Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07182000 - D2 �++'+ Zo TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra PHIL BATCHELOR, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR .. , Costa FROM: July 10, 2000 ;" . ` County DATE: SUBJECT: LEGISLATION: AB 2929 (Torlakson) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)E BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT a position in SUPPORT of AB 2929 by Assemblyman Tom Torlakson which, as amended May 24, 2000, would address the need for BART to begin extensions to Antioch and Livermore before agreeing to extend BART to Santa Clara County and would require a "buy-in" from Santa Clara County. BACKGROUND: Residents in Alameda County and Contra Costa County have been paying the BART property tax since 1958 and sales tax since 1969. Yet residents in Eastern Contra Costa County and Eastern Alameda County still do not have BART available to them without driving to the Pittsburg-Bay Point or Dublin-Pleasanton stations. Extensions have long been planned to go to Antioch and Livermore. Now, there is discussion about extending BART to San Jose before the Antioch and Livermore extensions are undertaken. In order to ensure fairness and equity to residents of Contra Costa County and Alameda County without attempting to interfere with proposed extension into Santa Clara County, Assemblyman Torlakson has introduced AB 2929. As amended May 24, 2000,AB 2929 would do all of the following: CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNAPURE: 2Lj=1 RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR --RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE .....APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S),. PHIL BATCHELOR ACTION OF BOARD ON- July 18, 7000 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED AOTHER #. Following cements by Assemblyman Tom Torlakson and Board discussion of this matter, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above recommendation is APPROVED; and the issues of amendments to the Bill and possible clarification are REFERRED to the Water, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. 'NOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE _XX_UNANIMOUS{ABSENT 1 ) 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. ATTESTED July 18,20010 Contact- PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: See Page 2 SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 1 0 _ AD DEPUTY • Adopt a finding of the Legislature which says, "Before BART service is extended into a county that is not part of the BART district, any counties that are not currently part of the BART district should make a financial contribution comparable to the historical sales and property tax contributions made by the original BART counties." • Adopt a finding of the Legislature which reaffirms the "buy-in" concept under which San Mateo paid $600 million toward regional rail projects, including $200 million for East Bay BART extensions, as a condition of extending BART to the San Francisco International Airport, and indicates that it is the intent of the Legislature that Santa Clara make a "buy-in" comparable to the historical contributions from the BART counties. • Prohibits BART from extending service to any area outside of the existing district boundaries until it has made specific commitments to extend district service and facilities to the cities of Antioch and Livermore. • Prohibits BART from extending service into any county that is not a part of the district unless that county has formally adopted a resolution, with approval of MTC, to provide funding for the completion of specific extensions of service within the current district boundaries. The bill has passed the Assembly (although not in this form). It passed the Senate Transportation Committee (in this form) by a vote of 8:1 and is currently awaiting a hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee. cc: County Administrator Assemblyman Tom Torlakson Room 2003 State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Public Works Director Community Development Director Les Spahnn; Heim, Noack, Kelly & Spahnn 1121 L Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95814 -2- 43 2929 Assembly Bili-AMENDED Page 1 of 3 BILL NUMBER: AB 2929 AMENDED BILL TEXT AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 24, 2000 INTRODUCED BY Committee can Transportation {Torlakson Seetty n S -44 :,t-4.4 (Chair)) MARCH 20, 2000 An act to --afftend Seetlen 6S_89.3 e€- th ever tm--' Gede add Section 29035.5 to the Public Utilities Code relating to transportation. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 2929, as amended, Committee on Transportation. Transportation: eengestien management San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District . The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Act established the San Francisco 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. Transpei-tatlen ±8 __P_810- f-er- data eelleetlen and analysis department. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: " ' IGN 1 Seet-en 668$9. -1 h Gev-- _eat SECTION 1. Section 290135.5 is added to the Public Utilities Code, to read: 290135.5. (a) The .Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (1) Regional equity is a vital principle in any regional transportation plan. All parts of the San Francisco Bay Area must have a chance to benefit and meet the specific needs in their areas. (2) The original San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) collected its first property taxes in 1958. The Legislature, in 1959, approved a one-half of 1 percent sales tax in the counties that make up the BART district to provide additional funding http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab 2901-2950/ab_2929 bill 20000524 amended se07/10/2000 AB 2929 Assembly Bill -AMENDED Page 2 of 3 necessary to complete construction of the system. (3) Residents of the BART district made up of Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco counties have paid BART sales taxes and property taxes for nearly four decades. Santa Clara County never joined the BART district and the residents of Santa Clara County have never been required to pay BART taxes. (4) The Governor's Traffic Congestion Relief Plan released in April 2000, included seven hundred twenty-five million dollars ($725,000,000) from the General Fund for an extension of BART service to San Jose, currently estimated to cost four billion dollars ($4,000,000,000) . (5) Before BART service is extended into a county that is not part of the BART district, any counties that are not currently part of the BART district should make a financial contribution comparable to the historical sales and property tax contributions made by the original BART counties. (6) In 1988, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission adopted Resolution 1876,- a regional rail agreement that provided for the extension of rail service outside the boundaries of the BART district. The landmark agreement embodies the buy-in concept, and the practice of using these contributions to extend BART within current service areas. Under terms of that agreement, San Mateo County agreed to fund six hundred million dollars ($600,000,000) in regional rail projects, including two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) for East Bay BART extensions, in exchange for a BART extension to the San Francisco International Airport. (7) The buy-in principle was a main element of Resolution 1876, and it must remain a main focus as the state looks forward to the next phase of transportation investment in the bay area. (8) This buy-in could lay the framework for a 21st century version of Resolution 1876. This landmark regional rail agreement brought the bay area together and created the groundwork to build the rail extensions that are enjoyed today. (b) Accordingly, it is the intent of the Legislature that Santa Clara County make a "buy-in" comparable to the historical contributions from the BART counties. (c) The district may not extend service to any area outside of the existing district boundaries until it has made specific commitments to extend district services and facilities to the Cities of Antioch and Livermore. (d) The district may not extend service into any county that is not a part of the district unless that county has formally adopted a resolution, with approval from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, to provide funding for the completion of specific extensions of service within the current district boundaries. Cede io—amended ce E tiro: element-s- ef the eengestlen management preqEam. The department is Eespensible feE data eelleetlen and analysis en state highways. The sehedulee-pEieE to ,..,,.,.....,..a adeptlen. At least laiennlaliy, t4ie-a3en-ey shall determine it the ��e��-e���ee awe eonthe the—fell ewl :yf- all ef —vWrvv=+-r--r— the impaets ef land use dee-JI -e-i-eRS, _n__ 119 ea—mate ___e eests http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2901-2950/ab-2929 bill 20000524 amended SC07/10/2000 AB 2929 Assembly Bill -AMENDED Page 3 of 3 (e) Ade tien and impieftentatlen of a defieleney jBian puEsuant to Seet-len 65989. 4 when highway and L-eadway level ef serviee—atanda tea aEe net maintalned eft—peEtieRs of the Eleaignated system. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab 2901-2950/ab_2929 bill 20000524`amended scO7`/lO/2000 STATE CAPITOL COMMITTEES: 9942849 t}\ J,,, t L//rr„�r riL ITJi CHAIR,TRANSPORTATION SACRAMENTO,CA 94249.0011 ( 16))319-2011 6 CHAIR,SELECT COMMITTEE ON (9131 FAX(916)319-2111 JOBS-HOUSING BALANCE �' ' y'� �} 8M5 STREET ��.YV44t 46� l� 6 1 MEMBER: MARTINEZ, C CA 94553 ll.... %%% BUDGET (925)372.7990 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY FAX(925)372-0934 DEVELOPMENT JOINT GOVERNMENT CENTER ry�p� t^r77 T A T! tL� LOCAL GOVERNMENT 420 W 3RD STREET OM T�., RLti.L�SO ANTIOCH,CA 94509 ASSEMBLYMEMBER,ELEVENTH DISTRICT !925)778.5790 PAX(925)778.5174 E-PaAI�_:Tam.Tarieksan�assembly.ca.gav Contents • AB 2929 Fact Sheet • Taxpayer contributions to the BART District • BART Board 1963 resolution for extensions to Antioch and Livermore • Legislation in 1963 regarding BART extensions • Past legislation cited BART extensions to Antioch and Livermore • BART 1980 extensions policy • Metropolitan Transportation Commission Resolution 1876 — San Mateo County "buy-in" for BART w:. Printed on Pecvcted Paper STATE CAPITOL COMMITTEES: P.O. 942849 CHAIR,TRANSPORTATION SACRAMENTO, CA 94249-0011 CHAIR,SELECT COMMITTEE ON (916)319-2011 JOBS-HOUSING BALANCE 31 FAX(916)399.211 Y "�' " �" '[��'�` (� 'y� 815 RSTREET I MEMBER: MARTINETINEZ,,C CA 94553 .{7 BUDGET (925)372-7990 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY FAX(925)372-0934 DEVELOPMENT JOINT GOVERNMENT CeNTER LOCAL GOVERNMENT 420 W.3RD STREET TOM TORLAKSON ANTIOCH,CA 94509 ASSEMBLYMEMBER.ELEVENTH DISTRICT (925)776-5790 FAX(925)778.5174 E-MAIL:Tom.Torlakson O assemblyxa.gov AB 2929 (TORLAKSON) -- BART "Buy-In." AB 2929 requires any county that is not currently part of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District to pay a"buy-in" before BART can be extended to the county. The buy-in will help fund extensions within the BART District, to Livermore and Antioch. Taxpayers in those communities have paid BART sales taxes and BART property taxes for nearly four decades. AB 2929 protects these taxpayer investments. SPECIFICS: • BART cannot extend service outside the District until BART has made specific commitments to extend BART to Livermore and Antioch. Both communities were promised BART extensions, and they are the next logical steps from current end-of--the-line stations. • BART cannot extend service into a non-BART county, unless the county guarantees funding comparable to the historical contributions made by the original BART counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco. • AB 2929 recognizes the example of Metropolitan Transportation Commission Resolution 1876, approved in 1988. San Mateo County—not a BART District member—agreed to pay $200 million to help fund the Pittsburg-Bay Point and Dublin-Pleasanton BART extensions. HISTORY: 1957: The Legislature created a five-county BART District: Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, Marin, and San Mateo Counties. The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors told the Legislature that the county did not want to be in the District. 1961: San Mateo County Supervisors withdrew from the .District. 1962: Marin County withdrew. District voters that year approved a$792 million general obligation bond issue, financed by property taxes, for BART construction. 1963: The BART Board adopted a resolution giving priority to extensions to Pittsburg-Antioch and Livermore-Pleasanton. 1969: The Legislature approved a r/Z-percent sales tax in District counties. Prinred on Pecyated Paper Taxpayer Contributions to the BART District since 1959 ► Estimated .P'rvper Y and Sales Tax Revenues by Coxnmur�i� Nominal value Present value Property tar Sales tax Total Property tax Safe*tax Total Debt General Debt General service fond service fund Alaneda County M 96 1,043 1,731 2,437 338 2,531 5,326 Alameda 31 5 61 97 136 19 153 308 Albany 6 1 12 19 28 4 30 62 Berkeley 45 7 87 i 39 208 29 227 464 Cublin 11 2 12 251 43 6 26 75 Emeryville 9 1 2 12 34 5 5 43 'Fremont 87 15 132 234 300 41 302 643 Heyward 54 8 80 142 2413 33 196 -468 Livermore 25 4 25 55 91 12 59 162j Newark 17 3 28 48 66 9 68 140 Oakland 150 23 308 481 700? 96 773 1,569 Pledmont 9 1 9 19 39 5 23 67 Pleasanton 31 6 33 70 89 13 72 174 San Leandro 42 6 58 106 200 27 146 373 Union City 18 3 44. 68 59 8 92 159 Other 57 10 151 2181 224 31 362 618 Centra Costa County 434 71 5581,061 1,676 232 1,318 3,225 Antioch 17 3 33 53 52 8 71 131 Brentwood 3 1 5 8 6 1 11 18 Clayton 3 1 4 8 8 1 9 18 Concord 47 7 69 123 187' 25 171 383 Denville 19 3 14 36 54 8 28 st Ei Cerrito 9 1 22 32 36 5 56 98 Hercules 6 1 8 16 18 2 16 35 Lafayette 15 2 16 .33 59 8 40 147 Martinez 13 2 19 35 48 7 45 100 Moraga 9 1 7 18 34 5 18 57 Crinda 13 2 9 24 51 7 23 81 Pinole 6 1 12 19 23 3 28 54 Pittsburg 13 2 27 42 43 7 60 110 Pleasant Hill 14 2 23 40 58 8 58 124 Richmond 46 7 57 111 201 28 146 375 San Pablo 5 1 11 18 23 3 28 55 San Ramon 20 4 21 44 50 8 43 - 100 Walnut Creek 42 7 35 84 162 22 87 272 Other 134 21 164 319 563 76 380 1,019 San Francisco 454 72 7017 1,2321 1,956 274 1,859 4,089 Total 1 1,480 239 2,306 4,0241 6,089 844 5y70?' 12,640 Note A11 a=cunts ars is=illion,a of dollars, =d inaclzzde all payments irc=Fy 1939 through FY 1999.Full value amounts=9 in,constant 1999 dollars and indud.e interest.Azzounts may not add exactly dzze to:ou4ding.Propertg tax payments*onz,Maxin.and San Mateo counties to supgoz t system.vlanrriag (paid prom '1959--63) are not included. THE PROMISE BART Board Resolution No . 245 (March 28 , 1963) Priorities for extensions : Antioch and Livermore 21FOU `I TE BC&M OF DUZE CTOM or Tag SAN 714MCISCO BAY A?2A RAPID TRANSIT DISnUCT -In the =attar of prioritq regarding future rail extensions. � Resdlutioa NO, 24.5 BE IT RESOLVZZ) that i t is hereby declared to be the policy nr the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Bap Area Rapid Transit Dia trict that in the financing and construction by the bis trice of rail extensi©ttsi of its initial first-stage system, i!A Y ab 11 h giwan tv t �tstrtxtcx rrf one. ar axara extezu# sme ,areas vithirz pa �zCci#st f is tri c " rw t di re c ],v aervs.d by $ initial, system, with due regard to population, lazed use and potential patronage. t� t�t�. baaa of prasa��t �rr�pci�t .c:1, 3.aaduse ,sad cthsr per�- tamC faars, ate area of, i,ori.Cy ars :theFi.ttshug-Aqioch 'aa of eastern ie+ era C+oeta Crriuz cys t Livariaoi Ptesxssat+oxa a a'at ea naris +da . tY, azd the rtraat eeto� o sbeitX And ' of . ra�aac Assemblyman Jerome WaIdie in 1963 authored a bill to withdraw East County from BART I* f promises to East County were not fulfilled . . . BART promised extensions to Antioch and Livermore, and WaIdi* e agreed to drop the bill :MPS P , rinting and cost from the sate ; WALDIE 1S HAPPY Ll duck Stan1j,E acquisition a►tcl TD * a _ r•fc�«1 I�tan ra �� is rc throughout. elle ` ® _ -unt . . _ CoJ tExtensi*on Priority Day Ai ea r'lapid Transit si indicated that the teriniltoloat District directors Thursday)+.vas satisfactory to him. VOL. 52 passed the resolution the,, Areas of priority listed' in. a. had promised Assemblyman the resolution are in addition: Jerorne %Valdie they Would';to Antioch - I'ittsbttr the? pass. Uvermore - Pleasanton area - The resolution puts the dis-land the northwest sect: crt! St trict on record that it NvilI;San Francisco. ;its lit �rity €rt any ten l n! Kaepke told the board that _. .. . �) t�f t� € _ t• e . a_...fear had arisen that lite 10 '�`rc� crtrf et— WIFE, Fri L - `� directly served by the :'Initial tend the lines to more popll �, z: system. This includes ®inti-Moils cities outside of lite .. och. Pittsburg an eastern 'three - county district rather, Contra Costa Counrly. !than to cornmull;ties and: l nei;hborhood: N ithin_melte- Itis-rtv a, In return for the resolution, tri t. t} alclie had agreed to a halt ARTT Fres€d6.nt Adrien . on action or, hi.; bill to relieve - the .eastern end of the coanty Fall' ealle 11 les l tion from paying turd lite coy. ' prati aid Oat �Lse..it. struction of the system. I7is- f t.01 ithg� rst Iiai ry ` # �Jor, ison, C.ontr-a'Cost a Chun-i trict . officials had felt ' that tv representative ort tiie board. r the laldie bill would in ef' who made the motion oil the } feet kill rapid ,t ansit since it resolution, said he had lona, xl tirould mane it impossible 'to:Sbil,n ST )e"- a resolution With sT)e-i a . sell the bonds authorized lost cific. t-.eI•Inin01Ogly renaidhl:a� NovelnI— by the votel•s. ` r o Lit i n ti e-tcnsion., �. The district's counsel. tt :ti- lip€toted e is t}tat tai:s; does not lace ItiaepkC. told t1le bo{fret )lied)€tt}€ c; ler :r €t to otttoi r`:: Thursdav that tale resolution c:otlht.ids zc:.t€€�e it been stibinitted in {Id it e ai e o#its ttt 1 _t e t ¢f f, vance to tit alclie and the had r3 cirt 41Y-64 M i��Nsi� "NO ADVERSE AFFECT' AcalanesBoard RefusesT6 Aga , 'T I • , Act nst Clu bs THE COSTS OF DELAY soma== HERE'S WHAT YOU'LL PAY . . . BAY AREA IF WE DON'T VOTE YESON rap 1---CTnneoessary freeways and bridges . . . S --7-1 t 0 $1.6 Billion tra. n 7—Taxable property taken for freeways . . . • Thousands of AcresOHM 3—Taxable commercial property for parking lots . . . 0 Hundreds of millions of dollars , t NO 4, 5, 6, 7, 8-- Travel time, parking charges, auto � � ■ ■ insurance costs, traffic control, accidents . . . 0 Hundreds more millions of dollars � SAVE 6NE yplus thousands of cripplings and deaths J i/ I 9—Increases in your tax rate . . . 0 Doable the cost of Proposition "A" JA V� TIME 10--More traffic, more congestion, more smog . . . 0 Strangulation of our Bay Area 0 �� �� I r V��i 11—After all the delay—well have to build Rapid d Transit anyway. The increase in construction oast will be at least � ��� SAVE 0 Half a billion dollars That's why we say: Don't delay.— LL SAYE MONEY! SAVE TIME! SAVE LIVES! we BAY AKE'' from VOTE CHOKING to DIA 7010' YFSr r AV �4w ON and be sure your neighbor does,too! V 0 T E All statements in this leaflet are accurate and factual—if you want additional details,please write to CITIZENS FOR RAPID TRANSIT 541 Flood Building, 912 Latham Square Bldg, San Francisco Oakland YES ON A ray tai}unoL o�ti�uc.+,ua� )�— pua a;eon e}vo�'epawuly ul 11SNW81(31dYV M3 SNUU13 •aor,tiaas arrgnd a se srq; 9urrrsur aas ayl 'aagsr5ag anon Xq pariddns penumm uorjeuuo;ur s,aajon aefn3aa Ino C ur papnfour sem aa;;eur Zurnaodurr 3Ttv� a;ra�e}rs7 11 rn s.p Inogs uop uaaojur oK� arr .respurht LfOI 11SNVH1 U1dVH gnt;`'n�a0 V3HV AVG s1'°N+:u++�d NOWSOdO7 d elvjaj!1vo'puowyZla moss CJ 1 Yd N0i. VN'd0:1N1 3svlsod `s 'n SI 03S010N3 i+ebling UNY11110 W1 �I u J{ LU 1' �en Z 11616 0 C* ~ 1z, 4t,g s ON5 9yYe �� 2@ y Ia12.3 si= �� $ aa -' " v 6 „� 8 ®C: x E!C3s" � 3S.0=has=18 <; uj '+.J � o' m . w c�. �' ❑` �, " 3 � � � ?•C:-' Boa.: �Ut be Pim m1.4 v >, Yi �' N N a � ro = c a > c8y,2w s � o a V a ° 6 ro � _ O ° vyp O S YF tuLU J . N .Ia31- iOX m _ Lo eL . � � e tl V � 3 li d � cm uarohvtl° `aO P' O 'e � > MY ° crr ' '^U3 wn C � 27 �� 0�a°3cuae^ Q > i C *h„ 00M � c $ co � yrw� �t- OUq a o � w cc S y m ® 3 F �°? d o ae:� Jae _ V w wed _ $ gx ►- o 0 mva - ° ao`5ro'm >viE a' eUec � � 3a ' p i F- ct u U Ix JOHN A. NEjEDLY -100 MONTECILLO DRIVE W,qL.NU-CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94595 July 4, 2000 Dear Tom, egret the cresenz inability to arrange zmeetings crovide my 70 limited recollections O� the 'Cackground of BART extensions to East Ccuntv. Recentpersonal circumstance and the conmLtment to the camp experience in Juiv for the new Scout troop at Orin Allen take the time ava:Llable. i will, however, provide these --ecollections of events which are pertinent --o the crasentation to secure an extensicn to An t I As you know, BART at fifst was an a' 'rea syster, tnat to Sar. Fran c-- s:c, :�7m.nej� . -- -- -0,1 Ccunzfas . Contra Costa County did ncz agree za ;De a member of a thzee-countv system, the PzOlect at that time would be terminated. '7 Preliminary discussions indicated the 'Vote by the Board would be two affirmative, three negative. ice Silva, the Cha` rman cf the Bcarci, d' rec_ad me to craoara I '-a- act4on for -he next a motion and s-Lat-emen:: ra 7 morning' s meeting of the 3car,_-4, -aze evening, ice called me and asked that -another statement be prepared supporting the three_ county system together w-47zh an explanation of its benefits. Joe iadicatad. .. the G Ove=(ar had qaI4'ed. and ,a ng :qtjer considerations n e`z' e n a n td' , t Vou asau: ex aid h ' Uc M: XM 401 On uld b� ansa stud .........'Cth t: Vur y Federal on ....... eX,ans J..on would Zffce,de' ...e...n..... . ....0 Ahy 'd ' t parr Call . . . e -:S:CO. At- txp.o........... San Joe indicated also that he had been assured the three counties would be fully served, including Livermore and Brentwood as essential extensions before any territory outside the three Participating counties would be considered. That is, until such full service from Concord L had been ccm,�ojeted.had via Pittsburg and Antioch Joe called again eary he following morning and asked that the positions be read to hi-m. He indicated Mr. Falk representing BART had called and asked for a meeting before 7 the Board meet-- ng. ice indicated he had agrees to the meeting, wh_Jch included Mayor �hrlstcp of ;Wan Zrar Mri Falk, h'Ad st- that fast cut wrul3 ........... 46 ,r ........... b enW ........... ........... ...... ents there to eq .1 a f t, rancisco rvic.w rea... W � t 00 ex$),efis i soh .;.:, - - k-Ina-4 'a, . ve,:C, IOU I : -Y hosxszng in 0rentals and ont ra,.,008 t C _' :lave:laveWqa San::Fz=;CJ sCo::::wou.L d acd_6s s :,to,� r Page 2 t Joe :net with Mr. Falk and the Manor at the .,_d Francis Cafe and later returned and convened the Board meeting. Mr. Fa' k presented the San Francisco point of view, emphasising the priority commitment to East County, ..he alternative of s=eedv transport of workers already limited ;oy an inadequate surface capacity of Highway 1 . As you know, t :e vote was 3 to _- tc _ontinue with the three- county district. Supervisor Silva explained the benefits to East County as supporting his then. decision. You rnight review the minutes of that meeting. I believe a recording system was in place, and there may have been a ccu_"t enor_er present indecendent the Clerk of th 3card. As you know, Joe' s decision was critic_?ed as East County has had to pay BART taxes without service, but my feeling was that he really believed in what he was told. Later, ae had tb right the San Mateo-Sar. Francisco maneuvers to get service to the airport atter Daly Citv and Senator Boatwright should be contacted as well as Ne_lo Bianco who was a !dnelV V o to secure what Joe Silva :~.ad ;peen promised. until the Falk-Christ pner discussions, SuperV ser 3-- Iva had expressed 'Ellis intention publicly not to vote for a three-county BART district as the area he represented would be taxed to fund a service that would provide no :benefit to his district. Apparently the dlscussidn at the Francis Ca. c n r zxcee kx�ari fulS sarvi e to . . ._.. _ _ .._...._.__ _ ..._..f ..._.___. ___._ _ _.. ___ Sc ut ec#a c�uz�� end ast it C"'tfa costa Ccaunt?a WOuld sh John Knox was in support of the three-county system, so r don' t know if he could help you in your research. rowever, Senator Miller did consider _eg_slatior_, as 7 �=e�r, to require the extensions to East County prier to any other; but, as I recall, they did not survive the Senate Transportation Committee. You may wish to discuss this issue with Nello. The only remaining point where the issue arose was in the specifications for the Highway s grade to Bailey Road and the attempt to lower the 'excavations to BART' reauire_uents . This too failed at the time, requiring ntodificaticn later when "ederal funds were secured for the Pittsburg extension. This subject of BART extensions is an interesting one, but continuing efforts had the same result as the attempt to :condition the original Board decision upon a formal agreement with SART cr leg_slation to provide the facilities that changed Joe' s opinion. Sincerely, JcAn A. Ne j edl'y' Past bills cited BART commitments to Antioch and Livermore and put "buy-in" in state law,, le SB 38'8 (Kopp), 1996 is SB 1715 . (Boatwright) , 1988 4192 STATUMS OF 1988 [Ch. 1259 Ch, 12591 S11 CHAPTER 1259 Alameda County Transpor An act to add Sections 29034.6 and 29034.7 to the Public Utilities that extension in accoi Code, relating to transit. Transportation Expenditur 131055, [Approved by Governor Setember 23,1988. Filed with (b) Not later than Decet Secretary of State September 26, 1988.1 to commence construction + Springs, subject to each of t The people of the State of California do enact as follows: (1) The Dublin extensi SECTION 1. Section 29034.5 is added to the Public Utilities Code, implementation. (2) Appropriate federal to read- obtained in a timely marine: 29034.6. (a) Not later than 1991, the district shall proceed to (3) Adequate funding is s commence construction of an extension of its facilities to West subdivision (c). Pittsburg,or to a point east of that location,if the funding described (c) In order to meet the c in subdivision (b) is sufficient and all of the following occur: the Dublin and Warm Spring (1) The voters of Contra Costa County, at the November 8, 1988, contemplated by the Alamec general election,approve an additional one-half of 1 percent sales tax Plan, the board of directors for transportation purposes. actions: (2) An increase in San Francisco Bay area bridge tolls,as proposed (1) Set aside, for expendi by Senate Bill No. 45 of the 1987-88 Regular Session, is approved. fifty-eight million dollars (3) Sufficient funds are provided to the district from paragraphs funds. (1) and (2) which,together with funds identified in subdivision (b), (2) Commit for expenditt would result in the generation of at least four hundred twenty-five amount of not less than one million dollars ($425,000,000) for the West Pittsburg BART extension. ($126,000,000) if,pursuant to a (b) The district board of directors shad set aside at least thirty-four the San Mateo Transit District mullion dollars ($34,000, .Q)1rom district reserve funds and, if the million dollars ($200,000,000) rev'es °� t dollars ( fy eMateo County Transit District 3a ext ,sl`rrit a a rel e# an .agelnen t {3} Seek additional funding between the dYstrit t and the San 1Vlat06 County Transit 6. tri i the in San Francisco Bay area bride district board of directors shall set aside at least an additional Statutes of 1988,together with seventy-four million dollars ($74,000,000) for the purposes of this to provide not less than section.The district shall seek other funding as may be available from ($602,000,000) to fund the Dul state and other sources to meet the objective of completing provided for in the Alameda construction of an extension to gest Pittsburg. Plan. (c) It is the intent of the Legislature that the district extend its (d) It is the intent of the U service and facilities to eastern Contra Costa County as far as the four in the Alameda County Tra. hundred twenty-five million dollars ($425,000,000) funding amount pursuant to paragraphs (2) and will permit. available to the district for the i (d) If funds generated from the additional Contra Costa County described in subdivisions (a) w transportation sales tax or the increase in bridge tolls do not become undertake to provide the desc available to the district, it is the intent of the Legislature that the available funding permits. district proceed with service and facilities extension as far as SEC. 3. No reimbursement available funding sources permit. Section 6 of Article XIII B of the SEC. 2. Section 29034.7 is added to the Public Utilities Code, to local agency or school district read: charges,fees,or assessments suff 29034.7. (a) Not later than December 31, 1991, the district shall of service mandated by this act proceed to commence construction of an extension of its facilities to Dublin if an agreement is then existing between the district and the 121610 �f 36 [Ch. 1259 Ch. 1259] STA'PCPT'FS OF 19M 4193 S9 Alameda County Transportation Authority to provide funding for 034.7 to the Public Utilities that extension in accordance with the Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan adopted pursuant to Section 131055. 23,19K Filed with (b) Not later than December 31, 1991, the district shall proceed -r 26, 1968.1 to commence construction of an extension of its facilities to Warm Springs, subject to each of the following conditions: y enact as follows. (1) The Dublin extension is fully funded and ready for implementation. to the Public Utilities Code, (2) Appropriate federal and environmental approvals are obtained in a timely manner. e district shall proceed to (3) Adequate funding is available from the sources described in 7n of its facilities to West subdivision (c). on,if the funding described (c) In order to meet the objective of completing construction of the following occur: the Dublin and Warm Springs extensions of the district's facilities,as y,at the November 8, 1988, contemplated by the Alameda County Transportation Expenditure ne-half of 1 percent sales tax Plan, the board of directors of the district shall take the following actions: .rea bridge tolls,as proposed (1) Set aside, for expenditure on those projects, not less than ;ular Session, is approved. fifty-eight million dollars ($58,000,000) from the district's reserve he district from paragraphs funds. 3entified in subdivision (b), (2) Commit for expenditure on those projects, an additional ;t four hundred twenty-five amount of not less than one hundred twenty-six million dollars t Pittsburg BART extension. ($126,000,000) if,pursuant to an agreement between the district and 1 set aside at least thirty-four the San Mateo Transit District,the district is to receive two hundred wt reserve funds and, if the million dollars ($200,000,000) as a capital contribution from the San Jars ($200,000,000) from the Mateo County Transit District. , a result of an agreement (3) Seek additional funding as may be available from an increase County Transit District,the in San Francisco Bay area bridge tolls pursuant to Chapter 406 of the Ade at least an additional Statutes of 1988,together with funding from state and other sources, 0) for the purposes of this to provide not less than six 'hundred two million dollars ing as may be available from ($+602,000,000) to fund the Dublin and Warm Springs extensions as objective of completing provided for in the Alameda County Transportation Expenditure ttsburg. Plan. that the district extend its (d) It is the intent of the Legislature, if funding, as provided for asta County as far as the four in the Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan and ?,5,000,000) funding amount pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (c),do not become available to the district for the full extension of service and facilities tional Contra Costa County described in subdivisions (a) and (b), that the district nevertheless i bridge tolls do not become undertake to provide the described extensions to the extent that of the Legislature that the available funding permits. ilities extension as far as SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article.XIII B of the California Constitution because the he Public Utilities Code, to local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges,fees,or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level r 31, 1991, the district shall of service mandated by this act. i.extension of its facilities to aetween the district and the 121610 121630 Senate Bill No. 388 Passed the Senate June 10, 1996 Secretary of the Senate Passed the assembly May 24, 1996 Chief'Clerk of'the Asseinbly This bill was received by the Governor this day of 1996, at o'clock—m. Private Secretary of'the Governor I SB 388 —2— CHAPTER ...2—CHAPTER An act to amend Section 29034.5 of the public Utilities Code, relating to transportation. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB , 388, Kopp. 'Transportation: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid-Transit District: annexation& San. ranciscr� � Are. . .Rapi u nn a tt s ice : r�a€ cents wi iri I< p e ist d a J anuar I X371, bee 'd� z eatd ani ttccr ci it tie rle cif __. bl: . This bill would exempt from that requirement the extension of services and facilities south of the Daly City Station to the terminus of the BART-San Francisco Airport Extension. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Section 29034.5 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read: 29034.5. (a) The district may approve annexation of areas to the district pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 29500) or other forms of affiliation; however, the district shall meet its service commitments within its boundaries as they existed on January 1, 1971, before the district may expend any district funds for the purpose of extending services and facilities outside of those boundaries, except for the extension of services and facilities south of the Daly City Station to the terminus of the BART-San Francisco Airport Extension. (b) This section does not preclude either of the following: (1) Rail line extensions to other areas that may be annexed to, or in some other way are affiliated with, the district, if other than district funds are. used to finance the construction and operation of the extensions. 90 -3 — SB 388 (2) Improvements to existing district stations and yards. [�{(.4 ,..awY„4y;: of t�aatbr , Flay Zimn c d t ; nc iw -S.OW cif the 'City and + V.- f .. Ftancu.c�s. 90 BART Board policy on extensions — 19ovi Commitments to Pl* ttsbUra-Antioch, Livermore-Pleasanton, San Mateo No mention of San Jose i4, U J U 9 !'IAiV! NO, 721 P, 5 dxhibit A IOU C Y STATEMENT ON BA.R*T E X TENS ION S I The BART rail system should be expanded in fc7ur integral phases involv�.ng concurrent incremer -tal Construction of Various extens,ion segments as outlined below . zIas� n . st. 3xi3al "throe nut s t u eapttble cit s, Aring a ! can n+ 'a h f Di s> r c t. EII The integral phases o f the proposed IAR'T .expansion plan are as follows: Phase I a . Extension of the ' ConcoYd lire tc a N, Concord/ Mart-Inez station adjacent to Highway 4 . b . Extension of the Scuthein Alameda I ine by two ,s tat ions in Fremont . c . Extension of the San Franc i sco line beyond Daly City to a station near Colma. Phase II a. . EXtex's i011 of the Conco x4 line along Highway 4 'to a station. in West Pi-ttsb-urg . b . Extexnsion from the Bayfair station through Castro Valley along Highway 1.580 to near Highway 1-6807 in the Dub linJPleasariton aro e.. C . E.xtemsion of the San Mateo line to a Chestnut Avenue station in 5euth San Francisco . Phase II l �.. G< nu;r 3. aetae« R. enflir ; t - ....X lur tw,o .additional stati,cns Pit-t "" <➢�'LarTi.._ .:.. b . The Iivermore-Pleasant on line extended to a downtown Pleasanton station . c . The San Mateo line extended along the Southern Pacific -Rail.roaci linetoa station adjacent to the Ta,nf vran Shopping Center, . (Bcard adapted 4/24/80) NO. 7217 e IY a Ther Lt erm .. R'3easantp 1ndd to L� ..� rehtt either h* t�sHA y_ b. The San Mateo line extended to an Airport station, either adjacent to Highway 141 or within the Airport complex. IV BART will seek inclusion of the incremental expansion plan in the Re zonal Transportation Plan repared by the Metropoli an Transportation Commiss, n , v Financing for the BART expansion plan will be sought from the Federal Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) capital grant program, vI In support of a capital grant application , BART will. seek UMTA planning funds to conduct an Alternatives Analysis of Phase I of the extension plan. VII Local capital matching funds will 'be sought for Phase I from Proposition 5 , SB 624 guideway funds and excess bridge tolls . �7 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Resolution 1876 Regional Rail Extensions Agreement 49'if Metropolitan Transportation Commission " j Rail Extension Program Resolution No.1876 Adopted March 24, 1988 b 4 µM t SMn Francisco .- Muni F-Line (for extensions, mM ""• a '� � �'` yn ", � Extension see enlargement) ' (Market Street section " r ` , r, in operation; :mbarcadero section opening March 2000) Muni Turnback and Extension* 'Cam A: Muni ': (In operation) tam ,- Metfo ' .�„ ' r r, + �Extensio � Sr t1i QeC C y r4nE 5 �- `' ►- s � [ma.sCatiorr sae, � �• �eorrip[ettF J: �, .: -,1rE`� r �OpiClBLitirtk ��/;r� - a i eG � t vg's• � .a �-- 5 1 85CC18CL U` Oi" CCCILS1181v" Caitrain on op ' '� w' ndt mnstcuctiony 'i Downtown Extension •- {Aiternatives under study) cwt k5 CW ` _�y f•iw.r`4.� Bt9c,+ r r 7 t n. irrti„x.!, s�. 16�ieG -=t Financing or these projects is commi ted ands. searate funding agreements reements and is nor included 4 Y g in the figures below. Other Local Yi x t cis -�3dY wY a1 ?L� {�adnt� Bridge Tolls (4°lb) 51 Sicte�ss {4%) }s� {�nclptrai � � SFO (5%) r r 3t f y •+t ,i a :r nm�..,rk •r i y A K' w! BART iATC Graphics/pb--•2100 h"- Total: $4.1 billion JPB - ej {sbJa) Federal $1.3 billion Local Sales Taxes 5 1.1 billion State State Funds $740 million , Local JPB Caitrain Funding $232 million Sales BART $229 million Taxes San Francisco Airport (SFO) S200 million (26%) Bridge Tolls 3161 million Other Local 5145 million PAGE 10/ x{ Appendix I Resolution No. 1876. Page I of 3 D, Underitandinq Re-ciarding SanMateo Buy- olects 10,.CalTrain and B�_T 1) Pending agreement between BART counties and San Mateo County on a buy-in formula based on local capital effort: a. San Mateo contribution is expected to be: for BART East Bay Extensions $200 million for BART San Francisco Airport Extension, 25% 148 million for CalTrain Extension in San Francisco 243 million b. The application of this contribution together with other proposed funding has the potential of financing rail extensions as shown in Table I to this attachment. While the estimates from each source of funds may have to be adjusted as subsequent decisions are made, the pending BART-SamTrans agreement is interpreted by HTC as supporting a regional , multi-party commitment to the projects identified in Table 1 . 2) Significant up*-front dollar amount from San Mateo County to the current three BART counties: a. Pursuant to the pending agreement, expected to be concluded within 45 days, San Mateo would be expected to pay $50 million to BART at the time of UMTA grant approval and $50 million beginning with construction of the Colma Station. (Since initial adoption of this Resolution, BART and San Mateo have agreed to $10 million to BART when the first federal design grant is approved and $90 million at the beginning of construction which is consistent with the Commission's intent.) b. The balance of the funds would be paid to BART at appropriate milestones associated with the extension to the airport. 3) Agreement on programs for extensions within three BART counties along with the BART Extension to San Francisco Airport: MTC supports commitment to a multiple extension program, as defined by Table I which guarantees the construction of additional stations on an equitable basis in the affected counties. 4) Separate EIS for CalTrain: a. The EIS shall be sponsored by- the existing Joint Policy Board.