Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.2 ABAG Issues 140 -1 G) CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 27, 1984 SUBJECT. ABAG Dues EXHIBITS ATTACHED Memorandum from ABAG Executive Director dated February 7 , 1984 and attachments RECOMMENDATION V-- Send City ' s ABAG Delegate to Budget Work Session on February 29 , 1984 FINANCIAL STATEMENT: 1983-84 Dues - $755 Proposed 1984-85 Dues - $1 ,858 DESCRIPTION Attached is a proposal to increase ABAG dues in 1984-85 to $1 ,858 per year from the $755 per year which the City presently pays . According to the ABAG Executive Director , this increase is necessary if ABAG is to continue to effectively serve the Cities throughout the Bay Area . in order to make an informed decision on the proposed increase in ABAG dues , it is recommended that the City Council direct the City ' s ABAG delegate or alternate .to attend the ABAG work session on its budget and report back to the City Council . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES T0: ITEM NO. 7 Association of Bay Area Governments Hotel Claremont • Berkeley, California 94705 • (415)841-9730 DT: February 7, 1984 FM: Revan A. F. Tranter1 Executive Director TO: County, City and Town Managers and Administrators of Our 98 RE: ABAG's Condition Member Governments This is a plea to professional colleagues for help. This Association, founded in the years 1959-61 with the help of managers such as Wes McClure, John Phillips, Jim Fales and others, is in deep trouble. It's been approaching for several years, and now it's here. I 've mentioned it in budget messages, but who reads budget messages? What I 'd like to ask is that you read the one that's enclosed, and specifically ask your board or council members to read it, too !the're receiving their own copies at the same time) . Try as we do, it's not easy to communicate--with any true understanding--with over 500 elected officials in nearly 100 local govern- ments, and perhaps as many managers, assistants , planning directors and others. On one hand, ABAG has saved every taxpayer--just through our success in getting rid of BASSA alone--far more than he or she pays towards our small membership dues. And for several particular jurisdictions we've saved (and are about to do again) a bundle through our credit pooling system--worth from six to 90 years ' cost of membership! On the other hand, since 1976 we have steadily lost three fourths of our staff positions, and in 23 years we have never granted our employees a pension system that all our members take for granted. In doing a first-rate job for our mem- bers, our staff have won over 30 awards for their work. They have been rewarded with pay cuts. It often seems that ABAG is far more honored outside the Bay Area than within it. How can we keep good people any longer? Our receivables are substantial ; yet without an operating reserve our cash flow position is so perilous that just to meet the next payroll is a matter of inge- nuity that can't last much longer. Part of the reason is that the Legislature gave the Bay Area in 1971 a separate transportation planning agency (MTC)-- (1) making it one of only a handful of areas in the country where regional land use and transportation planning are carried out separately, and (2) ensuring that MTC would be wealthy and ABAG would remain poor. But there are two other reasons . After Proposition 13, we cut our dues by 70 percent, and they're still way down. Secondly, the federal and state funds that kept dues down to a very small pro- portion of our budget have declined drastically. The result is that I 'm proposing an increase in total dues--to a little less than was approved six years ago. There are two major changes, explained in the budget message--both, think, justified and overdue. There's a declining rate, by size Representing City and County Governments in the San Francisco Bay Area OABAG Association of Bay Area Governments Hotel Claremont • Berkeley, California 94705 • (415)841-9730 February 1, 1984 President Bort and Members of the Executive Board Association of Bay Area Governments Hotel Claremont Berkeley, California Ladies and Gentlemen: It's not easy, and often thankless, to be a supervisor, mayor or councilmember in today's world. Issues are more complex than they used to be, and resources fewer. It's hard enough for elected officials to deal with local issues, let alone regional ones. And yet our system in the United States--in over 600 metropolitan and even non-metropolitan areas--is that the local elected officials, through an areawide council of governments, similar to ABAG, are responsible for regional planning and coordination. What's difficult in any region is far more so in the Bay Area, where we have 105 cities and counties and more people than two thirds of the states of the Union-- growing from 3.6 million people in 1960 to 5.2 million in 1980 and perhaps 6.2 million in the year 2000. With massive commercial , industrial and residen- tial growth as a backdrop, can we say that every one of our local governments has done all it can to recognize and help deal with the inevitable regional problems and consequences? Not, I think, if we're candid. I 'll return to this later. The primary question when I 'm visiting in local jurisdictions is, not only what has ABAG done for us here, but what has it done for us lately. Recently, it's been not unpleasant to deal with this, because ABAG has been saving some of its members quite a lot of money. Through our credit-pooling arrangements, we've so far enabled ten jurisdictions to save between $10,000 and $340,000 each--anywhere from six to 90 times their membership dues! And there'll be many more instances in the future. We can argue that we've saved the Bay Area taxpayers over five million dollars by achieving, seven years ago, the abolition of an agency judged not to be needed any longer--the Bay Area Sewage Services Agency. Our members seem pleased by the training courses we offer to elected officials and staff, our publications have never been more in demand, our census and land-use data never more used. I 've added as an attachment a summary of ABAG services and achievements. Most people would expect that, given the results above, I should be able to report a pleasing financial situation. The reverse, in fact, is true; and I 'd like to describe how we got where we are, what the effects are, what we can do, and what the consequences might be of action and inaction. -1- Representing City and County Governments in the San Francisco Bay Area For 1978-79, our members approved dues of $597,000. Because we cut back with great severity to help them when the immediate effects of Proposition 13 looked so grim, we currently collect only $367,000--a loss of $230,000. Moreover, measured in con- stant dollars by the price deflator for state and local government purchases and allowing a little for population growth, that 1978-79 figure would now be $915,000 --well over half a million dollars more than we collect today! Although a chart in our budget document each year shows the proportion that local dues contribute to our revenues, few people seem to notice how small it is (currently just one sixth) and how much comes from other sources. In 1978-79, ABAG received $2,046,000 in state and federal funds--the equivalent of $2,938,100 in today's . deflated dollars. This year we expect $1,182,000 and next year only $853,000. ABAG's employees have suffered three pay cuts since Prop. 13, had their 1982 adjustment postponed by nearly a year, lost their 1983 increase, and can see no improvement ahead. After 23 years, they have yet to be granted a pension system. Only an extraordinary degree of dedication to the Association and its members has kept a remarkably talented group of people (who have won 30 awards.for their work in the past ten years) still on board. This seems unlikely to go on much longer: After seemingly endless layoffs and attrition, ABAG today has only a quarter of the staff it had eight years ago--31 people in the fourth largest metropolitan region in the country, dealing with a hundred local governments (and their supervisors, councilmembers, managers, planning directors and a great many other people) , many special districts, countless corporations, the public at large, and of course our own committees., : If you subtract those engaged in federally or state-funded projects, those paid from local , state and federal funds allocated by the Metropolitan Trans- portation Commission, and those compensated from local contract work and sales of publications, that leaves very few people covered by our ABAG dues. Because dues are so low, it is largely the declining federal funds (and to some extent those our employees earn through contracts) which have enabled us to retain--barely--the talent necessary to serve our members. Conversely, it requires local dues to pro- vide the match for federal funds. ABAG has no working capital ; it has long since been used up. This means, for . example, that