The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4.07 Oppose BART Samtrans Agreement / 0� 6-36 CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 26, 1987 SUBJECT Opposition to Agreement between the Bay Area Rapid Transit and Samtrans EXHIBITS ATTACHED o Letter to the Livermore City Council from Bob Allen dated October 19, 1987, with copies to all Alameda County City Councils • Memorandum from Vic Sood, General Manager, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority and Attachments • Letter to the County of Alameda Board of Supervisors from Bob Allen dated October 7, 1987 • Draft Resolution RECOMMENDATIONQ Consider attached resolution FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION On September 24, 1987, the BART Board of Directors voted to approve agreement principles for a Colma Station Project. The action taken by the Board of Directors is described in detail in the attachments. At the City Council meeting of October 12, 1987, the City Council requested that this issue be placed on the October 26, 1987 agenda for discussion. Staff has gathered materials regarding the proposed Colma Station from the General Manager of the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority. The City of Livermore adopted a resolution which stated that BART' s action was contrary to its policy of not extending the system beyond the original boundaries until commitments on extensions within San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties were met. In a letter dated October 19, 1987, BART Director Bob Allen provided a copy of the current extension policy. The policy states that extensions outside the current District are "Subject to a satisfactory cost-sharing arrangement and parallel construction within the District. " BART Staff has indicated that the negotiations leading to the Colma Station Agreement were found to be an acceptable cost-sharing arrangement by the BART Board of Directors . Pursuant to the City Council direction on October 12, 1987, Staff has prepared a resolution opposing the BART Board action. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: ITEM NO. e • B A R T BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT 800 Madison Street a P.O. Box 12688 R E .G E 1-V E D Oakland, CA 94604-2688 Telephone(415)464-== 6095 IM 1 sow.: MY, OF DUBLIN October 19, 1987 Livermore City Council 1052 South Livermore Avenue Livermore, CA 94550 MARGARET K.PRYOR PRESIDENT BARCLAY SIMPSON Friends: VICE-PRESIDENT KEITH BERNARD GENERAL MANAGER I appreciate your sending me a copy of your Resolution #274-87, which you also sent to other cities in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The second WHEREAS is in error. For your information DIRECTORS I have enclosed a copy of BART's Extension Staging Policy. BARCLAY SIMPSO As you know, the BART property tax goes almost entirely for ,ST DISTRICT _ interest and to retire bonds voted by the electorate in 1962. Of 2ND NELLO DISTRICT IANCO the 2% sales tax, 4 goes over the hills and across the Bay to aid ARTHUR J SHAHARTSI. S AC Transit and SF Muni , which were hard hit by Proposition 13. The other 759 comes to .BART for operations, including the costly 3RD DISTRICT T bus service we provide portions of the East Bay that do not yet 4TH DISTRICT T MARGARET K.PRYO have BART rail service. ROBERT S.ALLEN DISTRI 5TH DISTRICT As for Col ma, Samtrans will pay the entire cost to build and JOHN GLENN operate the 1 .9-mile extension. In addition they will pay BART 6TH DISTRICT about $25 million, which sum is pegged for rail extensions. WILfREDT.USSERY 7TH DISTRICT Presuming about 1/3 of that goes to each of our major planned ARLO HALE SMITH Phase I extensions in the East Bay, we would -have sizeable funding 8TH DISTRICT for a second valley station that we all know is badly needed; it JOHN H.KIRKWOOD would be near Camp Parks in Dublin and Pleasanton, providing much 9TH DISTRICT better access from Livermore than a single station west of I-680. A similar sum to PAX would pay most of the cost to modify a lowering of Willow Pass to make it compatible with a future BART rail line to West Pittsburg. The actual extension, I suspect, would have to await a funding decision by Contra Costa County similar to that we made in Alameda County last November. Very truly yours, �b o 1 {u\ Robert S. Allen cc: City Councils, Alameda County Cities City Councils, Contra Costa County Cities Board of Supervisors, Alameda County and Contra Costa County BART EXTENSION STAGING POLICY (The several segments shown under each Roman numeral are understood to be implemented concurrently, to the extent that funding is available. ) (BART will be the operator for any new heavy or light rail transit starts or extensions within the three BART counties except for those projects developed by existing rail transit operators. ) ' 4 INSIDE CURRENT DISTRICT OUTSIDE CURRENT DISTRICT (Subject to a satisfactory cost-sharing arrangement and parallel construction within the District. ) *** I . North Concord/West Pittsburg I. Colma/Tanforan/San Francisco Irvington/Warm Springs Airport Castro Valley/Dublin _ MUNI Metro Extension Project* Milpitas II . Pittsburg/West Antioch/East Antioch II. Millbrae - Menlo Park Pleasanton/West Livermore/East Livermore Milpitas - San Jose San Francisco ** San Pablo/Hilltop Oakland Airport Connector III . San Francisco ** III . San Jose - Menlo Park Pinole/Hercules San Ramon Corridor * The San Francisco Project is identified through coordination with the City and County of San Francisco as the t4UNI Metro Extension to the CALTRAIN Depot South of Market. .. ** Specific San Francisco Project to be identified through coordination with the City and County of San Francisco. Section 29034. 5 of ' the California Public Utilities Code Lists an extension of District services and facilities to the northwest section of the City and County of San Francisco as a District service commitment. *** Pursuant to Section 29034 . 5 of the California Public Utilities Code, only non-District funds may be spent by the District for the purpose of extending services and facilities outside of District' s January 1, 1971 boundaries until the District meets specified ser- vice commitments within the 1971 boundaries. Board adopted September 1 , 1983; Board amended February 2, 1984; Board amended October 23 , 1986; Board amended May 14, 1987. MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Directors of LAVTA SUBJECT: BART Extension to Colma in San Mateo County FROM: Vic Sood , General Manager DATE: October 8, 1987 Attached are the documents regarding the BART extension to the Colma Station in San Mateo County, approved by the BART Board of Directors. VS: RR Att. ZIP C� Q EA B R T BAY Al iAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT 800 Madison Street P.O. Box 12688 Oakland, CA 94604-2688 Telephone(415)464-6000 September 26, 1987 Friends: MARGARET K PRYOR BART and Samtrans this week agreed in principle to a new PRESIDENT BARCLAYSIMPSON BART station at Colma. Due to widespread interest among local VICE-PRESIDENT officials, I am enclosing a copy of the principles set forth. KEITH BERNARD GENERAL MANAGER As part of the negotiating team, I sought a different DIRECTORS framework. The agreement, however, appears fair to everyone - BARCLAYSIMPSON BART taxpayers and San Mateo County alike. I look to the same ISTDISTRICT principles being applied to other extensions outside the three- NELLO BIANCO � 2NDDISTRI COUnt.1 BART ART district. There are definite advantages to the ARTHUR J.SHARTSIS people living in the existing BART district to this approach, 3RD DISTRICT MARGARET K PRYOR as contrasted to a formal annexation as contemplated in the 4TH DISTRICT BART act. ROBERT S.ALLEN 5TH DISTRICT JOHN GLENN Enclosed also i.s a letter I wrote to the Lesher- newspapers. 6TH DISTRICT WILFRED T.USSERY They and a number of Contra Costa officials have complained long 77H DISTRICT and hard about alleged "broken promises° for BART extensions. ARLO HALE SMITH 8TH DISTRICT Allowing them to get extensions without major local commitment JOHN H.KIRKWOOD would be a serious slap in the face to Alameda County voters , 9TH DISTRICT who passed Measure B last November. Very truly yours, w�t-� s - Robert S. Allen �� b:1 A R T BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT ^- Boo Madison Street P.O.Box 12688 Oakland. CA 94604-2688 6095 Telephone (415)464- September 25, 1987 Editor: BART chose the right course Thursday in our Colma station negotiations. Both the BART and Samtrans boards have now MARGARET K.PRYOR PFE approved a precedent-setting formula fair to all . Areas outside BARCLAYS;MPSON the BART district would pay all costs to build and operate BART VICE.DCES,CE'.- KEITHBEANARD lines and stations serving them. They would also make significant capital contributions to help BART build in-district extensions. DIRE=-oRs Such connection fees, along with local funding such as BARCLAYS;MPSON Alameda County voters passed last November, help make our lona- 'S-DiSTRIC- souaht extensions a reality. NELLC EiANCO 2NCD,S-:.,c- Media and politicians in Contra Costa County are wrong - dead ARTHUR: SnARTSIS 3;;C DIs-:Z.C- wrona - in asserting that they have paid for BART extensions. MARG RETKPFYOF The property tax goes for bond interest and redemption on the air+DiS-F+CT ROBERT SALLEN original 1962 bond issue that built the facilities we now operate. 