) r-I r•I a
94 N x•11 JJ 0 •r1 rq to • b td d) to to V td
d Id b V +•I 0 w v U w H U U U
3+ A r-4 E40 40 W0 +1C0 0) d 0
at to A 0 O tv H w 0) 41 0 >+ >r r-1•rn 4J
.0 it Irt rt+•1 w+•1 0) b E O 0 0 O O)
W 9-4 O td H U i> >+ U C v v r-4 a a h z
to V V U Aj U 0 0) H b x x O a
r-t V to U O C O O II —4 1.t td > b to 0) w
b +1 O t0 as O w It rl M A Aj v v C •O�
a U w U td V 14 r-4 b to w t0 0
IP4 b w X m td .rl to rt r•1 •.1 0
of tJ GONO E ? U Ute �ba >+ 4)� Cid
U rt V-4 01 V r-4 U to t ,ii O O ro w td
a •r4 H O•-1 b d r4 V—4 0) 0 0 v) m >
Aj a to r+ a u b m M a w
e b w
as o 4 td td o to od
z H Uto > U a b as a 0 M r, tv t^ a
s.t
0
•i � ai ci A of tti v x
Attachment B
Page 1 of 1
PROPOSED COLMA SERVICE
ANNUAL OPERATING COST FORMULA
The Total Annual Operating Cost of a Colina Station is the Sum of
two Components•
Total Operating Cost = Marginal Cost + Support Cost
Marginal Cost
Marginal Cost = Variable Costs + Fixed Costs
Variable Costs = Traction Power + Other Variable
Fixed Costs = Station Power + Other Fixed
The variable traction power cost = Colma annual car miles X
BART' s traction power cost per car mile.
The other variable cost = ($1.073833 (BART base year cost per car
mile for other variable costs) X Colma car miles) X the wage in-
crease factor.
The number of Colma car miles = the annual car count between the
Daly City and Colma Stations X 1.2 miles plus the annual car
count between Colma and Daly City Stations x 1.2 miles.
The wage increase factor = the change between the base period
wages and the current period wages for BART Transportation Worker
II and the top step Maintenance Worker III.
The fixed station power cost = BART's total annual station power
cost - the number of active BART Stations.
The other fixed cost = $1,342,262 (BART base . year cost of other
fixed costs) X the wage increase factor.
Support Cost
The Support Cost = the total annual Colma marginal operating cost
X 27% (support cost constant) .
J.
jLxm le Calculation (for illustrative purposes)
Total Operating Cost = $2,919,846 (FY 86/87)
9/17/87
A W N F► •f• VI A W N I"
rt
O m m < t+ H
"'r_ a ►r ►r a r* m a w F rr l a
3mr � � E-+ n Jm a r r
too rr to � J n � m OoO b W A
a rn %0 %0 V a a w P% r• ? a
w 00 0o pi %0 00 b b a b
a r•• to J n o C 40 a K r-
a �.%%.. m rr n ao m r r m rt
O rt � � n y r w K 3 7 K r
a r w B a rat rh w m rte- a
J b rt to tt m o rr h
o' m 4A+r► to r rt
m 06 a rt m r
Ort tD 0n 4 a
m t t N til rt W N rt
Gl.tt AAy
u. rn w b tat h�
•• N W ? I-- H Q
J rt M
• m N
as r 33 la
ka c�
W o a x x °,o ►� N a a H
rat N N rt m tc v+ a, o cn H
h� h{ A A :r W OD O ;0 O J H
00 £ a dP dP m o t0 O �D to A co r
%D C b V W N 00 H
a ii a n r 2 ►d
crr > d► 0 K �-► ?D
aoo w c 0 rt H m ►d
n
ro
I'DA ::r y o
n ►� m �
m 33 n
n N rt m
fD rt C a
rt a
a
rt �
o a
ta rs d► �+ a
rr rt m ►-• ►-r N A J orf
O
O % U1
M C 0o
m E J O J N %D %D
r•
0 A 3 3 3 3 3 c
O .p. W N
`< m yr
01
m m
MCS)
.j a N �to