whenever- the state delays our receipt of pass-through federal funds, or reimbursement of state funds owed to us, we have no cushion whatever: we have to borrow money at high rates of interest to meet the next payroll . This has be- come more and more of a problem, and is now so severe that unless we\build a reserve in this fiscal. year--as we are doing--and increase it in the next, we would be unable to stay in business. Both the Finance & Personnel and the Work Program & Coordination Committees have considered the problem at length. They are aware of the long-term consequences for our local. governments if we fail to take the necessary steps. Of that, more later; in the meantime here is a summary of actions already taken and my proposals for FY. 1984-85. The committees' have endorsed the former and provisionally approved the latter. Completed • Salary savings through reorganization and five layoffs: $30,000 in FY 83-84; $80,000 in FY 84-85; total $110,000 by June 30, 1985. • Five-month 5% pay cut for all staff: $23,000 in FY 83-84. • Terminating contract with legislative representative: $6,000 in FY 83-84; $15,000 in FY 84-85; total $21,000 by June 30, 1985. . -2- Proposed • Establishing working capital : to reach $70,000 by June 30, 1984, and $146,000 by June 30, 1985. 0 Increasing membership dues by $227,000 in FY 84-85. This gives a total of $594,000--slightly less than the dues approved prior to Prop. 13 for FY 78-79. 1 am suggesting three changes: (1) an increase in the basic membership fee from $120 (unchanged since 1970) to $250--it is difficult to do business with any jurisdiction for less than that; (2) a gradually declining per capita rate--it seems to me that benefits of membership are not proportionate to size; and -(3) common rates for cities and counties--the latter volunteered to increase their payments substantially at the General Assembly in February 1974, when they were relatively better off than cities, and it seems hard to justify the difference today. Obviously the effect of . (1) and (2) is to accentuate the increase for smaller jurisdictions. To me it is the only fair thing to do, but I realize it would be tempting to take some fairly small increase. in dollars (remember.that even if you assume business and industry pay nothing, the average citizen contributes less than a penny a month), and portray it as a vast percentage increase--though it would then be fair to retort that the reason for the big percentage is that the counties for several years have picked up more than their share of that kind of tab. In summary, with the enforced sacrifices by the staff, and the dues increase, ABAG would be able to build a small operating reserve and continue to serve its members-- in most cases, saving them far more than they pay to belong! I have presented only a bare-bones, still-in-reduced-circumstances type of . , budget. What it does is to buy time. I 've said in several budget messages-- the first back in 1975--that ABAG can't go on being the only regional agency funded by carrying a tin cup around each year. If we try to go on doing this much longer, it's doubtful whether there'll be an agency around to fund. And even if there is, it is pathetic that we lack both the funds and the flexibility to respond to major regional issues as they arise, such as hazardous waste sit- ing or infrastructure financing. I propose that next fall , at either the regular or a special General Assembly--at a time when no immediate budget decisions are being made--the membership consider ways to achieve a permanent funding source. Many people would point out that, while ABAG is providing more and more technical assistance and other services for its members, it is performing regional planning --one primary purpose for which it was founded--at only a minimally acceptable level . We have over a hundred local governments making land-use decisions, act- ing (as they must) on what seems best at the time for each of them. There's no way, over the years, that all of these hundreds of decisions can't and won't have a cumulative effect in a multi-metropolis of nearly five-and-a-half million people. We've got to do something about that, because 1 think we're short- changing the next generation--and possibly ourselves. -3- You've seen recent figures showing fewer people riding transit, and more driving alone in cars, on the Golden Gate Bridge. You've noticed how, in so many places you drive, the rush-hour seems to have lost its traditional boundaries and to last virtually all day long. And you're aware that, by the early years of the next century, we'll be adding a million people to our nine-county population. One million! And yet no one's minding--at least, not very well--the regional store. My prediction is that public reaction to what's going to take place will be so severe that, if the local governments won't do it adequately, the Legislature will establish a kind of state-sponsored BCDC for Bay Area land use--with controls whose effect on real estate prices would make the escalation of the* 'seventies seem flat. My hope is that our local governments will be prepared once again--as I think they were in the 'sixties--to do so. And I hope they'll be willing to start thinking about it at the fall General Assembly I 've suggested. The days of self-contained communities have gone. When people live in one juris- diction, work (husband and wife) in two others, have their doctor in a fourth, visit the beach or a park in a fifth, go to the theater in a sixth, have parents or chil- dren living in a seventh or eighth--and may themselves later move to a ninth or tenth--shouldn't our local elected officials consider themselves not as just the governing body of one location, but--together with their colleagues throughout the region--as trustees for the whole of the Bay Area? That's what this Association means to me, and it isJ n that spirit that I present this 19,84-85 Budget & 'Work Program. spectfully submitted / Revan A. F. Tranter Executive Director cc: Elected officials 'of all member governments Attachment -4- COMPARISON OF LOCALLY RAISED FUNDS OF REGIONAL AGENCIES (per capita) Fiscal Years 1977-78 through 1983-84 $1.30 1.24 $1.20 1.16. $1.10 1.05 $1.00 BAAQMD $0.90 ,85 $0.80 $0.70 .65 .64' $0.60 / .53�i .58 $0.50 // '• .-".47 $0.40 .38 MTC •••' $0.30 •34 $0.20 ABAG 12 $0.10 - `04 �. .O6 .06 .07 .07 0 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 ABAG receives a small percentage of Transportation Development Act funds from MTC for comprehensive planing support. Sources: ABAG 1983-84 Budget and Work Program Summary; BAAQMD Budget 1983-84; MTC Operating Budget 1983-84 Excerpt from Proposed Budget and Summary Work Program, Association of Bay Area Governments, 1/31/84 ASSOCIATION OF ijAY AREA GOVERNMEN fS FISCAL YEAR 1984-85 BUDGET REVENUES & EXPENDITURES FOR FISCAL YEARS 1982-83, 1983-84,.and 1984-85 SOURCE 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 ACTUAL EST1/31/84 EST1/31/84 FEDERAL REVENUES EPA . 175 192200 --- --- EPA - Previous Year Carryover 18100 108000 --- EPA - 205(j) 186100 139000 EPA - Carryover (208) 142600 147300 --- MTC - Urban Mass Trans. Adm. 216700 157500 191000 MTC - Federal Highway Adm. 178300 353000 272000 MTC - Previous Year Carryover 22000 --- --- HUD - 701 Carryover 84500 --- --- DOI - U.S. Geological Survey 43900 34000 --- DOA - U.S. Forest Service 29100 --- --- NSF 104400 128900 110000 Other 27300 13200 141000 SUBT,:AL 1060' 1128000 STATE REVENUES Energy Commission --- 30000 --- Department of Parks and Rec. 38800 --- --- AB 2853 34000 24000 --- Other -- --- --- SUBTO'AL � a --- LOCAL REVENGES ABAG Dues 343600 367000 594000 MTC - Transportation Development Act 289500 296000 311000 MTC - TDA Carryover 5500 --- --- Technical Assistance --- --- 125000 ABAG Associates 5500 11000 20000 Private Sector/Foundations --- 7500 20000 Census --- 85000 80000 Training Institute --- --- 600n0 Other 241800 488000 180000 SUBTOTAL T75d3�6 MM TOTAL REVENUES 2243000 Less Pass-Through EPA = 208 117800 147300 --- ,EPA - Air Quality 80600 19000 --- Total Pass-Through _TWM 766M --- OPERATING REVENUES 1819400 2270200 2243000 EXPENDITURES Salaries and Benefits 1059700 101590n 1029000 Consultant Services 97700 354000 210000 Other Services b Charges 239200 220000 264000 Computer Services 35700 60000 60000 Indirect Costs 433300 546700 604000 OPERATING EXPENDITURES T$65666 71'96M 71670'66 WORKING CAPITAL (46200) 73600 76000 Add Beginning of Year Balance 42600 (3600) 70000 End • f Year Balance (3600) 70000 146000 COMPARISON OF REVENUES BY FUNDING SOURCE FY 1979-79;. FY 1983-84; FY 1984-85 $3,000,000 2,806,500 2,500,000 2,436,500 2,243,000 2,000,000 853,000 1,500 ,000 1 ,182,000 FED & STATE FED & STATE 1,896,600 1,000,000 FED. & STATE 796,000 -312,900 ; OTHER OTHER LOCAL 887,500 LOCAL 500,000 OTHER .: ; LOCAL Proposed :. 