5T. DisTaiCi Part of the 10V sales tax goes to fund BART operating deficits. JOHN GLENN 67.+DSTRCT (25ro of it also goes to SF Muni which doesn't even touch Contra WILFAEDT.USSEAY Costa, and to AC Transit which serves only a small part of the rTH oIsiaIcT ARLO HALE SMITH county.) The property and sales tax were never intended to pay BT r+DISTRACT for extensions, as both the media and politicians know. JOHN H.KIRKWOOD 9TH DISTRICT Contra Costa's problem with getting BART extensions does no lie with any "broken promises". It lies with a lack of commitment \ and vision by those who could be leading the voters toward solutions, instead of sowing seeds of discontent and rancor. It lies in their dog-in-the-manger attitude that misleads the public and seeks to thwart BART's search for local capital by luring neighbors into our fold. I hope that your newspaper and local leaders will come to their senses. Getting BART extensions could well depend on your doing so. Robert S. Allen BART Director, Livermore BART/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 . 1 Attachment I Page 1 of 4 COLMA 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 SAMTRAN'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- ly paid to BART is 'reached after which excess revenues will be equally divided between SamTrans and BART. 9/16/87 1 . • Page 2 of 4 COLMA STATION PROJECT PRINCIPLES COST SHARING SAMTRAN'S RESPONSIBILITIES - I. 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- 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 MUTUAL 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 SAIRTRA.NS 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- cre=ased at the rate of subsequent BART general fare in- creases . If the Daly Citv surcharge is reduced or elimin- ated, the Colma surcharge may be similarly reduced or eliminated. BART RQSP0NSI3ILI'I'I"S 1 . ouerate level of service specified by SamTrans consistent with BART system service plan. 2 . Invoice SamTrans for anv formula determined operatina 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. i 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 COLMA STATION PROJECT ATTACHMENT A CAPITAL COST SHARING .APPROACH Page 1 of 2 A. Net Capital Share = (Total Capital Share - Local Share Credit) Where B. Total Capital Share = capital cost x value of .local taxpayers sharing factor capital contributions C. Capital Cost = 1/2 new station + new route miles =� l/35 + 1. 5 - 2. 96 Sharing Factor total stations total route miles *� . 72 . 5 D. Value of Loral Taxpayers = Value of BART District Taxpayers past and future payments . for General Capital Contributions Obligation and Sales Tax Revenue Bonds in base year ( fiscal year 1987/ 88 amount is '$2 , 883 . 56 M) . E. Local Share Credit = Base year value of San Mateo taxpayers payments for land acquisition, design and construction of new station. F. Base Year = Year in which construction begins and for which then present value of all payments is calculated. G. A $15 mill.i.on first installment of the Net Capital Share is due within six months after execution of the agreement. The base year value of this installment will be subtracted from the Net Capital Share to determine the amount of the second installment due in the base year. H. Base year value calculation assumptions 1. Local taxpayers payments prior to base year inflated by Bay Area CPI 2. Local taxpayers future payments discounted at 8% (current cost of money) 3 . San Mateo local share expressed in current dollars for base year , but capped at 50% of total - station project costs for purposes of net capital share calculation 4 . Value of Net Capital . Share initial installment inflated by 8% (current cost of money) 9/16/87 ATTACHMENT A COLMA STATION PROJECT CAPITAL COST SHARING APPROACH Page 2 of 2 EXAMPLE 1 Base Year FY 87/88 FY 89/90 1. Total Capital Share $70. 94 2 $77 '79 M 2 2. Local Share Credit -46 . 05 3 -49 . 32 M 3 3 . Net Capital Share 24 . 89 $28 . 47 M 4. Value of $15 M payment -15 .00 -17 ._50 M 4 FY 87/88 5. Balance Due $ 9 . 89 $10. 97 M Notes: 1. The numbers are for illustration purposes only. The actual numbers will be determined at the appropriate time and phasing of the project. 2. Total Capital Share: 1987/8 $2,883 .56 M x 2 . 46% = $70.94 M 1.989/90 (estimate) $3 ,162 .23 M x 2 . 46% = $77 . 79 M 3 . Local Share Credit (estimate) : 1987/8 $46. 05 1989/90 $49. 32 (inflated at Bay Area CPI estimated to be 4 . 1% per year) 4. Value of initial payment projected to grow at 8% (current cost of money) per year. $15 M paid in 89 1987/8 becomes $17. 5 M in / 9/16/87 Attachment B Page 1 of 1 PROPOSED COTIMA SERVICE ANNUAL OPERATING COST FORMULA The Total Annual Operating Cost of a Colma Station is the Sum of two Comuonents: 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 Suorort Cost = the total annual Colma marginal operating cost X 27;_( su?sort cost constan t) . Example Calculation (for illustrative purposes) Total Operating Cost = $2,919,846 (FY 86/87) 9/17/87 d7G�c]�biiidYsLlMi7317ILt�id45cZ7�4}liiiriti:►�.YJld&l.:u� [IE��Ti�nrz�nw'.3.4yT.b�niGi�dirLz.Yaild��1i13ia /`3AJC° .Y r �:L' fyaK� MOTION AS AMENDED WHICH CARRIED: That the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District authorizes 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. 6 ayes 2 noes 1 abstention B A R T BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT 800 Madison Street P.O. Box 12688 Oakland, CA 94604-2688 Telephone (415)464-mm 6095 October 7, 1987 Board of Supervisors County of Alameda 1221 Oak Street MARGARET K PRYOR Oakland, CA 94612 PRESIDENT BARCLAY SIMPSON VICE-PRESIDENT Friends: KEITH BERNARD GENERAL MANAGER Attached is our October 1 Community Meeting Guide for the proposed Bayfair-Dublin rail line. Please note pages 4, 6, and 8. DIRECTORS The BART and LAVTA boards will chose between BART rail and a BARCLAY SIMPSON light rail shuttle in the next few weeks. The consultant has ,sTD,sTRICT recommended BART rail , and that appears- to be the likely choice. NELLO BIANCO 2ND DISTRICT The BART alternative appears to be fully funded through the ARTHUR J.SHARTSIS West Dublin/Pleasanton station near Stoneridge Mall . But funding 3RD DISTRICT through to East Dublin/Pleasanton near Camp Parks is less assured. MARGARET K PRYOR 4TH DISTRICT DISTRI CT That second valley station (third line station) is important 5TH DISTRICT ROBERT N to the Valley and to the County. A single valley station - while far better than nothing - could create undue traffic congestion JOHN GLENN 6TH DISTRICT near the Foothill interchange, in Dublin, 9 and near Stonerid e. WILFRED T.USSERY 7TH DISTRICT A second valley station near the future Hacienda Drive ARLO HALE SMITH interchange would greatly enhance the commute for many East Bay 8TH DISTRICT city residents working in the developing commercial areas in North JOHN H.KIRKWOOD Pleasanton. It would be far more convenient to Livermore and 9TH DISTRICT Pl eas'anton residents trying to catch BART. From the county's standpoint, it would put a BART station immediately adjoining your 900+ acres at Santa Rita. Samtrans' proposal to pay BART $25 million or so plus the cost to build and operate a Colma station could be the key to funding this second station, lowering the Willow Pass grade in Contra Costa, and other BART extension projects. The formula is fair to everyone and could provide a precedent for further connection charges as we extend BART to other stations outside the district. It's a win-win situation that I hope we can accomplish. BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT 800 Madison Street Very truly yours, P.O. Box 12688 Oakland, CA 94604-2688 Telephone: 14151 464-6095 Robert S. Allen �<<e P,Oiwwr S. A .I,EN Director Res. 223 Donner Avenue Livermore 94550 Phone: (4151449-1387 RESOLUTION NO. ' - 87 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN OPPOSING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT AND SAMTRANS WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) , has approved an agreement with Samtrans which would provide San Mateo County with BART service; and WHEREAS, the current policy for BART extensions outside the BART District can occur only after a "satisfactory. cost- sharing arrangement" is reached and parallel construction occurs within the District; and WHEREAS, the BART Board should consider the substantial investment made by their constituents in determining a "satisfac- tory cost-sharing arrangement" ; and WHEREAS, BART' s first priority should be to those people of the 3 original BART Counties who have, for 25 years, been paying tax money to build and maintain the BART System. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby wishes to express its opposition to the agreement between BART and Samtrans and respectfully requests that the Board of Directors rescind their action approving this agreement. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of October, 1987. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk