Name: Caltrain tax plan dying slow death
Brand: smdailyjournal.com
SKU: smdailyjournal-com-74
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

Caltrain tax plan dying slow death

preview

Please to continue reading.×Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.We hope that you continue to enjoy our free content.×To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!Please purchase an Enhanced Subscription to continue reading.Your current subscription does not provide access to this content.DIGITAL ACCESS to all our award winning content onlineCommenting capabilities on every storyAccess to our daily e-edition for the past 90 issuesThe good feeling of supporting real, local news in your community$99.00for 365 daysRatePriceDuration1 Year$99.00for 365 days6 Months$72.00for 180 days3 Months$45.00for 90 days1 Month$20.00for 30 days1 Week$8.25for 7 days$60.00for 365 daysRatePriceDuration1 Year$60.00for 365 days6 Months$42.00for 180 days3 Months$27.00for 90 days1 Month$12.00for 30 days1 Week$5.00for 7 daysThank you for visiting our booth at the Rediscover San Mateo Community Fest! Enjoy one free month of access to the San Mateo Daily Journal's website and e-edition. Offer expires September 15, 2022, so sign up today!You have permission to edit this article.Welcome,The Muni board unexpectedly nixed a conditional sales tax for Caltrain Friday approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors earlier in the week, which the train agency’s chair said likely ensures both it and a “clean” iteration of the tax proposal without conditions approved by San Mateo County earlier this year will both fail to reach the November ballot.“Friday’s vote by [San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency] will likely end any further action on the alternative measure by the other agencies so we are left at a stalemate, which unfortunately likely means the Caltrain ballot measure will not go to voters in November,” said Dave Pine, chair of the Caltrain board and a member of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors.Pine and other San Mateo County officials have warned the absence of a dedicated source of revenue for Caltrain could lead to a system-wide shutdown as the railroad struggles to stay afloat amid historically low ridership due to the pandemic. &nbsp;&nbsp;To be placed on the November ballot, the proposed eighth-cent sales tax must be approved by the Caltrain board as well as the boards of supervisors and transit boards in San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, the three counties served by the railroad.The three counties have not been able to agree on ballot language for the proposed tax, largely because of disagreements about Caltrain’s governance structure. The inter-county impasse also became an intra-county one with Friday’s vote.“I feel I have to vote no. I worry that the current resolution is unwinnable and vulnerable,” said SFMTA Board Member Cheryl Brinkman, who cast the only opposing vote on the board, though one of her colleagues noted the conditional iteration of the tax was not their preferred approach.If all seven boards do somehow come to a consensus on a Caltrain ballot measure, they would need to do so before the Aug. 7 deadline.But Pine said there’s no indication that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors will reverse course and adopt a clean measure. He also said it’s unclear if Santa Clara County will take any action at all in light of SFMTA’s vote or if the boards in that county have the requisite number of votes for an alternative or clean measure.If SFMTA had approved the conditional tax, San Mateo County officials likely wouldn’t have considered it anyway, Pine said Thursday.“I do not foresee the SamTrans board or the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors considering the San Francisco alternative given that it is legally flawed, would be unwinnable at the polls and would impair Caltrain’s ability to effectively operate and expand the railroad,” he said.Pine’s assertion that the alternative measure is legally flawed has been echoed by San Mateo County Counsel John Beiers, San Mateo County Transit District Special Counsel James Wagstaffe and State Sen. Jerry Hill, D- San Mateo, among others. Hill authored Senate Bill 797, which establishes the process whereby a sales tax can be placed on a ballot for Caltrain.‘Strings attached’Hill said a ballot measure with conditions such as the one proposed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is illegal and not the intended outcome of SB 797.“There were not strings attached to a vote and no conditions on where the money would go other than directly to Caltrain. Not to an escrow account, not to be held somewhere for years and not a bait and switch to voters,” Hill said.San Francisco’s alternative measure includes six conditions listed verbatim below:•&nbsp;Revenues will be held in a special escrow account to be disbursed by the Caltrain board for eligible expenditures at any time with a two-thirds majority;•&nbsp;Up to the first $40 million collected shall off-set member operating contributions and replace COVID-related fare losses if no/limited additional federal emergency relief funds are made available;•&nbsp;If a governance solution is found, the special escrow account is closed and funds transferred to Caltrain board regular accounts/administration;•&nbsp;If no governance solution is found by Sept. 30, 2021, another $40 million shall be made available to operations;• If no governance solution is found by Dec. 31, 2022, all parties commit to working with state delegation on a legislative solution in 2023 legislative session; and•&nbsp;The Caltrain board shall appoint an independent special counsel and auditor (separate from SamTrans) within 90 days of placement of this measure on the November 2020 ballotWagstaffe expanded on Hill’s perspective in a letter that says a ballot proposal for Caltrain must be “clean” and without conditions. SB 797 states “the net revenues from the tax” must “be used by the board for the operating and capital purposes of the Caltrain rail service,” according to the letter.“Simply put, the law means the political bodies needing to approve the ballot measure must not impose collateral or delaying conditions on use of the funds,” Wagstaffe wrote. “Thus, the law prohibits linking the straightforward fiscal measure designed to save Caltrain to unrelated — if even salutary — organizational or other objectives.“Specifically, it is my strong opinion that larding approval with requirements of changed governance or targeted or restricted spending requirements will render the tax subject to a successful taxpayer legal challenge,” Wagstaffe said.Wagstaffe added there is nothing in the legislation that prevents the three counties from discussing structural changes to Caltrain, but said “the California Legislature was saying you can do that, just don’t tie such political negotiations to the overall economic well-being of the railway.”Attorneys for San Francisco and Santa Clara counties have not publicly announced an opinion on the conditional measure.Concerns over governanceSan Francisco supervisors, in particular Aaron Peskin and Shamann Walton, have argued Caltrain’s current governance structure is unfair because it gives San Mateo County too much control over the railroad. While the Caltrain board, which decides policy, has equal representation among the three counties it serves, the railroad is managed by SamTrans, San Mateo County’s bus agency, and it’s legally entitled to that role as long as it chooses.SamTrans became the managing agency of Caltrain in exchange for advancing funds for both Santa Clara and San Francisco counties for the purchase of the right-of-way from Southern Pacific railroad. San Mateo County provided $82 million for the purchase and is still owed roughly $20 million.&nbsp;&nbsp;Caltrain’s operating budget today totals $155.7 million with $106 million coming from fare box revenue. The three counties served by the railroad in fiscal year 2020 contributed a total of $52.4 million to both the operations and capital budgets. &nbsp;The eighth-cent sales tax was estimated to raise about $108 million a year and preclude the need for the individual counties to contribute money because it would provide a dedicated funding source. The additional money was also anticipated to fund some service expansion in a previously approved Caltrain Business Plan.Peskin and Walton ultimately want to split Caltrain from SamTrans and have it be run by its own staff and legal counsel. They also want San Francisco and Santa Clara counties to have equal say over the hiring and firing of Caltrain’s executive director, who is currently selected by the SamTrans board.“It is time to have shared governance,” Peskin said during Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting. “It is time to extract Caltrain from SamTrans and their intermingling of responsibilities and potentially funding.”Land ‘at stake’During the meeting, Peskin also said developable land owned by Caltrain is “at stake” in the ongoing governance discussions.“What’s at stake is a lot of land,” He said. “There are somewhere around 700 acres of land within the Caltrain right-of-way in these three counties. Many of them are developable for smart growth for affordable housing. Heretofore we have not been able to have those conversations because in essence the [Caltrain board] is a paper board.”Hill found those remarks revealing as to the motives behind demands for governance changes.“It’s about taking over control of the Caltrain real estate holdings, potential development of the station at Fourth and King and the miles of right-of-way that potentially could bring revenue to the city of San Francisco,” Hill said. “The motivation is land, money, greed and it’s power. San Francisco thinks they have to be in control of everything they touch.”(650) 344-5200 ext. 102×××Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,racist or sexually-oriented language.PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.Don't Threaten. Threats of harming anotherperson will not be tolerated.Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyoneor anything.Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ismthat is degrading to another person.Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link oneach comment to let us know of abusive posts.Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitnessaccounts, the history behind an article.Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.Error! There was an error processing your request.If you have an event you'd like to list on the site, submit it now!© Copyright 2022 , 1720 S. Amphlett Blvd., Suite 123 San Mateo, CA&nbsp;| &nbsp;|Powered by from .

Please to continue reading.×Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.We hope that you continue to enjoy our free content.×To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our...

Caltrain tax plan dying slow death

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS