I know it’s dangerous to assume anything, but I assume most readers are familiar with SMART, the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District. The district was formed in 2003 as a result of Assembly Bill 2224, sponsored by Joe Nation. I also assume most readers know that a ballot measure approved in November 2008, established a one-quarter of 1 percent sales tax increase, to be in effect 20 years, with proceeds going to SMART. I assume most readers know that the recession diminished sales tax revenue and raised the cost of borrowing, thus leading SMART to downsize the initial rail line from 70 miles (Larkspur to Cloverdale) to 37 miles (San Rafael to Santa Rosa), to reduce stations from 14 to seven, to reduce the number of two-car trains from nine to six, and to delay service from 2014 to 2016. Last, I assume most readers know there’s a grassroots movement to repeal the SMART tax—not the rail line itself, but the tax approved in 2008, when voters were promised a larger operational rail system than the one currently being developed. SMART has other sources of income than just the 2008 tax, but the tax is crucial to current planning.
I set out to learn more about the issues. The result was more questions than answers.
First, I contacted SMART, hoping there’d be a new information officer as helpful as the previous one, Chris Coursey. I was told that all information to the press must come from the new general manager. I submitted a list of questions to him via his assistant, and confirmed with her that he’d received them and that I had a hard deadline to submit this column. But I heard nothing by deadline time. Why?
Second, I was intrigued by the election process. In 2006, a SMART tax ballot measure failed. It needed a two-thirds “yes” vote in both counties. It passed in Sonoma County but not in Marin. Then the rules were changed so it required an aggregate two-thirds vote. Sure enough, in 2008, the tax measure again failed the two-thirds requirement in Marin but passed by enough in Sonoma to approve the tax. Was SMART able to change its own election rules?
Third, I wondered, what else was different about the 2008 ballot vote that may have turned the tide? I found the filing report of “North Bay Transportation Alliance, Yes on Measure Q,” the 527 political organization formed “to bring about a ballot initiative in November 2008 to bring passenger rail…in Marin and Sonoma counties.” I saw the Alliance received contributions of $301,824—the largest contribution of $49,999 was from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria—and had expenditures of $549,964. How does it work to pay out more than was received?
Fourth, I dug into the consulting contract records contained online as part of the agenda and attached materials for SMART board meetings. By November 2008, SMART had paid more than $1.3 million out of a total more than $1.5 million contract with an organization consulting firm in Santa Rosa to provide community outreach on SMART issues. I know the company, and it’s absolutely top-notch. According to that company’s website, SMART is a client for which it “designed and implemented a $500,000 outreach program…widely credited as a major factor in the success of a sales tax measure to fund the rail project.” Does the “$500,000 outreach program” mean the money spent by the North Bay Transportation Alliance? Whatever the case, SMART seems to have found a clever way to educate the public toward approval of the sales tax increase.
Fifth, I wondered about the very first words on the 2008 ballot measure: “To relieve traffic, fight global warming and increase transportation options….” Critics suggest SMART’s own Environmental Impact Report reveals train ridership will have minimal impact on Highway 101—reducing peak travel by perhaps only 0.5 percent, while increasing traffic congestion around train stations—and that SMART would decrease greenhouse gas emissions by a similar “minimal” amount—about one-twentieth of 1 percent—at a very high cost of somewhere between $360 million and $400 million for the initial rail section. Is it true that SMART will have minimal impact in these two critical areas?
As to transportation options, is it true that SMART will compete with the existing Golden Gate Transit bus system? What percentage of riders will be switching from one to the other? Is it true SMART dropped two stations that could have been very valuable for commuters—Corona Road in Petaluma and Atherton Avenue in Novato—because housing density around those stations wasn’t sufficient to qualify for additional funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission? Is it true riders will pay about $5 per trip, while the actual cost of operation is closer to $50 per trip?
Last, I spoke to a well-informed gentleman who’s currently doing education outreach for SMART. At one point in our conversation, he said, “I don’t understand why critics don’t appreciate the jobs SMART will create. Are they against jobs?” My answer was this:
Based on my own research, I’m concerned about SMART’s approach to job creation, pay and benefits. SMART’s current fiscal year budget for 17 employees shows average pay of $164,000, average pension contributions of $32,000 and average health premiums of $22,647 per employee. For these 17 employees, SMART agreed to pay the “employee” share of pension contributions, thus bulking up the total compensation packages by 7 percent of pay, this despite innumerable articles about unsustainable pension costs for public sector workers. Only recently did SMART change this to say newly hired employees will need to make their own 7 percent pension contributions. SMART also hired a new general manager at a total pay and benefits package exceeding $310,000 per year. This is reportedly more than the BART chief receives.
Is there any reason to believe that this pattern will change as SMART creates other jobs?
