AGENDA PACKET
Town of Atherton
City Council
JULY 24, 2025
SPECIAL MEETING
2:00 PM
Council Chambers
80 Fair Oaks Lane, Atherton, CA 94027
Join Zoom Meeting:
One tap mobile: 1 6699006833,,506897786#
US (San Jose)
Dial by your location: 1 669 900 6833 US (San
Jose)
Meeting ID: 506 897 786
Weblink: https://zoom.us/j/506897786
Remote Public Comments:
Meeting participants are encouraged to submit
public comments in writing in advance of the
meeting. The following email will be monitored
during the meeting and public comments will be
documented for the record.
Email: [email protected]
This Agenda may not reflect the actual order of items. The order of items is subject to change based on Council action.
SPECIAL MEETING
ROLL CALL – HawkinsManuelian, DeGolia, Widmer, Vice Mayor Holland, Mayor Lewis PUBLIC COMMENT – Public Comments can be emailed directly to [email protected]
As a Special Meeting, this portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Council on any matter on the Agenda. Speakers’ time is limited to three minutes. Speakers may also speak when the item appears on the Agenda during the meeting. State law prohibits the Council from acting on items not listed on the Agenda except by special action of the City Council under specified circumstances. The Mayor may, at the Mayor’s discretion, restrict or grant additional speaker time based on such considerations as agenda length, number of speakers, complexity of the item, or looming threat of loss of quorum. Please refer to the footnote at the end of the posted agenda for additional notice regarding public comments.
SPECIAL MEETING ITEMS
1. FEEDBACK REGARDING C/CAG VOTE ON SMC TRANSIT TAX PROPOSAL Report: GEORGE RODERICKS, CITY MANAGER
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council review the SMC Transit Tax and provide feedback to the Mayor regarding an upcoming vote by C/CAG on the issue.
Description: This will be a Council review and discussion of the San Mateo County Transit Tax proposal.
COUNCIL REPORTS/COMMENTS
Meeting Agenda Packet – July 24, 2025
looming threat of loss of quorum. Please refer to the footnote at the end of the posted agenda for additional notice regarding public comments.
SPECIAL MEETING ITEMS
1. FEEDBACK REGARDING C/CAG VOTE ON SMC TRANSIT TAX PROPOSAL Report: GEORGE RODERICKS, CITY MANAGER
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council review the SMC Transit Tax and provide feedback to the Mayor regarding an upcoming vote by C/CAG on the issue.
Description: This will be a Council review and discussion of the San Mateo County Transit Tax proposal.
COUNCIL REPORTS/COMMENTS
ADJOURN
PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
If you challenge a Town zoning, planning, or any other decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Judicial review of any Town administrative decision may be had only if a petition is filed with the court not later than the 90th day following the date upon which the decision becomes final. Judicial review of environmental determinations may be subject to a shorter time period.
Copies of all staff reports and documents subject to disclosure that relate to each item of business referred to on the agenda are available for public inspection by 5:00 p.m. the Friday before each regularly scheduled City Council meeting.
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 7520500. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (29 CRF 35.104 ADA Title II)
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
The Town of Atherton Council and Committee or Commission meetings are a limited public forum, and all public comment must relate to something that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council or Committees. If comments do not relate to the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council or Committee, we will stop the comment and a warning may be provided. If the comment continues to be outside of the subject matter jurisdiction the speaker will be stopped, and we will move on to the next speaker. Speakers found in violation of this rule of procedure may be removed from the meeting.
RULES OF DECORUM:
No person participating in a public meeting shall engage in disorderly or boisterous conduct — including but not limited to applause, whistling, feet stamping, booing or making any loud, threatening, profane, abusive, personal, impertinent or slanderous uttering or comments. No person is allowed to disturb, disrupt, or otherwise impede the orderly conduct of the meeting. If any person continues to breach the Rules of Decorum in a manner that disturbs, disrupts or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the meeting following an order from the Mayor, or Presiding Officer, to cease the offending conduct, the Mayor, or Presiding Officer, may order that person to leave the meeting.
Meeting Agenda Packet – July 24, 2025
RULES OF DECORUM:
No person participating in a public meeting shall engage in disorderly or boisterous conduct — including but not limited to applause, whistling, feet stamping, booing or making any loud, threatening, profane, abusive, personal, impertinent or slanderous uttering or comments. No person is allowed to disturb, disrupt, or otherwise impede the orderly conduct of the meeting. If any person continues to breach the Rules of Decorum in a manner that disturbs, disrupts or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the meeting following an order from the Mayor, or Presiding Officer, to cease the offending conduct, the Mayor, or Presiding Officer, may order that person to leave the meeting.
Meeting Agenda Packet – July 24, 2025
Item No. 1
Town of Atherton
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT – ACTION ITEM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
GEORGE RODERICKS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: GEORGE RODERICKS, CITY MANAGER
DATE: JULY 24, 2025
SUBJECT: FEEDBACK REGARDING C/CAG VOTE ON SMC TRANSIT TAX
PROPOSAL
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review the SMC Transit Tax and provide feedback to the Mayor regarding an upcoming vote by C/CAG on the issue.
BACKGROUND
SB 63 (Wiener and Arreguin) authorizes a regional citizens’ initiative to establish a local sales tax for public transit funding. The measure would allow for:
A ½-cent sales tax in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties Up to a 1-cent sales tax in San Francisco
The tax would be in effect for a period of 10 to 15 years and could be approved by a simple majority vote of the electorate. While currently limited to Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties, the bill includes a provision allowing San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to opt into the measure by the end of July 2025. After deducting administrative costs, all remaining revenues would be allocated to AC Transit, BART, Caltrain, and Muni, and may only be used for transitrelated purposes.
The Mayor serves as the Town’s representative to the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG), which has scheduled a special in-person Board meeting for July 30 to consider participation in the proposed regional sales tax measure. The discussion will focus on whether San Mateo County should opt into the measure and, if so, whether the tax rate should be set at ¼ cent or ½ cent.
ANALYSIS
SMC Transit Tax
JULY 24, 2025
Attachment No. 1 is the July 2, 2025, presentation to the SamTrans Board regarding the proposed tax measure. Attachment No. 2 is the May 2025 presentation by EMC Research to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority summarizing survey results of likely voters on the measure.
Attachment No. 3 is the full text of Senate Bill No. 63 (Wiener and Arreguin).
The Town would not receive direct funding from the proposed tax measure. While the Town does not have a significant sales tax base that would be directly impacted, passage of the measure would result in sales tax rates exceeding 10% in 9 to 11 jurisdictions within San Mateo County.
The proposed measure could provide funding to support SamTrans and Caltrain services operating within San Mateo County, including service through Atherton.
Council discussion is recommended to consider the implications of the measure and to provide direction to the Mayor regarding the Town’s position.
FISCAL IMPACT
None at this time.
GOAL ALIGNMENT
This Report and its contents are in alignment with the following Council Policy Goals:
• Goal A - Preserve Small Town Character & Quality of Life • Goal D - Be Forward Thinking
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with this agenda item being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting in print and electronically. Information about the project is also disseminated via the Town’s electronic News Flash and Atherton Online. There are approximately 1,200 subscribers to the Town’s electronic News Flash publications. Subscribers include residents as well as stakeholders –to include, but be not limited to, media outlets, school districts, Menlo Park Fire Protection District, service provides (water, power, and sewer), and regional elected officials.
ATTACHMENTS
1. July 2, 2025, Sam Trans Presentation
2. EMC Research on Likely Votes
3. SB 63
Regional Transit Measure
SamTrans Board Meeting | Jessica Epstein, Director
Government and Community Affairs| July 2, 2025
• SB 63 Timeline
• Key Decisions
• Pros v. Cons of Joining Regional Measure and Options
• Agency Funding Information
• Potential Expenditure Plans
• Measure A Potential Impacts
• Proposed Agreements
• Next Steps
2 AGENDA
3 SB 63 Timeline
• June 2 – Passed Senate
• Currently with Assembly, first to Assembly Transportation and then to Assembly Revenue and Taxation
• June 9 – July 18 – Must be heard in policy committees during these dates • July 2 and 10 – SamTrans and TA board meetings with polling data presentation • July 7 – Assembly Transportation Committee
• July 14 – Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee
• Late July – TA and C/CAG vote on whether to recommend the San Mateo County Transit District (SMCTD) opts in
• August 6 – SMCTD vote on whether to opt in
• August 11 – Deadline to opt in
• August 29 – If it passes policy committees, deadline to pass Assembly Appropriations • September 9 – Last day the bill can be amended
• September 12 – Deadline to pass legislature
• October 12 – Deadline for Governor to act on bills Page 8 of 72 4 Key Decisions
Should San Mateo County…
Opt-in or not:
• If yes, at what amount: ¼ or ½ cent
• If no, develop a new plan for SamTrans to fund Caltrain's $32M annual operating deficit obligation for FY27-FY34 and beyond
If opt-in, fund one or more of the following agencies/programs and at what amount:
• BART
• MUNI
• MTC-lead Transit Transformation
• Other public transit
• CALTRAIN: SMC must fund share of Caltrain as a JPB member
5 Pros and Cons to Joining the Regional Measure
Pro:
• Fastest injection of emergency funds to preserve Caltrain operations and fulfill SMCTD’s obligation as JPB partner
• Most likely to earn voter approval: potential Citizen’s Initiative 50% +1 vote threshold • Best way to protect Measure A reauthorization: renewal without raising taxes • Preserves Measure A's infrastructure focus (e.g. local street and pothole repair, safety at highway interchanges, bicycle/pedestrian improvements, grade separations, railroad "state of good repair" capital improvements)
• Helps preserve BART and Muni service in San Mateo County Con:
• Raises taxes by ¼ or ½ cent in 2026
• Less appetite for other local tax measures
• If passed, either 9 or 11 SMC cities will have sales tax over 10%
Measure A ½ cent sales tax currently generates approximately $120M per year • Regional Measure:
• Join at ¼ cent – generates $60M
• Join at ½ cent – generates $120M
• Measure A:
• Renew at existing ½ cent rate – generates $120M
• Renew at ½ cent and increase by ⅛ cent to ⅝ cents – generates $150M 6 SMC Ballot Measure Options
After SamTrans, BART has the highest annual boardings in San Mateo County, followed by Caltrain and Muni
• SamTrans – 10M+
• BART – 3M+
• Caltrain – 2.3M
• Muni – 2.2M
7 What public transit systems do
San Mateo County riders use?
8 Muni Routes Serving
San Mateo County
Muni service in San Mateo County:
• Muni provides nine routes to/from Daly City
SamTrans service in San Francisco:
• SamTrans provides two routes to Transbay
Center with limited local stops and two
routes to Mission and 1st in downtown San
Franciso with one being late night service
• One route to Stonestown Galleria
9 Pros and Cons: Joining at ¼ cent
Pros:
• Provides additional revenues
• Limits tax burden (and how much we can fund)
• Could fully cover Caltrain's projected deficit, may need help from Measure A • Provides some limited financial support to BART and Muni for service in San Mateo County
• Provides some protection for Measure A infrastructure investments Cons:
• Nine cities will have tax rates higher than 10%
• Lower contributions to BART/Muni could provide fewer service commitments • No return-to-source for SMCTD
• No transit transformation funds
10 Pros and Cons: Joining at ½ cent
Pro:
• Fully and independently funds SMC share of Caltrain's needs • Provides significant, flexible return-to-source funds to SMCTD for public transit needs, like:
o SamTrans one-time capital investments
o Preserves SamTrans services for the transit dependent o Protects against operational deficits
o Other local priorities
• Provides contributions to Muni and BART service in San Mateo County • Better protects against Muni and BART service reductions in San Mateo County • Provides some funding for transit transformation
• Best protects Measure A infrastructure investments
Con
• Further limits appetite for local tax measures
• Eleven cities will have tax rates higher than 10%
• Higher potential for overreliance on a 10-to-15-year measure
11 Potential Funding Ranges
Agency Potential SMC Share Context
Caltrain SMC share - $32M*
- Required to fund, JPB Member
- *32M placeholder pending JPB negotiations
- $75M annual deficit
BART Potential range $25M - $32M
- No obligation to
independently fund BART
- Pandemic fare loss $340M
- 10% of all day boardings for BART originate in SMC (includes SFO) - 8% of BART riders reside in SMC
- SMC receives sales tax revenue from SFO
MUNI Potential range $5M - $10M
- No obligation to
independently fund Muni
- $360M annual deficit
- 1.4% of all day boardings for Muni originate in SMC
- 3% of Muni riders reside in SMC (small sample size in survey) - 2.2M annual boardings in SMC; just below Caltrain
- Multiple pandemic issues caused financial impacts
MTC $9M (fare share TBD)
- Obligation TBD
- MTC shared at its June 25 meeting it needs $45M annually which may be adjusted depending on number of counties in measure - 1/5 share of $45M = $9M
- Potential pass-through to counties; contributions to be negotiated
12 Joining Regional Measure at ½ Cent
Agency $ Amount Percent
Caltrain $32M 27%
BART $32M 27%
Muni $10M 8%
MTC
- Transit Transformation with
some pass-through to SMC
$9M 8%
Return to Source
- Transit Transformation with
some pass-through to SMC
$37M 30%
Total $120M 100%
13 Joining Regional Measure at ¼ Cent - Option A
Agency $ Amount Percent
Caltrain $32M
- Full funding
53%
BART $23M 38%
Muni $5M 8%
Total $60M 100%
14 Joining Regional Measure at ¼ Cent - Option B
Agency $ Amount Percent
Caltrain $25M
- Meets remainder of need
through existing Measure A
42%
BART $25M 42%
Muni $5M 8%
MTC
- Transit Transformation
$5M 8%
Total $60M 100%
15 Measure A Current Funding Categories
16 Funding Caltrain via Measure A – no Regional Measure Current Measure A (2004)
Caltrain
operations
$9.6M 8%
Remaining
operations
- Shuttle,
paratransit, BART
$12M 10%
Capital $98.4M 82%
Total $120M 100%
New Measure A (2028)
Caltrain
operations
$32M 27%
Shuttle and
paratransit
$14.4M
- assumes 50%
increase in costs for
shuttle and
paratransit; no BART
12%
Capital $73.6M 61%
Total $120M 100%
No funding for SamTrans, BART, Transit Transformation, or local Quality of Life issues at transit stops
17 SMC Proposed Agreements
As the Board considers "opting-in" to the regional measure, should the Board empower staff to negotiate either side-letters or agreements with BART and Muni that address the following concerns?
• Reasonable service levels in San Mateo County
• Quality of life standards at San Mateo County BART stations: cleanliness, lighting, safety, and infrastructure (e.g. operational elevators, escalators, etc.) • New surcharges that could disproportionately impact San Mateo County riders • Unexpected contingencies (e.g. external funding windfalls, insolvency, inability to provide service)
• Focused San Mateo County expenditure updates
• Local monitoring and oversight of side-letter agreements
18 Other Priorities
Shall staff continue to advocate for the following Board priorities? • Return-to-source funds for SMCTD public transit
• Transit Transformation: limited funding, local impact • MTC oversight: only commissioners from participating counties • MTC authority: sunsets with 2026 Regional Measure
• Full funding for Caltrain
• No consolidation of Caltrain or SamTrans
Polling Review BOD meetings:
• July 10 – TA BOD meeting
Decision BOD meetings:
• July 30 – Special C/CAG BOD meeting
• July 31 – Special TA BOD meeting
• August 6 – SamTrans BOD meeting
19 Next Steps
May 2025 Survey of Likely Voters
San Mateo County
Summary Report on Results
EMC 25-9656
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 2
Survey Methodology
Online survey (text/email) of likely voters in San Mateo County Data collected May 14 – June 1, 2025
Survey available in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Tagalog 2,400 interviews countywide; margin of error ±2.0 percentage points Four-way split-sample allowed for independent test of four different potential ballot measures
• 600 interviews countywide in each split, margin of error ±4.0 percentage points
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 3
Split Sample: Regional Measure Text
Split A
Regional Variable Rate Sales Tax
San Mateo County at 1/4₵
(Identical to language tested in the MTC poll)
To prevent increased traffic congestion; maintain BART, Caltrain, VTA, AC Transit, Muni, and other transit services; preserve transportation services for seniors/persons with disabilities; address transit safety and cleanliness; advance climate protection; reduce air pollution; and prevent
station closures, shall the measure enacting a 7/8 cent (San Francisco), a 1/2 cent (Alameda, Contra Costa counties), and a 1/4 cent (San Mateo County) sales tax for 11 years generating at least $580,000,000 annually, with required public audits and accountability/transparency provisions, be adopted?
600 interviews, margin of error + 4.0 percentage points Split B
Regional Variable Rate Sales Tax
San Mateo County at 1/2₵
(Identical to language tested in the MTC poll with updated SMC rate) To prevent increased traffic congestion; maintain BART, Caltrain, VTA, AC Transit, Muni, and other transit services; preserve transportation services for seniors/persons with disabilities; address transit safety and cleanliness; advance climate protection; reduce air pollution; and prevent station closures, shall the measure enacting a 7/8 cent (San
Francisco) and a 1/2 cent (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo counties) sales tax for 11 years generating at least
$640,000,000 annually, with required public audits and
accountability/transparency provisions, be adopted?
600 interviews, margin of error + 4.0 percentage points
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 4
Split Sample: Local Measure Text
Split C
Local Sales Tax
Extend Measure A with no increase
Without increasing taxes, to repair potholes, maintain
streets, reduce traffic congestion, improve road/freeway safety, enhance connections between Caltrain, SamTrans, BART and other transit services, prevent transit service cuts for students, seniors and persons with disabilities, increase access to jobs and housing, and improve safety for
bicyclists/ pedestrians, shall San Mateo County
Transportation Authority’s Ordinance extending the current 1/2 cent sales tax for 30 years, with local control,
independent oversight and accountability/transparency
requirements, providing approximately $120,000,000
annually, be adopted?
600 interviews, margin of error + 4.0 percentage points Split D
Local Sales Tax
Extend Measure A with 1/8₵ increase
To repair potholes, maintain streets, reduce traffic
congestion, improve /freeway safety, enhance connections between Caltrain, SamTrans, BART, and other transit services, prevent transit service cuts for students, seniors and persons with disabilities, increase access to jobs and housing, and improve safety for bicyclists/ pedestrians, shall San Mateo County Transportation Authority’s Ordinance extending the current 1/2 cent sales tax, plus 1/8 cent, for 30 years, with local control, independent oversight and
accountability/transparency requirements, providing
approximately $180,000,000 annually, be adopted?
600 interviews, margin of error + 4.0 percentage points
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 5
Key Findings
Voter mood in the county is optimistic, but uncertain about the economic future of the Bay Area. Six in ten voters support a tax increase for local or regional transportation priorities, but only the measure to extend Measure A without increase gains support from over two-thirds of likely voters. Any tax measure is vulnerable to opposition.
While six in ten state a general inclination to oppose tax increases, over half of voters also agree it is crucial to have high-quality roads and transit service even if it means raising taxes, indicating that these issues may be important enough to overcome some tax hesitancy.
Voters are sensitive to the cost burden of any tax increase, but tax rates at or above 10% do not engender any more concern. Similarly, there is little difference in support between a ⅛, ¼, and ½ cent increase. While potholes and traffic congestion are important issues to voters, they are also motivated to support public transit investments and preservation of transit service.
Voters want to improve both local and regional transit connectivity, with a slight preference for regional. There is minimal difference in voter support or opposition for funding Caltrain, BART, and SamTrans. Voters are interested in road maintenance, pothole repair, and congestion relief, and have concerns about solutions that do nothing to address those issues locally.
Voters don’t inherently trust local over regional agencies to make transportation investment decisions. In any measure, accountability components will be critical. Page 29 of 72 May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 6
Self-Reported Transit Usage Among Voters
Weekly+ Riders: Rides any public transit (SamTrans, VTA, BART, Caltrain, Muni, or any other Bay Area transit) service at least once a week Monthly Riders: Rides any public transit (SamTrans, VTA, BART, Caltrain, Muni, or any other Bay Area transit) service at least monthly Occasional Riders: Rides any public transit (SamTrans, VTA, BART, Caltrain, Muni, or any other Bay Area transit) service less than monthly Non-Riders: Never rides on any public transit service
80% of San Mateo County voters
report riding public transit at least
occasionally, with 27% saying they
ride at least once a month
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 7
Key Finding #1
Voter mood in the county is optimistic, but
uncertain about the economic future of the Bay
Area.
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 8
Nearly three-quarters of voters feel that things in San Mateo County are generally going in the right direction. However, over half of voters expect economic conditions in the Bay Area to be worse one year from now
Do you feel that things in San Mateo County are… Thinking about the future, how do you expect economic conditions in the Bay Area to be one year
from now?
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 9
Key Finding #2
Six in ten voters support a tax increase for local
or regional transportation priorities, but only the
measure to extend Measure A without increase
gains support from over two-thirds of likely
voters. Any tax measure is vulnerable to
opposition.
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 10
While all measures reach majority support in the County, support for a Measure A extension without increase is the only instance where support reaches two-thirds Split A: Regional
Variable Rate Sales
Tax: SMC at 1/4₵
Split B: Regional
Variable Rate Sales
Tax: SMC at 1/2₵
Split C: Local Sales Tax:
Extend Measure A
with no increase
Split D: Local Sales Tax:
Extend Measure A
with 1/8₵ increase
50%
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 11
Any tax measure is vulnerable to opposition messaging
*Sample size for each split = 600n, MoE=±4.0 % points
% Yes
Split A: Regional
Variable Rate Sales
Tax: SMC at 1/4₵
Split B: Regional
Variable Rate Sales
Tax: SMC at 1/2₵
Split C: Local Sales Tax:
Extend Measure A
with no increase
Split D: Local Sales Tax:
Extend Measure A
with 1/8₵ increase
50%
61% 57%
72%
60% 59% 59%
72%
62%
50% 50%
66%
56%
0%
67%
Yes - Split A Yes - Split B Yes - Split C Yes-Split D
Initial Vote After Info After Opposition
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 12
Key Finding #3
While six in ten state a general inclination to
oppose tax increases, over half of voters also
agree it is crucial to have high-quality roads and
transit service even if it means raising taxes,
indicating that these issues may be important
enough to overcome some tax hesitancy.
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 13
Many voters feel roads and transit may be worth considering a tax increase Do you agree or disagree…
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 14
Key Finding #4
Voters are sensitive to the cost burden of any tax
increase, but tax rates at or above 10% do not
engender any more concern. Similarly, there is
little difference in support between a ⅛, ¼, and
½ cent increase.
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 15
Voters see little difference between a 10% tax rate and an 11% tax rate *Each version of the question was shown to only half of the overall sample (MoE = +2.8%) Percent Agree
Do you agree or disagree…
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 16
Voters are sensitive to the cost burden of any tax increase; total rates at or above 10% do not generate significantly different amounts of opposition *Each version of the specific rate question was shown to only one of the four samples (MoE=±4.0 %) How convincing is this as a reason to vote against the measure?
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 17
Key Finding #5
While potholes and traffic congestion are important issues to voters, they are also motivated to support public transit investments and preservation of transit service.
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 18
Voters are interested in a range of transportation investments Repairing potholes and maintaining roads
Making roads and freeways safer
Reducing traffic congestion
Enhancing connections between Caltrain, SamTrans, BART and other transit services
Preventing cuts to public transit service
Limiting traffic backups at Caltrain road crossings
Improving safety for bicyclists and pedestrians
Improving safety at Caltrain road crossings
How do you feel about your tax dollars being spent on each of the following transportation priorities in San Mateo County?
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 19
Voters are motivated by the content of a measure, but concerns around cost and credibility hold them back
• Maintaining transit for those who
need it
• Transit connectivity
• Roads and potholes (local measures)
• Oversight
Top Motivators to Support a Tax Measure
(Coded responses to open-ended question, across all samples) Top Motivators to Oppose a Tax Measure
(Coded responses to open-ended question, across all samples) • Cost of living
• Too many taxes
• We won’t see results
“[…] public transportation is the backbone of
our infrastructure and ability to travel
throughout the Bay Area.”
“Cost of living is already too high with so
much taxes already.”
“I don't trust that the money would actually
go to projects.”
“At a low cost, this measure creates
funding for maintenance on roads
and promotes public transportation.”
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 20
Key Finding #6
Voters want to improve both local and regional transit
connectivity, with a slight preference for regional. There is minimal difference in voter support or opposition for
funding Caltrain, BART, and SamTrans.
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 21
Voters want to see both regional and local improvements to public transit Percent Agree
Do you agree or disagree…
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 22
Most support tax dollars being spent on three major transit operators in the county Supporting Caltrain service
Supporting SamTrans bus and paratransit
service
Supporting BART service
How do you feel about your tax dollars being spent on each of the following transportation priorities in San Mateo County?
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 23
Seven in ten voters are compelled by the idea of transit connectivity, both regional and local
How convincing is this as a reason to vote for the measure?
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 24
Key Finding #7
Voters are interested in road maintenance, pothole repair, and congestion relief, and have concerns about solutions that do nothing to address those issues locally.
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 25
Road maintenance is a compelling reason to support a local measure.
How convincing is this as a reason to vote for the measure?
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 26
Opposition that focuses on what is excluded from a measure is effective, but concern is higher around the lack of local traffic congestion relief How convincing is this as a reason to vote against the measure?
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 27
Key Finding #8
Voters don’t inherently trust local over regional agencies to make transportation investment decisions. In any measure, accountability components will be critical.
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 28
Trust in government management of tax dollars is low
Do you agree or disagree…
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 29
Voters appreciate public transit investment decisions at both the regional and local level, although interest is slightly higher in regional transit improvements How convincing is this as a reason to vote for the measure? Percent Convincing
May 2025 San Mateo County Voter Survey Summary | 30
Conclusions
San Mateo County voters generally support investments in transportation projects and programs; they would like to preserve and connect public transit around the region (including within the county), while improving roads, infrastructure, and traffic locally. They are equally interested in supporting Caltrain, BART, and SamTrans with their tax dollars.
While more than two-thirds of voters are supportive of extending Measure A without increase, a tax increase at any level is supported by around six in ten voters, with little difference in support for increases of 1/8, 1/4, or 1/2 cent, or the resultant total tax rates.
Cost concerns and skepticism about government effectiveness are challenges for both regional and local measures, and will require the inclusion of strong oversight and transparency around any tax measure.
Sara LaBatt
[email protected]
510.550.8924
Ruth Bernstein
[email protected]
510.550.8922
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 9, 2025
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 23, 2025
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 29, 2025
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 25, 2025
SENATE BILL No. 63
Introduced by Senators Wiener and Arreguín
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Stefani)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Haney and Stefani)
January 9, 2025
An act to add Title 7.85 (commencing with Section 67700) to, and to add and repeal Section 66513.5 of, the Government Code, and to amend Section 131102 of the Public Utilities Code, relating to transportation.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 63, as amended, Wiener. San Francisco Bay area: local revenue measure: transportation funding.
(1) Existing law creates the Metropolitan Transportation Commission as a local area planning agency for the 9-county San Francisco Bay area with comprehensive regional transportation planning and other related responsibilities. Existing law creates various transit districts located in the San Francisco Bay area, with specified powers and duties relating to providing public transit services.
This bill would establish the Transportation Revenue Measure District with jurisdiction extending throughout the boundaries of the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa and the City and County of San Francisco and would require the district to be governed by the same board that governs the commission, thereby imposing a state-mandated local
95
program. The bill would authorize a retail transactions and use tax applicable to the entire district to be imposed by the board of the district or by a qualified voter initiative for a duration of 10 to 15 years, inclusive, and generally in an amount of 0.5%, subject to voter approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election. After allocations are made for various administrative expenses, the bill would require an unspecified portion of the proceeds of the tax to be allocated by the commission to initiatives included in a specified commission plan and to the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, the Peninsula Rail Transit District, Corridor Joint Powers Board, commonly known as Caltrain, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, and the San Francisco Municipal TransportationAgencyAgency, and other specified transit agencies for operating expenses, and would require the remaining proceeds to be subvened directly to the counties comprising the district for public transportation expenses, as prescribed.
By adding to the duties of local officials with respect to elections procedures for this bill on behalf of the district, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2) Existing law requires the commission to develop regional transit service objectives, develop performance measures of efficiency and effectiveness, specify uniform data requirements to assess public transit service benefits and costs, and formulate procedures for establishing regional transportation priorities in the allocation of funds for transportation purposes.
This bill would require the commission, upon the approval of a measure by the voters of the Transportation Revenue Measure District, to engage in a comprehensive independent third-party financial efficiency review of the above-described transit operators receiving an allocation of the proceeds of the tax from the commission Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, Caltrain, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, and would require the independent third party contracted by the commission for this purpose to prepare a final report of the review. After a one of these transit operator operators receives the final report, the bill would require the transit operator, as a condition of receiving those funds, to finalize an implementation plan that describes, among other things, efficiency measures the transit operator plans to take and to submit the implementation plan to the commission, as specified. The bill would also require those transit operators, as a 95 SB 63 — 2 —
condition of receiving those funds, to comply with a maintenance of effort requirement, as specified.
The bill would also require those transit operators to comply with other requirements as a condition of receiving those funds, including, among others, a maintenance of effort requirement and a requirement each transit operator that receives a distribution of funds directly from the commission to comply with the policies and programs adopted by the commission through its Regional Network Management framework, as provided.
This bill would require the commission to submit a report to the Legislature on or before March 31, 2026, on its forecast of the impacts to ridership on those transit operators the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, Caltrain, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency from planned transportation projects and strategies included in its adopted regional transportation plan.
By adding to the duties of the commission, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(3) The Bay Area County Traffic and Transportation Funding Act authorizes the formation of county transportation authorities in each of the 9 bay area counties, and provides for the imposition of a retail transaction and use tax of either 1⁄2 of 1% or 1%, subject to voter approval, with revenues to be used for various transportation purposes.
This bill would instead provide that a retail transaction and use tax imposed under those provisions in the County of San Mateo or the County of San Francisco may be imposed in 1⁄8 of 1% increments up to 1%.
(4) This bill would declare that its provisions are severable. (5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
95 — 3 — SB 63
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the line 2 following:
line 3 (a) The San Francisco Bay area needs a world-class, reliable, line 4 affordable, efficient, and connected transportation network that line 5 meets the needs of bay area residents, businesses, and visitors line 6 while also helping combat the climate crisis. The bay area’s line 7 regional and local public transportation networks are a critical line 8 component of the overall transportation network. line 9 (b) Public transportation is of regional and local benefit, serving line 10 both regional and local trips for residents of all income levels. line 11 (c) Preserving, improving, and expanding public transportation line 12 to ensure a world-class public transportation network will enhance line 13 access to opportunity, lower emissions of greenhouse gases, line 14 strengthen the region’s economy, support increased housing line 15 production, and improve quality of life.
line 16 (d) To achieve that vision, the San Francisco Bay area needs a line 17 public transit network that offers safe, clean, frequent, accessible, line 18 easy-to-navigate, and reliable service that gets transit riders where line 19 they want and need to go safely, affordably, quickly, and line 20 seamlessly. The San Francisco Bay area also needs to prioritize line 21 increasing ridership to ensure the region’s transit network is line 22 sustainable.
line 23 (e) Regional funding, increased coordination, financial line 24 efficiency, and safety, cleanliness, and reliability reforms are line 25 urgently needed to both preserve and improve public transportation line 26 service.
line 27 SEC. 2. Section 66513.5 is added to the Government Code, to line 28 read:
line 29 66513.5. (a) The commission shall submit a report to the line 30 Legislature on or before March 31, 2026, on its forecast of the line 31 impacts to ridership on the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, line 32 the Peninsula Rail Transit District, Corridor Joint Powers Board, line 33 the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, and the San line 34 Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency from planned line 35 transportation projects and strategies included in its adopted line 36 regional transportation plan, with an emphasis on rail connectivity line 37 projects that may increase ridership, reduce operating costs, or line 38 help with enhanced mobility.
95 SB 63 — 4 —
line 1 (b) (1) A report to be submitted pursuant to subdivision (a) line 2 shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795. line 3 (2) Pursuant to Section 10231.5, this section is inoperative on line 4 March 31, 2030, and, as of January 1, 2031, is repealed. line 5 SEC. 3. Title 7.85 (commencing with Section 67700) is added line 6 to the Government Code, to read:
line 7
line 8 TITLE 7.85. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA REGIONAL
line 9 TRANSPORTATION FINANCE
line 10
line 11 PART 1. FORMATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION
line 12 REVENUE MEASURE DISTRICT
line 13
line 14 Chapter 1. General Provisions
line 15
line 16 67700. For purposes of this title, the following definitions line 17 apply:
line 18 (a) “AC Transit” means the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit line 19 District.
line 20 (b) “BART” means the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit line 21 District.
line 22 (c) “Board” means the governing board of the Transportation line 23 Revenue Measure District.
line 24 (d) “Caltrain” means the Peninsula Rail Transit District. line 25 Corridor Joint Powers Board.
line 26 (e) “Commission” means the Metropolitan Transportation line 27 Commission.
line 28 (f) “District” means the Transportation Revenue Measure line 29 District.
line 30 (g) “Muni” means the San Francisco Municipal Transportation line 31 Agency.
line 32
line 33 Chapter 2. The Transportation Revenue Measure
line 34 District and Governing Board
line 35
line 36 67710. (a) The Transportation Revenue Measure District is line 37 hereby established with jurisdiction extending throughout the line 38 territorial boundaries of the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa line 39 and the City and County of San Francisco.
95 — 5 — SB 63
line 1 (b) The district shall be governed by the same board that governs line 2 the commission. The district shall be a separate legal entity from line 3 the commission.
line 4 (c) The formation and jurisdictional boundaries of the district line 5 are not subject to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government line 6 Reorganization Act of 2000 (Division 3 (commencing with Section line 7 56000) of Title 5).
line 8 (d) The district shall be staffed by the existing staff of the line 9 commission or any successor agency, with the understanding that line 10 additional staff may be needed to administer the requirements of line 11 this title.
line 12 67711. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature to afford the line 13 Counties of San Mateo and Santa Clara the opportunity to opt into line 14 the district by August 11, 2025. The opt-in of one or both of these line 15 counties into the district would entail the entirety of one or both line 16 of these counties, respectively, being included within the geography line 17 of the district.
line 18 (b) It is the preference of the Legislature for the County of San line 19 Mateo to opt into the district.
line 20
line 21 PART 2. TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAXES
line 22
line 23 Chapter 1. Retail Transactions and Use Tax
line 24 Authorization
line 25
line 26 67730. (a) The board may impose a retail transactions and use line 27 tax ordinance applicable to the entire district if the electors voting line 28 on the measure vote to approve its imposition at the election line 29 described in Section 67734 in accordance with this title and Part line 30 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue line 31 and Taxation Code.
line 32 (b) The board, in the ordinance, shall do all of the following:
line 33 (1) State the nature of the tax to be imposed. line 34 (2) Provide the tax rate or the maximum tax rate, which shall line 35 be one-half of 1 percent in each county except in the City and line 36 County of San Francisco. The tax rate in the City and County of line 37 San Francisco shall be set at no less than one-half of 1 percent and line 38 no more than 1 percent, in 1⁄8 percent increments. 95 SB 63 — 6 —
line 1 (3) Specify the period during which the tax will be imposed. line 2 The duration of the tax shall be no less than 10 years and no longer line 3 than 15 years.
line 4 (4) Specify the purposes for which the revenue derived from line 5 the tax will be used, consistent with Chapter 3 (commencing with line 6 Section 67750).
line 7 (c) Notwithstanding Section 7251.1 of the Revenue and Taxation line 8 Code, the tax rate authorized pursuant to this title shall not be line 9 considered for purposes of the combined rate limit established by line 10 Section 7251.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. line 11 (d) A transactions and use tax ordinance adopted pursuant to line 12 this title shall be operative on January 1, 2027. line 13 (e) Before the operative date of the ordinance, the board shall line 14 contract with the California Department of Tax and Fee line 15 Administration to perform all functions incidental to the line 16 administration and operation of the ordinance.
line 17 67731. It is the intent of the Legislature to determine, by August line 18 11, 2025, the exact tax rate, including potential variable rates in line 19 different counties within the district, and the exact duration of the line 20 tax, through continued discussions with stakeholders. line 21 67732. (a) Notwithstanding Section 9300 of the Elections line 22 Code or any other law, the taxes authorized by Section 67730 may line 23 also be imposed by a qualified voter initiative pursuant to Chapter line 24 4 (commencing with Section 9300) of Division 9 of the Elections line 25 Code if the electors voting on the measure vote to approve its line 26 imposition at the election described in Section 67734 in accordance line 27 with the requirements of this title and Part 1.6 (commencing with line 28 Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. line 29 (b) In addition to the procedures set forth in Chapter 4 line 30 (commencing with Section 9300) of Division 9 of the Elections line 31 Code, if an ordinance containing a tax authorized by this title is line 32 proposed by an initiative petition, the initiative shall comply with line 33 all of the requirements applicable to a tax imposed by the board line 34 pursuant to this title, including the requirement that the proceeds line 35 of the tax be expended pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with line 36 Section 67750).
line 37 67734. A tax proposed pursuant to this title may only be placed line 38 on the ballot for the November 3, 2026, statewide general election line 39 and shall be submitted to the voters of the entire district in line 40 accordance with Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 67740). 95 — 7 — SB 63
line 1 Chapter 2. Election Procedures
line 2
line 3 67740. (a) If the board of the district or a qualified voter line 4 initiative proposes a measure for the approval of a tax ordinance line 5 adopted pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 67730), line 6 the board of supervisors for each of the counties that comprise the line 7 district shall call a special election on the tax ordinance. The special line 8 election shall be consolidated with the November 3, 2026, line 9 statewide general election and the tax ordinance shall be submitted line 10 to the voters of each county comprising the district. line 11 (b) For the purpose of the placement of a tax ordinance on the line 12 ballot, the Transportation Revenue Measure District is a “district,” line 13 as defined in Section 317 of the Elections Code. A measure line 14 proposed by the board that requires voter approval or a qualified line 15 initiative measure proposed for the district by the voters of the line 16 counties comprising the district shall be submitted to the voters of line 17 the counties that are contained in the district, in accordance with line 18 the provisions of the Elections Code applicable to districts, line 19 including Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 9300) of Division line 20 9 of the Elections Code.
line 21 (c) Notwithstanding any provision of the Elections Code, the line 22 legal counsel for the district shall prepare an impartial analysis of line 23 the measure. Each county included in the district shall use the line 24 election materials provided by the district, including the exact line 25 ballot question, impartial analysis, and full text of the ballot line 26 measure for inclusion in the county voter information guide. line 27 (d) If two or more counties included in the measure are required line 28 to prepare a translation of ballot materials into the same language line 29 other than English, the county that contains the largest population, line 30 as determined by the most recent federal decennial census, among line 31 those counties that are required to prepare a translation of ballot line 32 materials into the same language other than English, shall prepare line 33 the translation or authorize the commission to prepare the line 34 translation, and that translation shall be used by the other county line 35 or counties, as applicable.
line 36 (e) Notwithstanding Section 13116 of the Elections Code, the line 37 elections officials of the counties where the measure will appear line 38 on the ballot shall mutually agree to use the same letter designation line 39 for the measure.
95 SB 63 — 8 —
line 1 (f) The county clerk of each county shall report the results of line 2 the special election to the commission. If the approval threshold line 3 required by the California Constitution at the time of the election line 4 is achieved, the measure shall take effect in the district in line 5 accordance with the requirements of this title.
line 6 (g) (1) Notwithstanding Section 10520 of the Elections Code, line 7 the commission shall reimburse each county that comprises the line 8 district from funds made available pursuant to Section 67750 only line 9 for the incremental costs incurred by the county elections official line 10 related to submitting the measure to the voters with proceeds from line 11 the measure, or if the measure fails, with any eligible funds line 12 provided by the commission or other public or private entity. line 13 (2) For purposes of this subdivision, “incremental costs” line 14 includes both of the following:
line 15 (A) The cost to prepare a translation of ballot materials into a line 16 language other than English by any county, as described in line 17 subdivision (d).
line 18 (B) The additional costs that exceed the costs incurred for other line 19 election races or ballot measures, if any, appearing on the same line 20 ballot in each county in which the measure appears on the ballot, line 21 including both of the following:
line 22 (i) The printing and mailing of ballot materials. line 23 (ii) The canvass of the vote regarding the measure pursuant to line 24 Division 15 (commencing with Section 15000) of the Elections line 25 Code.
line 26
line 27 Chapter 3. Regional Transportation Revenue Measure line 28 Expenditures
line 29
line 30 67750. The board shall allocate revenues generated pursuant line 31 to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 67740) on an annual basis line 32 as follows:
line 33 (a) The board shall pay the administrative costs associated with line 34 the collection of the revenues incurred by the California line 35 Department of Tax and Fee Administration pursuant to the contract line 36 entered into pursuant to Section 67730, and the amounts necessary line 37 for the commission to reimburse the one-time costs incurred by line 38 county elections officials, as provided in subdivision (g) of Section line 39 67740.
95 — 9 — SB 63
line 1 (b) After the amounts allocated in subdivision (a), the board line 2 may retain up to 1 percent of total revenues for the administration line 3 of this title. If the board retains more money than is necessary for line 4 administration, the board may direct those excess funds to the line 5 commission for allocation pursuant to subparagraph (E) of line 6 paragraph (1) of subdivision (c).
line 7 (c) (1) After the amounts allocated in subdivisions (a) and (b), line 8 the board shall allocate revenues to the commission in the amount line 9 determined pursuant to paragraph (2). The commission shall line 10 allocate those revenues to the following entities for the following line 11 purposes in accordance with Chapter 4 (commencing with Section line 12 67760) and Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 67770):
line 13 (A) AC Transit, exclusively for transit operations expenses. line 14 (B) BART, exclusively for transit operations expenses. line 15 (C) Caltrain, exclusively for transit operations expenses. line 16 (D) Contra Costa County Transit Authority (County line 17 Connection), exclusively for transit operations expenses. line 18 (E) Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority (Tri Delta Transit), line 19 exclusively for transit operations expenses.
line 20 (F) Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA), line 21 exclusively for transit operations expenses.
line 22 (D)
line 23 (G) Muni, exclusively for transit operations expenses. line 24 (H) San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation line 25 Authority, exclusively for transit operations.
line 26 (I) Union City Transit, exclusively for transit operations line 27 expenses.
line 28 (J) Western Contra Costa Transit Authority (WestCAT), line 29 exclusively for transit operations expenses.
line 30 (E)
line 31 (K) Up to 10 5 percent of the revenues to the commission, line 32 exclusively for initiatives included in the 2021 Bay Area Transit line 33 Transformation Action Plan (T-TAP), or any successor plan line 34 adopted by the commission.
line 35 (2) It is the intent of the Legislature to establish specific levels line 36 of funding for the board to allocate to the commission and for the line 37 commission to allocate to the entities specified in paragraph (1) line 38 by August 11, 2025.
line 39 (d) (1) After the amounts allocated in subdivisions (a) to (c), line 40 inclusive, the board shall subvene all remaining funds directly to 95 SB 63 — 10 —
line 1 the counties contained in the district for public transportation line 2 expenses. The board shall have no discretion to withhold those line 3 funds.
line 4 (2) Eligible recipients of funds provided by counties from funds line 5 allocated pursuant to paragraph (1) include, but are not limited to, line 6 all of the following:
line 7 (A) Contra Costa County Transit Authority (County line 8 Connection).
line 9 (B) Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority (Tri Delta Transit). line 10 (C) Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA). line 11 (D) Union City Transit.
line 12 (E) Western Contra Costa Transit Authority (WestCAT). line 13 67752. In allocating funds pursuant to this chapter, it is the line 14 intent of the Legislature that the commission not supplant funding line 15 from regularly programmed discretionary revenue sources available line 16 to the commission that would have otherwise been directed to line 17 projects, programs, or services that directly benefit the Counties line 18 of Alameda or Contra Costa or the City and County of San line 19 Francisco, nor increase the level of those regularly programmed line 20 discretionary sources that are allocated to counties that are not line 21 contained in the district as a result of the approval of the measure line 22 pursuant to this title.
line 23 67754. If the voters approve a tax ordinance pursuant to this line 24 title, the district shall establish an independent oversight committee line 25 within six months of the effective date of the tax increase to ensure line 26 that any revenues generated pursuant to this title are expended line 27 consistent with the applicable requirements set forth in this chapter. line 28 The committee may be consolidated with the oversight committee line 29 established pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 30923 of the line 30 Streets and Highways Code. Each representative shall be appointed line 31 by the applicable county board of supervisors. The oversight line 32 committee may request any documents from the commission to line 33 assist the committee in performing its functions. line 34
line 35 Chapter 4. Financial Transparency and Review
line 36
line 37 67760. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that financial line 38 efficiency and transparency are imperative to build public line 39 confidence and support for public transportation. 95 — 11 — SB 63
line 1 (b) In enacting this title, it is the intent of the Legislature to line 2 ensure that the public is aware of actions taken by AC Transit, line 3 BART, Caltrain, and Muni to reduce expenses in the face of major line 4 deficits, along with additional identified opportunities for line 5 service-neutral cost efficiencies.
line 6 67762. (a) Upon the approval of a measure by the voters of line 7 the district pursuant to this title, the commission shall engage in line 8 a comprehensive independent third-party financial efficiency line 9 review of AC Transit, BART, Caltrain, and Muni.
line 10 (b) The review shall identify a menu of cost-saving efficiencies line 11 that, if implemented, would reduce one-time and ongoing fixed line 12 and variable costs for the transit operators subject to the review. line 13 (c) The scope of the review shall include administrative, line 14 operating, and capital costs and shall clearly distinguish between line 15 cost-saving options that would not impact service and cost-saving line 16 options that would require service realignments or reductions. line 17 (d) The scope of the review shall also apply to initiatives line 18 included in the 2021 Bay Area Transit Transformation Action Plan line 19 or any successor plan adopted by the commission and associated line 20 supporting programs administered by the commission, such as the line 21 Clipper program.
line 22 67764. (a) The commission shall contract and manage an line 23 independent third party to conduct the review, in consultation with line 24 a select committee established by the commission that consists of line 25 all of the following:
line 26 (1) Members of the commission.
line 27 (2) A state representative.
line 28 (3) Transit operator representatives from the operators subject line 29 to the review.
line 30 (4) Representatives from the transit labor, advocacy, and line 31 business communities.
line 32 (b) Upon completion of the review, the independent third party line 33 shall transmit a final report to the select committee established by line 34 the commission, to the Legislature, in compliance with Section line 35 9795, and to the transit operators subject to the review. line 36 67766. (a) Within ____ months after a transit operator subject line 37 to the review receives the report, the transit operator shall finalize line 38 an implementation plan that describes all efficiency measures the line 39 transit operator has already taken since January 1, 2020, associated line 40 cost savings, and all subsequent efficiency measures the transit 95 SB 63 — 12 —
line 1 operator plans to take and shall submit this plan to the commission line 2 by ____, as a condition of continuing to receive funds from the line 3 commission pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section line 4 67750).
line 5 (b) The commission shall accept each plan submitted pursuant line 6 to subdivision (a) and transmit it to the Legislature, in compliance line 7 with Section 9795, the Transportation Agency, and the counties line 8 that have a funding relationship with at least one of the transit line 9 operators subject to the review.
line 10 67767. It is the intent of the Legislature to determine the timing line 11 of the required actions outlined in this chapter through further line 12 discussion with transit stakeholders.
line 13 67768. (a) (1) In order to be eligible for funding pursuant to line 14 Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 67750), a transit operator line 15 subject to the review required by this chapter shall verify to the line 16 commission that it will maintain its expected level of funding for line 17 operations and shall not supplant any sources of operating revenue line 18 under its control or fund sources allocated by the commission that line 19 were used for transit operations in the preceding three fiscal years. line 20 (2) The expected level of funding for purposes of paragraph line 21 (1), which shall be referred to as the maintenance of effort, shall line 22 be calculated using the operator’s average discretionary operating line 23 expenditures for the preceding three fiscal years, two years in line 24 arrears as reported to the Controller in its annual report submitted line 25 pursuant to Section 99243 of the Public Utilities Code. line 26 (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a transit operator subject line 27 to the review required by this chapter may reduce the amount of line 28 funding contributed towards its operating budget in proportion to line 29 any reduction in operating costs or reduction in operating revenue line 30 based on factors outside the control of the operator, including, but line 31 not limited to, the expiration of a voter-approved revenue source line 32 or the determination based on a statistically valid poll that an line 33 expiring ballot measure lacks sufficient support to warrant line 34 placement on the ballot.
line 35 (c) A transit operator may request that the commission grant an line 36 exception to the requirements of this section for the purpose of line 37 transferring operating funds to state of good repair needs for assets line 38 owned and operated by the operator or to cover the cost of line 39 compliance with a state or federal law or regulation. 95 — 13 — SB 63
line 1 Chapter 5. Regional Network Management
line 2 Accountability
line 3
line 4 67770. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the line 5 following:
line 6 (1) In 2024, the Transportation Revenue Measure Select line 7 Committee established by the commission in 2024 agreed on line 8 various transit agency accountability policy recommendations for line 9 a transportation revenue measure. Specifically, the select committee line 10 approved a recommendation for new revenue from a measure to line 11 be conditioned on transit operators complying with transit line 12 transformation policies adopted through the Regional Network line 13 Management framework.
line 14 (2) As of March 2025, the commission adopted policies and line 15 programs through an established regional network management line 16 framework.
line 17 (b) (1) It is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this title, line 18 to encourage the commission to continue acting in its role as line 19 Regional Network Manager.
line 20 (2) It is the further intent of the Legislature that the conditioning line 21 of funds prescribed by this chapter on regional network line 22 management policies and programs be based on the central goal line 23 of increasing transit ridership by improving the customer line 24 experience of riding public transit in the San Francisco Bay area line 25 and creating a seamless transit experience.
line 26 67772. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, each transit operator line 27 that the commission directly distributes funds to pursuant to line 28 Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 67750) shall comply with line 29 the policies and programs adopted by the commission through its line 30 Regional Network Management framework in order to fulfill line 31 initiatives included in the 2021 Bay Area Transit Transformation line 32 Action Plan or successor plan adopted by the commission, as a line 33 condition of receiving those funds.
line 34 (b) Nothing in this chapter authorizes the commission to do any line 35 of the following:
line 36 (1) Restrict a transit operator’s access to funds not allocated by line 37 the commission.
line 38 (2) Require a transit operator to implement policies or programs line 39 that would impede or interfere with its ability to comply with any line 40 legal obligations in transit labor contracts.
95 SB 63 — 14 —
line 1 (3) Restrict the use of a transit operator’s logo outside the scope line 2 of the commission’s regional mapping and wayfinding standards. line 3 (4) Require that a transit operator modify the schedule or route line 4 of a specific local route that the transit agency and commission do line 5 not identify as primarily serving regional transit service. line 6 (c) The commission shall not require a transit operator described line 7 in subdivision (a) to be subject to a one-time or ongoing policy, line 8 or to make a one-time or ongoing expenditure, pursuant to this line 9 chapter if the transit operator adopts a finding that the policy or line 10 expenditure would require the agency to take an action that the line 11 agency determines to be unacceptable with respect to its impact line 12 on transit service, staffing, maintenance, or other specified line 13 operational or state of good repair considerations. line 14 (d) Before adopting a finding pursuant to subdivision (c), a line 15 transit operator shall conduct an assessment that takes into line 16 consideration all funding anticipated to be available to the transit line 17 operator in the next fiscal year, including, but not limited to, any line 18 discretionary funding that the commission identifies to help offset line 19 the cost of the proposed expenditure or policy, any growth in fare line 20 revenue anticipated as a result of the expenditure or policy, and line 21 potential adjustments to fares or fare policies the agency could line 22 make to increase revenue. The transit operator shall develop the line 23 assessment in consultation with staff from the commission and line 24 shall present it to the commission at a public meeting before line 25 adopting a finding pursuant to subdivision (c). line 26 (e) In implementing this section, each transit operator subject line 27 to this chapter shall fulfill all applicable requirements under Title line 28 VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352) line 29 regarding service and fare changes.
line 30 (f) The commission shall submit a report to the Legislature on line 31 or before January 1, 2028, and each year thereafter, on the status line 32 of the outcomes described in this section and the status of transit line 33 ridership in the region, as defined in Section 66502. The line 34 commission shall submit the annual report to the Legislature in line 35 compliance with Section 9795. The commission shall also post line 36 the annual report on its internet website.
95 — 15 — SB 63
line 1 Chapter 6. Applicability
line 2
line 3 67780. The provisions of this title shall only apply to the line 4 counties and city and county identified pursuant to Section 67710. line 5 SEC. 4. Section 131102 of the Public Utilities Code is amended line 6 to read:
line 7 131102. (a) (1) A retail transactions and use tax ordinance line 8 for a tax of either one-half of 1 percent or 1 percent applicable in line 9 the incorporated and unincorporated territory of a county, except line 10 for the counties described in paragraph (2), may be imposed by a line 11 county transportation authority or the commission in the manner line 12 prescribed in Section 131103 and Part 1.6 (commencing with line 13 Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, line 14 if two-thirds of the electors voting on the measure vote to approve line 15 its imposition at an election which shall be called for this purpose line 16 by the board of supervisors within one year after the adoption of line 17 a county transportation expenditure plan.
line 18 (2) A retail transactions and use tax ordinance for a tax of up line 19 to 1 percent, in any combination of 1⁄8 percent increments, line 20 applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the line 21 County of San Mateo or the City and County of San Francisco line 22 may be imposed by the applicable county transportation authority line 23 or the commission in the manner prescribed in Section 131103 line 24 and Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the line 25 Revenue and Taxation Code, if two-thirds of the electors voting line 26 on the measure vote to approve its imposition at an election which line 27 shall be called for this purpose by the board of supervisors within line 28 one year after the adoption of a county transportation expenditure line 29 plan.
line 30 (b) The ordinance shall take effect at the close of the polls on line 31 the day of the election at which the proposition, as set forth in line 32 Section 131108, is adopted. The ordinance shall specify the period, line 33 as determined by the adopted county transportation expenditure line 34 plan during which the tax will be imposed. The tax may be line 35 terminated earlier if the projects in the adopted plan are completed line 36 and any bonds outstanding issued pursuant to this division are line 37 redeemed.
line 38 SEC. 5. The provisions of this act are severable. If any line 39 provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity 95 SB 63 — 16 —
line 1 shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given line 2 effect without the invalid provision or application. line 3 SEC. 6. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that line 4 this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to line 5 local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made line 6 pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division line 7 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
O
95 — 17 — SB 63