WCCTAC

West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee

Minutes

September 28, 2007

The regular meeting of the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee was called to order at 7:34 A.M. on Friday, September 28, 2007 by Chair Sharon Brown in the City Council Chambers of the City of San Pablo, 13831 San Pablo Avenue, San Pablo, California, 94806.

1. Call to Order/Self Introductions

PRESENT: Sharon Brown, Chair (San Pablo), Janet Abelson (El Cerrito), Maria Alegria* (Pinole), Tom Butt (Richmond), John Gioia* (Contra Costa County), Gayle McLaughlin (Richmond), Jerrold Parsons (WestCAT),

Joe Wallace (AC Transit)

STAFF: Lisa Hammon, WCCTAC Executive Director

Linda Young, WCCTAC Transportation Project Specialist

John Rudolph, WCCTAC Project Manager

Nancy Cuneo, WCCTAC Administrative Analyst

Hisham Noeimi, CCTA Staff

Bryan Otake, WCCTAC General Counsel

Bradley Ward, WCCTAC Treasurer

EXCUSED: Maria Viramontes, Vice-Chair (Richmond)

Bob Franklin, (BART)

Ed Balico (Hercules)

*Arrived after Roll Call

2. Public Comment

James Carter of the Green Chamber of Commerce announced a “Greening Richmond” event which that will take place on October 21st. Mr. Carter noted that the event would address the issue of global warming and what actions residents and businesses can take to combat climate change. Mr. Carter requested the endorsement of the WCCTAC Board as there would be a transportation element amidst the various displays set up by anti-global warming entities. He as well expressed his hope that representatives of WCCTAC would be in attendance.

Consent Calendar

On motion by Joe Wallace, seconded by Jerrold Parsons and carried unanimously the WCCTAC Board voted to adopt the Consent Calendar as follows:

2. Approved Minutes, Sign-In Sheet, and Meeting Summary from the August 10, 2007.

3. Approved Staff Reports.

4. Approved 2008 State Transportation Improvement Program Project List.

5. Approved WCCTAC Executive Director’s Employment Agreement for FY 07-08.

6. Approved Holiday Schedule.

7. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) General Assembly Meeting and Transportation Summit; Date Change for October WCCTAC Board Meeting.

8. Approved update on San Pablo Dam Road/I-80 Interchange Project.

9. Accepted report on Funding Opportunities Memorandum.

10. Vision and Goals for the Draft 2008 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.

11. Authorized Wildcat Creek Trail Crossing Project Coordination.

12. Accepted Regional Rail Plan Comments letter.

13. Authorized signing of Three-Party Agreement for Fence Construction North of the Richmond Intermodal Station Platform.

14. Authorized signing of Legal Services Agreement for STMP Fee Financing.

Gayle McLaughlin asked if a motion could be put forward to endorse the Green Chamber of Commerce event in Richmond.

Bryan Otake stated that the event is not an agenda item for which a motion may be put forward. He noted that a request could be put forth in the Board member comments to have the item Agendized for the next meeting.

15. Board Member Comments, Conference/Meeting Reports, and Announcements

● Chair Brown noted regarding SB976 and Ed Balico’s service on the WTA, that the WTA would soon be dissolved and become the WETA. Chair Brown stated that Mr. Balico would like to be appointed to the WETA as Contra Costa needs representation within that body as there are currently four Contra Costa related projects underway within the WTA.

She expressed a desire to compose and send a letter of support for Mr. Balico’s appointment to the WETA.

Tom Butt stated that John Gioia is interested as well in being appointed as the Contra Costa representative for the WETA. Mr. Butt reiterated the sentiment that appointment of a Contra Costa representative to that position is essential. He noted that Mr. Gioia would not arrive to the Board meeting until 8:30.

Chair Brown suggested a return to the matter upon the arrival of Mr. Gioia.

Lisa Hammon suggested determining the timeframe in which the appointments would take place and based upon that, could the matter be resolved at a later meeting.

Jerrold Parsons stated that he has a concern with the prospect of Mr. Gioia’s appointment.

● Gayle McLaughlin requested that endorsement of the Greening Richmond event be adopted as an emergency item.

Mr. Otake noted that in order to discuss the matter in full, the item must be agendized. The alternative is to give direction to the Board on the item.

Mr. Butt noted that the intent is to move to have the Greening Richmond endorsement adopted as an emergency item as it arose after publication of the agenda and requires action before the next meeting.

Joe Wallace requested clarification that the Green Chamber of Commerce was only requesting endorsement.

Mr. James Carter stated that he was looking for endorsement from the Board; and participation at the event if anyone was interested.

Lisa Hammon mentioned that she would work with Linda Young to form a group to represent transportation interests at the Green Richmond event.

Gayle McLaughlin asked if BART and AC Transit would be interested in a separate endorsement.

Joe Wallace stated that he would speak with AC Transit regarding endorsement and tabling.

Maria Alegria arrived at the Board meeting.

On motion by Tom Butt, seconded by Gayle McLaughlin and carried with one nay; Jerrold Parsons, the WCCTAC Board voted to add the Green Richmond event as an emergency agenda item.

On motion by Gayle McLaughlin, seconded by Joe Wallace and carried with one nay by Jerrold Parsons, the WCCTAC Board voted to endorse the Green Chamber of Commerce event in Richmond.

● Janet Abelson gave a brief report of her attendance at the CALACT, “At the Speed of Light” Transportation Conference, which WCCTAC paid for.

● Tom Butt invited members of the WCCTAC Board to attend the Richmond Homefront Festival.

● Joe Wallace informed the Board that AC Transit’s Deputy General Manager is doing well after undergoing surgery following a massive heart attack.

16. Legal Counsel Comments and Announcements

Bryan Otake reported that in the Prop. 1B measure there is a local street and roads funding component which consists of $950M allocated for counties and cities to pay for local street and road projects. He noted that this is not a WCCTAC application rather an application submitted by individual cities and counties. He stated that AB193 and AB196 are budget clean-up measures that set the standards for budget allocation regarding local street and road funds. He noted that the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties will both be posting the set of regulations pertaining to these bills on their websites.

Item 17: Ad Hoc Subcommittee to Interview Senior Transportation Project Administrator Candidates

Lisa Hammon stated that a panel interview with the three final candidates was being held today (September 28). She stated that this agenda item was to set up an ad hoc subcommittee of board members to interview the final two candidates. Additionally the candidates would meet with the remaining WCCTAC staff.

Chair Brown asked for volunteers.

Joe Wallace and Janet Abelson volunteered for the ad hoc committee.

Item 18: Presentation by San Pablo Avenue “Youth Engagement Program” Summer Interns

Ms. Hammon noted that Developer Impact Fees for the San Pablo Avenue Corridor Project were approved to fund the San Pablo Avenue Youth Engagement Program Summer Internship Program. She stated that the mid-term and final report by the students has been adapted to the Board and will be synopsized and presented regarding issues and opportunities on San Pablo Avenue with a youth perspective.

WCCTAC staff created a photo-collage to present to the interns in thanks. Ms. Hammon noted that the students would as well be making a presentation on October 4th at the Kennedy High School Open House. Ms. Hammon thanked the interns for the work that they had conducted.

Sharon Fuller from the Ma’at Youth Academy thanked WCCTAC for the opportunity afforded to the interns. She also thanked John Rudolph, Lisa Hammon, UC Berkeley staff, Loni Hancock’s office staff, and teachers at Kennedy. She noted that the goal of the program was not to regurgitate the work of city planners but rather to provide a youth perspective in a sustainable plan with regard to urban ecology perspectives and community impact.

Julio Arauz announced the presentation of “Solutions for a Better San Pablo Avenue” and introduced the presenters Eduardo Arias, Tierra Andrews, Norman Walker (not present), and Marlon King. Mr. Arauz noted that the SPAYEP had been working with the San Pablo Working Group which oversees the revitalization process of San Pablo Avenue, whose goal is to incorporate the community’s institutions along with youths, in the planning process in a manner that is meaningful.

Eduardo Arias began his presentation of diesel pollution reports. He noted that diesel pollution is the single worst air contaminate in California and is responsible for 70 percent of air pollution-related cancer risks. He stated that everyday 7,000 trucks travel from I-580 Point Richmond to the I-80 Hilltop area along Richmond Parkway, resulting in over 2,555,000 trucks a year. He remarked that West Contra Costa has forty times greater pollution than the county as a whole and forty times more pollution than California.

Mr. Arias continued by noting that along San Pablo Avenue there are over 700 buses coming from Oakland, Berkeley, and the North Bay areas every week-day during the peak hours; with between three and four hundred on weekends which will result in 210,000 buses a year.

Tierra Andrews introduced herself and began her presentation of project area issues and numbers. She noted that SPYEP has been working to make San Pablo Avenue more youth and pedestrian friendly. She shared the results of two traffic counts conducted at two different times over a period of five minutes. The results yielded findings of greater amounts of “jay-walking” on San Pablo Avenue in contrast with fewer incidences on Cutting Boulevard. She noted that the signage and topography were found to be more favorable along San Pablo Avenue than Cutting Boulevard. She proposed more mixed use and TOD at Richmond Plaza Transit Center.

Marlon King provided a synopsis of the field trips that SPAYEP participated in which included excursions to UC Berkeley, MTC, a tour of San Pablo Avenue from del Norte to Oakland, Fruitvale TOD, and The Bruener Marsh. He stated that there exists a number of pedestrian safety issues in Richmond with regard to crosswalks or a lack thereof. He indicated that pedestrian facilities are of a higher quality in Berkeley; Oakland as well lacks sufficient pedestrian amenities.

Julio Arauz noted that he and Mr. Arias had gone before the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Community Forum and offered solutions to the problems that exist along San Pablo Avenue. He emphasized the need for greater youth involvement in recognition of and formulation of solutions for planning and land use related issues along major transit corridors.

Ms. Andrews then proceeded by offering a set of proposed solutions for improving San Pablo Avenue at Cutting Boulevard:

Solution One: Redirect traffic to the BART entrance. Buses do not take passengers directly to the BART station, but are diverted in an inefficient manner. By turning the one-way portion of Cutting into a two-way; buses could be diverted from San Pablo Avenue and routed directly to the BART station. This may be accomplished by widening the street to accommodate the buses and would allow for inclusion of a crosswalk at that intersection.

Solution Two: Construct a pedestrian over crossing above San Pablo Avenue at Cutting Boulevard to reduce “jay-walking” and increase pedestrian safety and overall efficiency of travel.

Solution Three: A pedestrian underpass akin to those in Berkeley.

Solution Four: An additional roadway for bus traffic directly to the BART station from I-80 which would eliminate bus traffic along Cutting and San Pablo Avenue.

Solution Five: Change the traffic light and create a no-turn-on-red sign in addition to a crosswalk which would work in conjunction with the redirection of traffic and a more direct bus route.

Ms. Hammon noted that Board members may vote on their favorite solution and submit the results for a tally.

The members of SPYEP thanked all those who supported their efforts.

Gayle McLaughlin inquired as to whether or not the preceding presentation could as well be given to the San Pablo Avenue Advisory Committee.

Mr. King stated that they would be interested in presenting to the San Pablo Avenue Advisory Committee.

Joe Wallace expressed his hope that members of SPYEP and other youths would become planners as there is currently a high need for them.

Chair Brown concurred with the expressed need for a resolution to the pedestrian crossing problem at Cutting and San Pablo.

Maria Alegria asked if SPYEP had examined the costs associated with some of the solutions that had been proposed.

Mr. King stated that SPYEP had only examined the solutions. It would be up to city officials to determine which remedy could be implemented based on cost-effectiveness.

Mr. King invited members of the WCCTAC Board to a celebratory event on October 4th at which time the internship would officially be concluded. He thanked April and Alissa for their role in helping members of SPYEP obtain the internship and concluded the presentation.

Chair Brown commended the members of SPYEP.

Chair Brown announced a five minute recess.

Item 19: Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (STMP or “Developer Impact Fees”) Project Financing

Lisa Hammon introduced Steven Gortler and Mark Curran of Piper Jaffray, who would be providing a verbal update on the status of the Developer Fee Program. Mark Curran began by providing a brief overview of the goals of the developer fee program. He noted that the objective is to fabricate a system where 100 percent of the debt service is to be paid from the STMP Program funds.

Mr. Curran stated that one of their first courses of action was to survey all cities to obtain an update on what development will be taking place within the next five years that is subject to developer fees. He noted that the original fee estimates were based on ABAG statistics which were primarily a long term forecast. He remarked that the results were quite positive and that a substantial amount of revenue could be generated from the large amounts of development that will be taking place over the next five years, in particular in the cities of Richmond, Hercules, and San Pablo. He noted that significantly less revenue was projected for the long term.

From that information Piper Jaffray was able to structure a preliminary financing program where bonds would function as a bridge-type financing where debt is issued now; as the revenues grow substantially, bonds would start to be paid off as early as 2009 with the goal being complete eradication of the debt by 2012-2015. He noted that prolongation of debt relief until 2015 was based on lower projected growth by the member communities.

Mr. Curran noted that although they are relatively certain that a large amount of infill housing and various subdivisions will be built, the bond rating agencies require some type of secure, underlying backstop revenue to be pledged so that if the development grinds to a halt there will be an additional revenue source; Based on this, Piper Jaffray proposed using gas tax revenues as the source for backstop revenues. He noted that their objective was to devise a plan where the likelihood of having to call upon the backstop revenues was somewhere in the area of zero to five percent.

Mr. Curran noted that they had presented this plan to finance directors of the six member agencies. From this presentation the question was put forth as to whether or not Measure J funds could be used for the backstop revenues. He remarked that Measure J funds are unfortunately 30-40 percent less for the five cites as compared to the gas tax revenues. In the interest of making this program as client responsive as possible, Mr. Curran and Mr. Gortler met with two senior analysts from Standard and Poor’s, who rate the debt for Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), to see if there is a way to restructure the program using Measure J funds as a return to source as compared to using gas tax funds. He stated that they do not have a definitive answer at this time however they will put together a very detailed presentation for S&P and will most likely be back to discuss the results of this presentation at next month’s Board meeting. He stated that they will be working closely with S&P to try and get the investment grade bond rating that is needed and municipal bond insurance to procure a AAA financing rate.

Mr. Curran stated that within the coming weeks following meetings with S&P, it is likely that they will be calling on the Board to work with CCTA to make minor adjustments to the existing system, in order to make the Measure J funds look as secure as possible for use as a backstop. He pointed out that STMP revenue growth which is forecast would have to drop over 80 percent to make necessary utilization of local revenues.

In conclusion, Mr. Curran remarked that they are on schedule to raising the funds by spring of next year. He expressed great optimism regarding achievement of the goal of raising $27M.

Chair Brown noted that the next WCCTAC Board meeting will be held on October 19th and therefore follow up by Piper Jaffray would probably not be possible until a later meeting date.

Ms. Hammon stated that a presentation on the Developer Fee Impact Program will be given to the TAC, which includes public works and planning staff who have concerns about not having gas tax and Measure J return to source funds available for road and street maintenance. Ms. Hammon remarked that they understand those concerns. She noted that she had conversed with Supervisor John Gioia and expressed the desire to share some of the concerns he gave regarding the preceding.

First, there is a basic policy question at some point in time when a real proposal is put forth, about whether or not use of gas tax or Measure J funds prioritizes the list of Developer Impact Fee projects above local streets and road maintenance.

Ms. Hammon continued by stating that a total analysis of the risk for each of the jurisdictions specifically is in order. She noted that some of the information provided by the planning directors has been obtained and will be included in the assessment of risks that will be provided to members of the Board, so that they may evaluate the potential impacts on their jurisdiction.

She also reminded the Board that all of the project sponsors asked for the money for their projects by 2015 or before. This was the drive behind WCCTAC’s request for examination of various financing mechanisms; particularly for the projects that are both in the Developer Impact Fee Program and Measure J, as funding sources for each must be in alignment within the correct timeframe in order for these projects to move forward.

John Gioia arrived at the meeting.

John Gioia noted that most developer fee projects are pay-as-you-go. The concern lies in the utilization of gas tax and return to source funds which are the only sources of money for local, street and road maintenance. Mr. Gioia asked if there is an option where the security for the bonds can be obtained through alternate means. He noted that Contra Costa is already behind on repair of local streets and roads and developer fees depend upon building a projected number of units; it is risky to utilize public funds for security based upon an assumption.

Mr. Gioia remarked that a number of the developer fee projects also receive money from federal and state sources whereas local street and road maintenance does not receive such subsidies. He suggested looking at other forms of security and a possible reevaluation of the projects; if the project costs are less there is less risk associated with financing of those projects. Mr. Gioia noted that East County has a developer fee of $15,800 per house and they do not use gas tax or return to source funds.

Ms. Hammon pointed out that they as well do not use bond financing. She continued by highlighting some of the points stated by Mr. Curran prior to Mr. Gioia’s arrival to the meeting: Developer fees would have to decrease by 80 percent in order to call on the gas tax and there is a 5 percent or less likelihood of ever arriving at that point.

Mr. Gioia stated that this is good information.

Mr. Curran remarked that money coming from residential development is about one-half; funds from commercial development are as well one-half. If residential development slowed down by 60 to 70 percent there would still be more than three times the amount of money that would be needed to weather any eight to nine year slow down; he added that there has never been a slow down longer than three years.

Mr. Gioia requested clarification regarding whether or not this is this to cover all of the debt service on the bonds.

Mr. Curran replied yes as the bonds would be covering $26M of projects up front. He noted that they are setting the debt service at a very low figure; a slow down of up to 80 percent would not require accessing the gas tax. He noted that Measure J funds would be a little tighter as they are not as substantial. Mr. Curran proposed giving an in depth PowerPoint presentation that would cover the various scenarios in detail. He noted that the likelihood of having to dip into public funds is less than 3 to 4 percent.

He reiterated that financing has been structured such that if public funds were to be utilized, affected jurisdictions would be provided with 2 to 3 years notice; during that notice period if development again increased it would push back the call on those funds another subsequent year.

Janet Abelson stated that she had clear direction from her jurisdiction regarding their priorities. The citizens of El Cerrito’s main priority, is local streets and roads. Given this, a sales tax measure has been moved to ballot for raising additional funds for local streets and roads. She stated that it would be difficult to justify jeopardizing funds which are already limited. She noted that a vote from her council would be required.

Chair Brown stated that she assumed that all members had discussed this matter with their city councils.

Maria Alegria replied no.

John Gioia remarked that the whole purpose was to get the details and then go before the council. He noted that the presentation provided by Mr. Curran was very useful and should provide ample data for presentation to the council.

Ms. Abelson stated that she cannot see how she can act against the stated priorities of the residents in her jurisdiction and therefore would vote no on the proposed financing plan. She suggested a reevaluation of the developer fee projects.

Mr. Butt asked if a bond issue such as this must be collateralized; is a matter of the level of risk and the amount of debt service on the bond.

Mr. Curran replied that when WCCTAC brought this proposal to a number of competing firms all of them stated that selling bonds based solely upon the development fees would make structuring a sensible program that makes financial sense highly difficult. He noted that Piper Jaffray had examined this route and discussed it with various investment groups. The result of these inquiries yielded the conclusion that financing without a backstop would result in a much lower amount, around $10M, and given the dynamics of the fees coming in, utilizing this approach would not be rational.

Mr. Butt asked if the risks are greater than those associated with a revenue bond.

Mr. Curran replied that the risks are substantially higher as revenue bonds, e.g. sewer and water bonds are much less risky.

Mr. Butt clarified by stating that he meant industrial-type revenue bonds.

Mr. Curran noted that industrial bonds typically have a letter of credit guaranteeing them. He reiterated that without a backstop or some kind of credit guarantee the bond would not qualify for an investment grade bond rating. He noted that even at 50 percent of the STMP fees it is expected that the revenue source will provide 3 to 4 times the amount needed in debt service before any need to call upon public funds would be necessitated. He put forth to the Board, are the developer fee projects worth inception in 2008-2009 as opposed to a delay until 2015 for the 5 percent risk associated with the proposed financing plan.

He noted that if public funds were called upon, the flow of income proposed to the finance directors is such that STMP funds within the first two years would go towards current year debt service; after that the funds would go towards reimbursement of any public funds that had been utilized followed thereafter by call bonds. For the county, Mr. Curran recalled that the amount from gas tax was less than ten percent for the total gas taxes for the county.

Mr. Butt asked if there was any way to collateralize the bonds using infrastructure.

Mr. Curran responded that there must be a pledge of revenues and general funds are the most common form of this. He noted that the reason this form of financing does not make as much sense in East County stems from the fact that developer fees are five times greater there.

Mr. Gioia expressed appreciation for quantification of the risks. He stated that it would be useful to receive a presentation outlining the development activity used in the assumptions provided. As well, he inquired can the bonds be issued in a way such that the cost of credit is slightly higher.

Mr. Curran noted that the cost and interest rate without the credit enhancement would be dramatically higher.

Mr. Gioia asked what Piper Jaffray’s fee is.

Mr. Curran replied seven-tenths of one percent.

Mr. Gioia requested confirmation of the fee to the lawyer as 1.25.

Mr. Otake concurred.

Maria Alegria requested a timeline for matters of preparation to go before the city councils.

Mr. Otake stated at this time there has not been formulation of a formal timeline. He emphasized that the preceding was a status report and not a presentation for Board approval.

Ms. Hammon noted regarding the timeline, that there is currently information from four out of six of the jurisdictions; the county and El Cerrito have not yet provided their numbers.

Mr. Gioia asked if Piper Jaffray relied on ABAG numbers for their assumptions.

Mr. Curran replied yes. He noted that the numbers provided by the four cities reporting this far, were two to ten times greater that the ABAG development projections over the next five years however the projections were significantly lower in years six to thirty. He noted that he attributes this to the limited scope of projections from developers and stated that Piper Jaffray has structured a plan that is responsive to these figures such that the debt can be paid off in a relatively short period of time.

Mr. Gioia requested clarification regarding the length of the program and the security for the collateral.

Mr. Curran replied that the recommendation for structuring of the program is such that each local agency would have a local obligation based on their forecast of growth and their allocation of gas tax. With that, the development assumptions that were received if fully realized would see full debt relief in late 2011 with a couple of the jurisdictions experiencing release at an earlier date because of greater growth. He noted that the latest release was projected for 2012; if development slowed by fifty percent that number would be pushed back to 2016 with full release from debt at that time with no pledge of gas tax or return to source funds.

Mr. Gioia remarked that historically, cities across the Bay have stated that they cannot meet the ABAG forecasts as they are too high. He expressed surprise that the numbers provided by the cities are higher than ABAG projections.

Mr. Curran suggested that perhaps this is relative to ABAG residential numbers whereas they are examining a variety of development.

Mr. Gioia reiterated the desire for a presentation of the forecasts as they formulate the basis for the risks associated with the proposed system of financing.

Maria Alegria asked when the information will be ready to take before the city councils.

Ms. Hammon requested clarification regarding when a presentation would be ready.

Mr. Curran stated that a presentation of the development projections and the overall structure could be ready by October 19th; gas tax versus Measure J utilization would require further preparation.

Maria Alegria stated that she would not be present at the October 19th meeting.

Ms. Abelson stated that she would need a presentation before the El Cerrito City Council in order for them to support the proposed plan; would this be ready before October 19th.

Ms. Hammon replied no. The presentation will be sometime after October 19th.

Mr. Curran noted that based upon the comments of the finance directors, whether or not Measure J funds could be used in place of the gas tax revenues would not be known for a period of six to eight weeks. He noted that individual presentation to member agencies would most likely not take place until the beginning of next year.

Chair Brown directed the Board’s attention to the Item regarding support for Ed Balico’s appointment to the WTA. It was noted that Mr. Gioia as well expressed interest in being appointed as that representative.

Mr. Gioia replied that the county had appointed a regular and an alternate, himself and Mr. Balico.

Ms. Hammon noted that the inquiry is regarding the restructuring of the current system.

Mr. Gioia confirmed that he would like to be considered as well. He stated that it would be beneficial to have a representative from Hercules or Richmond. He stated that there are two appointees to the Community Advisory Board.

Ms. Hammon noted that under the new legislation there is no Community Advisory Board.

She stated that the new Board is a total of five appointments; three from the governor and one from each house; one of whom is appointed by Senator Perata and the other by Senator Nunez, therefore it is doubtful that there will be two representatives from Contra Costa.

Maria Alegria requested clarification as to whether or not the person put forth would be appointed by Senator Perata.

Ms. Hammon stated that Mr. Balico had not specified who would be making the appointment.

Mr. Gioia remarked that the timeline for Richmond is earlier than the timeline for Hercules in the WTA plan.

Mr. Butt inquired as to whether or not the issue is an agenda item; if not then no action can be taken.

On motion by Tom Butt, seconded by Gayle McLaughlin and carried unanimously, the WCCTAC Board voted to Agendize discussion of appointment of a representative from Contra Costa to the WETA for the October 19, 2007 WCCTAC Board meeting.

With no further business to come before the WCCTAC Board, Chair Brown adjourned the meeting at 9:05 A.M., until the next meeting to be held on October 19, 2007at 7:30 A.M. at the San Pablo City Council Chambers, 13831 San Pablo Avenue, San Pablo, California, 94806.