597,000 367,000 594,000 ABAG ABAG ABAG 0 DUES DUES DUES 1978-79 1983-84 1984-85 ARDroved _ _ Estimated : Estimatpd 3/78 1/84 1/84 PROPOSED 1984-85 SCHEDULE OF ASSESSMENTS "The annual assessment for members of the Association shall be based upon population as determined by the State Controller in making the most recent allocation to counties and cities pursuant to the Motor Vehicle License Fee Law." Bylaws, ART, IX D. Currently $14.16 per capita is distributed annually to counties and $18.24 per capita to cities by the Controller. Annual Membership Fee. "Each year upon the adoption of the annual budget, the General Assembly shall fix the annual membership fee for all members of the Association. The membership fee shall be uniform for all members of the Association and shall not be less than $10.00 per month or $120.00 per year." Bylaws, ART, IX F. PROPOSED 1984-85 SCHEDULE OF ASSESSMENTS (INCLUDING $250 MEMBERSHIP FEE) Proposed 1984-85 Assessments . Adopted 1983-84 Assessments Adopted 1978-79 Assessments Population Population Population Jurisdiction 12-01-83 Total , $ 11-30-82 Total, $ I1-30-77 Total , $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ALAMEDA COUNTY 1145117 51805 1121005 46586 1120800 80025 Alameda 66385 5811 65618 2322 74500 4421 Albany - 15184 1541 15130 628 15561 1018 Berkeley 105778 8818 103328 3588 114091 6706 Dublin 18912 1858 18912 755 --- --- Emeryville 3933 565 3933 252 4110 357 Fremont (139440) (non-member) (136394) (non-member) 121400 7128 Hayward 98033 8343 95047 3310 96905 5714 Livermore 50539 4543 49014 1765 48950 2946 Newark 34687 3198 32492 1210 30150 1860 Oakland 347325 19893 344935 11697 362112 21023 Piedmont 10498 1142 10498 472 10917 750 Pleasanton 36702 3370 35398 1308 33650 2062 San Leandro 65297 5724 65080 2304 70303 4178 Union City 43185 3921 41831 1524 32850 2016 CONTRA COST COUNTY 681580 33263 666490 27746 598700 42803 Antioch 45777 4141 .44734 1621 34964 2138 Brentwood 5062 680 4786 281 3880 344 Clayton 4476 630 4476 270 2640 272 Concord 103763 8707 103255 3585 97000 5760 Danville 51228 4598 51228 1831 --- --- El Cerrito 23057 2210 22731 883 -- - 25190 1574 Hercules 6773 826 6481 337 1658 216 Lafayette 25838 2446 25838 987 21399 1355 Martinez 24403 2324 24091 929 20050 1277 Moraga 15046 1529 15046 625 25302 1581 Pinole 14486 1481 14474 606 15500 1015 Pittsburg •....•..36320 3337 35036 1296 •- - • -• 26450 1647 Pleasant Hill 26646 2515 26646 1014 27650 1716 Richmond 76011 6581 75994 2671 80800 4784 San Pablo 20872 2024 20723 816 21800 1379 San Ramon 33072 3061 --- 1230 ---Walnut Creek Creek 59103 6002 59094 2103 - . 49039 2951 4 MARIN COUNTY 223849 14954 223346 9378 216500 15555 Belvedere 2401 454 2401 201 2638 272 Corte Madera .. . . .. .. .�-.. 8539 ____._ ._____.__-_ 976 _. _._- .-8539 _ _ .. _ -407__.. _. _8647 619 Fairfax 7391 878 7391 368 7661 562 Larkspur 11538 1231 11393 502 12375 834 Mill Valley 12967 1352 12697 555 13250 885 Novato 44635 4044 44193 1603 37900 2308 Ross • 2801 488 2801 214 2742 278 San Anselmo 12067 1276 12067 525 13150 879 San Rafael 44700 4050 44700 1620 46882 2826 Sausalit( 7530 890 7451 370 6170 476 Tiburon 6688 818 6685 344 6825 514 PROPOSED 1984-85 SCHEDULE OF ASSESSMENTS PROPOSED 1984-BS SCHEDULE OF ASSESSMENTS (INCLUDING $250 MEMBERSHIP FEE) NAPA COUNT' 101337 8574 99919 4262 92700 6729 Calistoga 4022 592 3973 253 3310 311 Napa 53859 4809 52173 1871 48400 2914 St. Hele-)a 5131 686 4943 286 4000 351 Yountville 3067 511 2994 220 (2860) (non-member) CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO county 705652 34226 691924 28801 715674 51143 city 705652 34226 691924 23343 715674 41433 SAN MATEO COUNTY 593531 29741 590226 24585 573900 41035 Atherton 7852 917 7852 384 (8175) (non-member) Belmont 24505 2333 24505 942 25209 1575 Brisbane 2995 505 2969 220 3003 293 Burlingamr- 26451 2498 26173 998 28325 1755 Colma 731 312 454 135 537 151 Daly City 81893 7051 78700 2761 72620 4312 East Palo Alto 26838 2531 26838 1021 --- --- Foster City 23987 2289 23481 908 20850 1324 Half Moon Bay 7358 875 7340 366 6675 505 Hillsborough (10687) (non-member) (10631) (non-member) (8713) (non-member) Menlo Par! 27151 2558 26965 1025 27378 1701 Millbrae 20135 1961 20108 795 21250 1347 Pacifica 36866 3384 36866 1357 39150 2380 Portola Valley 4053 595 3991 254 4996 408 Redwood City 55795 4964 55141 1971 55756 3339 San Bruno 35417 3260 35417 1309 38600 2348 San Carlos 25406 2410 24813 953 26218 1634 San Mateo 79261 6841 78874 2767 79132 4688 S. San Frr.ncisco 50366 4529 50103 1802 48728 2933 Woodside 5338 704 5322 299 5274 424 SANTA CLARA COUNTY 1343103 59724 1313052 54547 1202100 85822 Campbell 33067 3061 31702 1184 29550 1826 Cupertino 37774 3461 36800 1355 24868 1556 Gilroy 24330 2318 22948 890 17150 1110 Los Altos 28630 2684 26273 1002 28462 1763 Los Altos Hills 7624 898 7501 372 7225 537 Los Gatos 27450 2583 27179 1032 25669 1602 Milpitas (40369) (non-member) (39135) (non-member) 32400 1990 Monte Sereno (3466) (non-member) (3466) (non-member) (3343) (non-member) Morgan Hill 18562 1828 18304 734 12200 824 Mountain View 60943 5375 59847 2129 60125 3591 Palo Alto 55886 4971 55406 1980 61842 3690 San Jose 671858 32874 658366 22216 575100 33318 Santa Clara 88384 7571 87709 3064 90671 5354 Saratoga 29971 2798 29702 1117 30300 1869 Sunnyvale 108607 8973 108582 3764 106520 6269 SOLANO COUNTY 257929 16317 250031 10484 197500 14200 Benicia (18233) (non-member) (17339) (non-member) (11500) (non-member) Dixon 8883 1005 8243 397 5450 435 Fairfield 63495 5580 61572 2187 ' 52900 3174 Rio Vista (3306) (non-member) (3200) (non-member). (3288) (non-member) Suisun City 12739 1333 12250 531 5675 448 Vacaville 47332 4273 46232 1672 34100 2088 Vallejo 86681 7434 84476 2955 75878 4500 PROPOSED 1984-85 SCHEDULE OF ASSESSMENTS PROPOSED 1984-85 SCHEDULE OF ASSESSMENTS (INCLUDING $250 MEMBERSHIP FEE) SONOMA COUNTY (318047) (non-member) (309278) (non-member) (256700) (non-member) Cloverdal- 4258 612 4160 260 3630 329 Cotati 3963 587 3931 252 2840 284 Healdsbuq 7623 898 7514 372 6313 484 Petaluma 35885 3300 34705 1285 32050 1970 Rohnert Park 25986 2459 25314 970 15100 992 Santa Rosa 89156 7632 86683 3029 69300 4120 Sebastoprl 5971 758 5756 313 4610 386 Sonoma 6762 825 6488 338 5649 446 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total 594312 366958 597034 County Rate .04145 .0712932 City Rate .03356 .0577257 Proposed Rtes for 1984-85: .085 for first 50,000 population. .08 for next 50,000 population. .055 for next 100,000 population. .04 for re aining population. SUMMARY OF ABAG SERVICES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS 1. Our members get high-caliber technical help, either free or at a discount, such as: • credit pooling, enabling jurisdictions to obtain capital funds more economically--savin ,• in fact, tens and-even hundreds of thousands- of dollars, and recouping anywhere from six to 90 years BAG dues!; • -preparation of environmental. impact reports and.genera-l -plan elements (suc.h as housing and seismic-safety); • . use of CRIS, our award-winning cost/revenue- impact. system, developed with the City of Fairfield; • detailed information from our..Regional Census Center; on�-demand every' day of the week; o workshops for hundreds of elected officials-.and staff on such topics as seismic safety, erosion control , affordable housing techniques, development finance, 'energy conservation and hazardous materials management. 2. We protect local control. By banding together at the regional level ,. we clearly have more clout than we would as individual cities and counties`. This has brought all of us benefits, including: • keeping the Regional Water Quality Control Board from _imposing . mandatory erosion control regulations; e achieving increased legal protection from earthquake tort liability, • prohibiting (uniquely in the U.S.A.) the state from tampering with the regional air and water quality plans our local governments have put together--as it had been attempting to do; : • saving the Bay Area's citizens over $700,000 a year, -or around $5,000,000 so far, by bringing about the abolition of a superfluous agency,-the Bay Area Sewer Services Agency. For residents and busi- nesses in the nine counties that's a saving of more than twice the dues paid -to ABAG! . 3. We carry out certain areawide responsibilities. For example: • by federal statute and state designation, we serve as-the areawide review body for federal grant applications from local governments -in the Bay Area; • by federal. statute and state 'designation, ABAG is the'-regional water quality planning agency and a co-lead agency for air quality planning in the Bay -Area. Certain local projects and changes in future intentions need to be consistent with the areawide plans put together by ABAG's member governments. "• by 'state designation, ABAG is the regional planning agency for the Bay Area, and does its best to be of practical assistance to members--developing, for. example, (with outstanding local input) the'-Bay Area Hazardous Spills Response Plan; • by agreement, the state accepts ABAG's projections,of._population, housing ) and .employment--to complete which we work carefully with our members. . Certain project grants are keyed 'to these figures.