From: Board.Secretary Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 3:18 PM To: VTA Board of Directors; VTA Advisory Committee Members Subject: VTA Request: Please share with your constituents - Recorded Livestream of Jan 11 transit redesign meeting VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members: We would like to ask your help in sharing the information and gathering feedback about our transit service redesign. Please share a link to the recorded livestream of our Jan 11 public meeting with your constituents and networks. Link to share via email, blogs and social media: https://youtu.be/oPL8scorZT0 Code to embed on websites and blogs: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oPL8scorZT0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Board Secretary’s Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street, Building B San Jose, CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 board.secretary@vta.org

From: Board.Secretary Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 11:51 AM To: VTA Board of Directors Subject: Message from VTA Board Member Cindy Chavez re: Elected Officials Role in All-Hazards Disaster Response - 2/22/2017

Dear VTA Board of Directors and Policy Advisory Committee Members,

The Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Services, together with Santa Clara County Fire, is

hosting a forum on “Elected Officials Role in All-Hazards Disaster Response” on Wednesday,

February 22, 2017 from 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM. The forum will offer elected and executive

officials an opportunity to share strategies and coordinate plans for emergency

preparedness. Specifically, the discussion will cover the following topics:

1. What is emergency management

2. Roles and responsibilities of elected officials in emergency management

3. Overview of the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and the National

Incident Management System (NIMS)

4. Familiarization of emergency proclamations and declarations

5. Introduction to laws and authorities that support emergency management efforts

The forum will be held at the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office in the Auditorium, 55 W.

Younger Ave, San Jose, CA 95110.

The link to register can be found below. There is no fee to participate in the forum.

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/elected-officials-role-in-all-hazards-disaster-response-february-22-

2017-tickets-29450324714 Cindy Chavez VTA Board of Directors

-----Original Message-----

From: Board.Secretary

Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 1:35 PM

To: VTA Board of Directors

Subject: BART Environmental Hearings

VTA Board of Directors:

REMINDER: The Public Hearing dates for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement/Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation

(Draft SEIS/SEIR) of VTA’s BART Silicon Valley - Phase II Extension Project are:

Meeting 1 – Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Open House: 6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.

Formal Presentation & Comments: 7:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

Mexican Heritage Plaza, Gallery

1700 Alum Rock Avenue, San Jose, CA 95116

Meeting 2 – Thursday, January 26, 2017

Open House: 6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.

Formal Presentation & Comments: 7:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

Santa Clara Senior Center, Room 222

1303 Fremont Street, Santa Clara, CA 95050

Meeting 3 – Monday, January 30, 2017

Open House: 6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.

Formal Presentation & Comments: 7:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

San Jose – City Hall, Rooms 118 - 120

200 East Santa Clara Street, San Jose, CA 95113

Please share this information to your constituents.

Thank you.

Board Secretary’s Office

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

3331 North First Street, Building B

San Jose, CA 95134-1927

Phone 408-321-5680

board.secretary@vta.org

Page 1 of 4

PROJECT: VTA’s BART Silicon Valley - Phase II Extension Project (SCH# 2002022004)

LEAD AGENCIES: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

PROJECT LOCATION & DESCRIPTION: FTA and VTA have prepared a Draft SEIS/SEIR to address environmental effects of VTA’s BART Silicon Valley - Phase II Extension Project (See Figure 1). The Draft SEIS/SEIR supplements the analysis in the 2010 Final EIS and 2004 EIR, 2007 SEIR, and 2011 2nd SEIR for the BART Silicon Valley Program. The BART Silicon Valley Program consists of a 16-mile extension of the BART system from BART’s Warm Springs Station in Alameda County into Santa Clara County. VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Program is planned to be implemented in two phases. This Draft SEIS/SEIR has been prepared to address Phase II, which is the remaining 6 miles of the Silicon Valley Program from Berryessa to San Jose that was not approved in the 2010 EIS. Although the 16-mile, 6-station, BART Silicon Valley Program was approved in previous EIRs, this SEIR will be the first CEQA document to evaluate a 6-mile, 4-station extension. There are two alternatives evaluated in this document in accordance with NEPA: the No Build Alternative and the BART

Extension Alternative. The BART Extension Alternative consists of a 6-mile extension of the BART system from the

Berryessa BART Station (currently under construction) through downtown San Jose to the Santa Clara Caltrain Station.

The alignment would include an approximately 5-mile tunnel, or subway, through downtown San Jose. Four stations are

under consideration: Alum Rock/28th Street, Downtown San Jose, Diridon, and Santa Clara. Two options are currently

under consideration for the location of the Downtown San Jose Station (East and West) and for Diridon Station (North

and South). Two tunnel construction methodology options, the Twin-Bore Option (two 20-foot-diameter tunnels) and

the Single-Bore Option (one 45-foot-diameter tunnel), are under consideration. Depending upon funding availability,

initial revenue service on the BART Extension is targeted to begin in late 2025/2026.

There are three alternatives evaluated in this document in accordance with CEQA: the No Build Alternative, the BART Extension Alternative, and the BART Extension with Transit-Oriented Joint Development (TOJD) Alternative. The CEQA No Build Alternative is the same as the NEPA No Build Alternative. The CEQA BART Extension Alternative is also the same as the NEPA BART Extension Alternative described above. The additional CEQA BART Extension with TOJD Alternative consists of the 6-mile BART Extension as described above, in addition to TOJD at the four BART stations and two mid-tunnel ventilation structure sites. The BART Extension with TOJD Alternative’s TOJD component does not involve a federal action or federal funding and is evaluated only under CEQA. The TOJD has independent utility and is included to support local and regional land use planning.

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/

Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and

Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation (Draft SEIS/SEIR) for

Public Review and Announcement of Public Hearings

Page 2 of 4

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The Draft SEIS/SEIR describes the purpose and need, alternatives, environmental setting,

potential impacts from construction and operation, and mitigation measures to reduce impacts. After implementation of

mitigation measures, the BART Extension Alternative would result in adverse effects under NEPA and significant and

unavoidable impacts under CEQA for Transportation during construction (NEPA and CEQA), Air Quality during

construction (NEPA and CEQA), Noise during construction (NEPA and CEQA), and Socioeconomics during construction

(NEPA only). After implementation of mitigation measures, the BART Extension with TOJD Alternative would result in

significant and unavoidable impacts under CEQA for Transportation during construction and operation, Air Quality

during construction and operation, Greenhouse Gas Emissions during operation, and Noise during construction.

The NEPA BART Extension Alternative would result in no adverse effect under Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act on historic properties listed or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. However, the

corridor includes areas of sensitivity for encountering buried archaeological resources, and the effect on to historic

properties cannot be fully determined prior to project approval due to limited access for surveys on private properties.

Therefore, a Programmatic Agreement (PA) has been prepared for the phased identification and evaluation of potential

historic properties, and the resolution of any adverse effects on historic properties within the area of potential effect,

pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2) and 36 CFR 800.5(a)(3). The Draft PA is included in the appendix of the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

The NEPA BART Extension Alternative would not result in a use or temporary occupancy of a public park, wildlife refuge,

recreational resource, or historic property protected under Section 4(f).

FTA and VTA’s Board of Directors will use the Draft SEIS/SEIR, comments received, and responses to select an alternative and options. The FTA may issue a single Final SEIS/Record of Decision document pursuant to Public Law 114-94 and 23 U.S.C. 139 (n)(2), unless the FTA determines statutory criteria or practicability considerations preclude issuance of the combined document. In that case, FTA would issue a Final SEIS followed by an amendment to the 2010 Record of Decision, as needed. AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT SEIS/SEIR: The Draft SEIS/SEIR and supporting documentation are available online at

www.vta.org/bart. Printed copies of the Draft SEIS/SEIR are available for public review at the following locations during

business hours.

Location #1: VTA’s Building B Lobby at 3331 North 1st Street San Jose, CA 95134

Location #2: Local Public Libraries

Biblioteca Latinoamericana Branch Library 921 South First St. San Jose, CA 95110

Central Park Library 2635 Homestead Road Santa Clara, CA 95051

Dr. Roberto Cruz - Alum Rock Branch Library 3090 Alum Rock Ave. San Jose, CA 95127

East San Jose Carnegie Branch Library 1102 E. Santa Clara St. San Jose, CA 95116

Joyce Ellington Branch Library 491 E. Empire St. San Jose, CA 95112

King Library 150 E. San Fernando St. San Jose, CA 95112

Mission Library Family Reading Center 1098 Lexington Street Santa Clara, CA 95050

Northside Branch Library 695 Moreland Way Santa Clara, CA 95054

Page 3 of 4

PUBLIC HEARINGS: The public hearing format will include an open house where plans, maps, and other displays will be

available for viewing, and VTA staff will be available for questions. The open house will be followed by a formal

presentation on the proposed project, purpose and need, alternatives, and the findings of the environmental analysis. A

public comment period will follow the presentation where agencies and the public can verbally state their comments,

which are recorded by a court recorder. Attendees may also fill out comment cards and leave them at the meeting site

or mail them in prior to the end of the review period. All comments received will be addressed in the Final SEIS/SEIR.

Public hearings will be held on the following dates to receive comments on the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Meeting 1 – Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Open House:

6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.

Formal Presentation & Comments:

7:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

Mexican Heritage Plaza, Gallery

1700 Alum Rock Avenue, San Jose, CA 95116

Meeting 2 – Thursday, January 26, 2017

Open House:

6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.

Formal Presentation & Comments:

7:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

Santa Clara Senior Center, Room 222

1303 Fremont Street, Santa Clara, CA 95050

Meeting 3 – Monday, January 30, 2017

Open House:

6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.

Formal Presentation & Comments:

7:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

San Jose – City Hall, Rooms 118 - 120

200 East Santa Clara Street, San Jose, CA 95113

How to Submit Comments on the Draft SEIS/SEIR: The public review and comment period for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR will end on February 20, 2017. Written comments on the Draft SEIS/SEIR should be sent to:

Mail: Tom Fitzwater, SVRT Environmental Planning Manager

VTA Environmental Programs & Resources Management, Building B-2

3331 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95134

Email: BARTPhase2EIS-EIR@vta.org

Comments must be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 20, 2017. For additional information

on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, please contact VTA’s Community Engagement Department at 408-321-7575.

Individuals who require language translation, American Sign Language, or other assistance are requested to call

(408) 321-7575/TTY (408) 321-2330 at least five (5) business days before the public hearing. All meeting facilities

are accessible to persons with disabilities.

Figure 1BART Extension (with Station Options) and Transit-Oriented Joint Development

VTA’s BART Silicon Valley–Phase II Extension Project

³

³

³

³

³

³

!(

!(

DIRIDON STATION -NORTH OPTION

East PortalLocation

West PortalLocation

SeeInset 2

See Inset 1

NewhallMaintenanceFacility

BERRYESSA STATION(under construction)

DOWNTOWN SAN JOSESTATION - EAST OPTION

DOWNTOWN SAN JOSESTATION - WEST OPTION

DIRIDON STATION -SOUTH OPTION

SANTA CLARASTATION

13th StreetVent Structure

Stockton AvenueVent Structure Options

Legend

J³ Single Bore Alignment Only

J³ Twin Bore Alignment Only

J³ Twin and Single Bore AlignmentOverlap

!(Transit-Oriented JointDevelopment (CEQA only)

± 0 10.5

Miles

DIRIDON STATION -SOUTH OPTION

DIRIDON STATION -NORTH OPTION

Inset 1

Inset 2

ALUM ROCK/28th STREET STATION

GIS

–> G

raph

ics

… 0

0332

.13

(12-

22-2

016)

N 28th St

Alum Rock Ave

W Santa Clara St

The Alameda

E Santa Clara St

E Santa Clara St

N 17th StS 16th St

S 19th St

Market St

Stockton Ave

Stockton Ave

Broka

w Rd87

87

87

82

880

880

280

101

101

Co yote Creek

Guadalupe River

From: Board.Secretary Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 5:24 PM To: VTA Board of Directors Subject: VTA Correspondence: Comments Regarding Next Network

VTA Board of Directors:

We are forwarding you the following:

From Topic

Members of the Public Comments regarding Next Network

Thank you.

Office of the Board Secretary

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

3331 N. First Street

San Jose, CA 95134

408.321.5680

board.secretary@vta.org

I_-- -

VIctor M. W!lmiR §1i_~~:5;~~~BJ?:tl:i~if:?f~:fi~f~::;;~~~&~:t;1i:W-t?~Si;}1f·:~lt25~ii~\~f{~~:y:rf::j'0iJ:i::~:i~'t:~f:_IJ~Z~~;: ·''f~}:-~t,dZ,~~-:~~:rl~-;_:~ .. ~~~{-~ Ci::_~--?~f::~:;?21?f£U~::~~;i::~T?'f:¥0:-;J}:f:;

3215 Benton St. Santa Clara, CA 95051

U.S.A .

• Phone 408 261 1712 e~mall wymanvic@gravers.com

Jeannie Bruins, Chair ofthe VIA Board River Oaks Administrative Offices 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134

Dear Ms. Bruins, re: VIA invites feedback on its revised networks

(Mercury News 1/6/2017)

This letter expresses my opinions regarding VIA networks; also some general comments and observations regarding the VIA.

Here are my views on the county's traffic needs with focus on VIA's route network: o Develop network based on primary routes with local feeder services o Eliminate long distance local transit routes o Invest in infrastructure projects, such as overpasses, to relieve congestion and reduce

travel times o Exploit expressways for primary route development o Scale vehicle capacities to actual passenger usage o Implement an origin to destination fare system using digital technology o Plan and progressively implement separating primary transit routes from road and

pedestrian traffic o Increase VIA's revenue by developing business and residential properties adjacent to

VIA stations and termini

The network should be composed of a series of primary routes with stops/stations spaced, say, every half mile to a mile. These routes may be thought of as neckleces with each stop a pearl. These stops also serve as termini for local feeder routes. There should be parking, shopping and higher density housing adjacent to these stops. And easy transfer and fare continuity between primary and feeder vehicles. This is the model for Stockholm's transit system. Hong Kong goes a step further. The Hong Kong Metro built high rises above their stations earning revenue from rentals.

Our county's particular need is for efficient transport to and from residential areas and work places. VIA's primary routes should include as much grade separated transit right of way as possible. This requires infrastructure projects: overpasses, underpasses, tunnels, elevated sections, etc. It is clear that traffic volumes and congestion will increase into the future. We

I

urgently need these individual infrastructure projects to be implemented along with development ofVTA's network. Doing so will reduce accidents and reduce travel times.

Happily, Santa Clara County has an excellent system of expressways. Many are based on former light rail (interuban) lines. These expressway corridors should be exploited to serve as primary VTA transit routes. San Tomas-Montague is an excellent exmple and should be developed to serve the need for transport to and from workplaces. Capitol, Lawrence, Foothill, etc. can similarly be developed. These expressway corridors lend themselves to further development of elevated or cut and cover rapid transit. Developing primary routes, however, only makes sense if development goes hand in hand with creation of feeder routes.

VTA's focus on El Camino Real does not contribute to the goal of workplace/residence transport. The projected El Camino 'rapid' project will also increase traffic congestion by reducing available public roadway capacity. Since the route is open to cross traffic, bus speed along the route is not likely to improve appreciably.

In contrast to El Camino Real, I visualize a primary route along Stevens Creek Blvd. This road is quite wide and carries less traffic than El Camino Real. In VTA's draft plan the route terminates in Cupertino. I suggest that the route should extend from the California rail station in Palo Alto, along Page Mill and Foothill, to Stevens Creek terminaing at Winchester; it could also be extended along San Carlos to downtown San Jose. The route would link significent county communities, Stanford, colleges, major valley businesses such as Apple and shopping centers.

Some general comments: I came to live in Santa Clara County in 1979. Since then there have been several changes of name, changes of logos and changes of color schemes on vehicles as well as materials projecting identity for the transit enterprise. The costs of these changes may be trivial in the scheme of things but they add up and do nothing to enhance the actual transport of passengers.

For my four decades in the valley, I have observed empty or nearly empty VTA vehicles on our roads. Yet the busses get bigger and bigger. This is stupid! Even with various subsidies, the total cost to society for procurement and operation of large vehicles is an outrage. There are a huge number of routes which could and should be operated using light busses carrying, say, fifteen passengers maximum. I also noticed that, with the introduction oflarger and heavier vehicles, bus stops on our roads have been modified with concrete pads to carry the weight of these vehicles. This would have been unnecessary with smaller, appropriate sized vehicles.

I am confounded by the number and variety of existing bus routes operated by the VTA. Some routes are too short. Some routes are too long, Some twist and wind so much that they take an unreasonable amount of time to get to a destination. There is no sense that VT A operates a system (let alone a 'network'). It seems more like a patchwork of routes developed over time, ad hoc, due to various demographic and political pressures. The routes can be rationalized and enhanced by implementing a sensible transfer system with digital fare collection equipment and systems. (Fare Cards work so well in so many cities, in countries less well developed than in our high tech area. Take a study trip to Istanbul, for example.)

VTA integrates fairly well with Bay Area public transport, especially with the new BART extension. The glaring deficiency is traffic and transport connection with Santa Cruz city and county. Highway 17 is a dangerous slalom run in the best weather. There are more and more

daily commuters and weekend vititors to and from Santa Cruz. In the near term we need more frequent bus service over highway 17, and with good connections for northbound passengers. I appreciate that there are multiple, sometimes conflicting, burocratic interests to resolve but highway 17 is approaching or has surpassed its capacity. I think it is time to recondider a rai1link between Santa Cruz and VTA light rail at Campbell.

I emphasize my continued interest in the development and improvement of efficient transportation in Santa Clara and the Bay Area.

Sincerely,

uhW~ Victor M. Wyman

From: Board.Secretary Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 5:28 PM To: VTA Board of Directors Subject: FW: Notice: New Reporting Requirement for Certain JPAs

VTA Board of Directors:

Per LAFCO’s request, we are forwarding you the attached Notice regarding a new reporting

requirement for certain Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs).

Thank you. VTA Office of the Board Secretary Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street, Building B-1 San Jose, CA 95134-1927 Phone: 408-321-5680 E-mail: board.secretary@vta.org

From: Abello, Emmanuel Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 3:37 PM Cc: Palacherla, Neelima; Noel, Dunia; Subject: Notice: New Reporting Requirement for Certain JPAs Please forward copies of this Notice to the members of your legislative bodies. Thank you, Emmanuel Abello, LAFCO Clerk LAFCO of Santa Clara County www.santaclaralafco.org

Mailing Address 70 W. Hedding Street, 11th Floor, East Wing, San Jose, CA 95110

New LAFCO Office Location 2310 N. First Street, Suite 106, San Jose, CA

New Phone Number (408) 993-4705

NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or its content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email.

DATE: January 17, 2017

TO: City Managers and County Executive Special District Managers City Public Works / Community Development Directors City / District Attorneys County Board of Supervisors and City Council Members Special District Board Members FROM: Neelima Palacherla, Executive Officer

SUBJECT: New Reporting Requirement for Certain Joint Powers Authorities

The purpose of this memo is to notify the County, cities, and districts of Senate Bill 1266 (McGuire), which became effective on January 1, 2017, and imposes new reporting requirements on certain Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs).

Requirement for Certain JPAs to File their Agreements and Amendments with LAFCO within Specified Time Periods

Effective January 1, 2017, SB 1266 provides that:

1. JPAs under Government Code Section 56047.7 that are formed for the purpose of providing municipal services and include a county, city, or special district member are required to file a copy of their joint powers agreement and any amendments to their agreement with LAFCO within 30 days of the effective date of the agreement or its amendment.

2. JPAs under Government Code Section 56047.7 that are formed prior to January 1, 2017 for the purpose of providing municipal services and include a county, city, or special district member are required to file a copy of their agreement and any amendments to their agreement with LAFCO no later than July 1, 2017.

3. A subject JPA that fails to make the required filings within the specified timeframes would be prohibited from issuing bonds or incurring any indebtedness until those filings have been made.

Please note that the scope of the reporting is limited to those JPAs that include a county, city or district member and provide a municipal service such as water, waste water, storm water, recycled water, solid waste, fire protection, police, recreation, street lighting, animal control, library, roads, emergency medical service, vector control, flood

Page 2 of 2

protection, community facilities, weed abatement, environmental protection, habitat mitigation, gas & electricity, or broad band.

SB 1266 is intended to help LAFCOs fulfill their statutory responsibilities/goals of promoting efficient delivery of local government services, facilitating shared service opportunities and serving as community resources on local government services. It does not grant LAFCOs any regulatory authority over JPA formation or boundaries.

Please Make the Required Filings as soon as possible

In order to streamline the reporting process, we are requesting that subject JPAs provide copies of their agreements in electronic format to LAFCO at lafco@ceo.sccgov.org. All submittals will be followed by formal acknowledgement by LAFCO for agency records. Thank you for your time and cooperation.

Attachment:

1. Senate Bill 1266 (McGuire)

Senate Bill No. 1266

CHAPTER 173

An act to amend Section 6503.6 of, and to add Section 6503.8 to, theGovernment Code, relating to local government.

[Approved by Governor August 22, 2016. Filed withSecretary of State August 22, 2016.]

legislative counsel’s digest

SB 1266, McGuire. Joint Exercise of Powers Act: agreements: filings.The Joint Exercise of Powers Act generally authorizes 2 or more public

agencies, by agreement, to jointly exercise any common power, which isgenerally termed a joint powers agreement. When a joint powers agreementprovides for the creation of an agency or entity, separate from the partiesto the agreement and responsible for its administration, existing law requiresthat agency or entity to cause a notice of the agreement or amendment tobe prepared and filed, as specified, with the Secretary of State. Existing lawrequires an agency or entity that files a notice of agreement or amendmentwith the Secretary of State to also file a copy of the original joint powersagreement, and any amendment to the agreement, with the Controller.

This bill would require an agency or entity required to file documentswith the Controller, as described above, that meets the definition of a jointpowers authority or joint powers agency, as specified, that was formed forthe purpose of providing municipal services and that includes a local agencymember, as specified, to also file a copy of the agreement or amendment tothe agreement with the local agency formation commission in each countywithin which all or any part of a local agency member’s territory is locatedwithin 30 days after the effective date of the agreement or amendment tothe agreement. The bill would also require an agency or entity that meetsthe definition of a joint powers authority or joint powers agency, as specified,that was formed for the purpose of providing municipal services prior tothe effective date of this act and that includes a local agency member, asspecified, to file a copy of the agreement and any amendments to theagreement with the local agency formation commission in each countywithin which all or any part of a local agency member’s territory is locatedno later than July 1, 2017. This bill would prohibit an agency or entityadministering an agreement or amendment that has failed to make therequired filings within the specified timeframes from issuing bonds orincurring any indebtedness until those filings have been made.

By requiring specified joint powers agencies to file certain documentswith a local agency formation commission, this bill would impose astate-mandated local program.

95

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agenciesand school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutoryprovisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandatesdetermines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursementfor those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 6503.6 of the Government Code is amended toread:

6503.6. (a)  When an agency or entity files a notice of agreement oramendment to the agreement with the office of the Secretary of Statepursuant to Section 6503.5, the agency or entity shall file a copy of the fulltext of the original joint powers agreement, and any amendment to theagreement, with the Controller. An agency or entity that meets the definitionof a joint powers authority or joint powers agency under Section 56047.7that was formed for the purpose of providing municipal services and thatincludes a local agency member that is a city, district, or county shall, within30 days after the effective date of the agreement or amendment to theagreement, file a copy of the agreement or amendment to the agreementwith the local agency formation commission in each county within whichall or any part of a local agency member’s territory is located.

(b)  Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any agency orentity administering a joint powers agreement or amendment to such anagreement, which agreement or amendment becomes effective on or afterthe effective date of this section, which fails to file the notice with a localagency formation commission required by this section within 30 days afterthe effective date of the agreement or amendment shall not thereafter, anduntil those filings are completed, issue any bonds or incur indebtedness ofany kind.

SEC. 2. Section 6503.8 is added to the Government Code, to read:6503.8. (a)  No later than July 1, 2017, an agency or entity that meets

the definition of a joint powers authority or joint powers agency underSection 56047.7 that was formed for the purpose of providing municipalservices prior to the effective date of this section, and that includes a localagency member that is a city, district, or county, shall cause a copy of theagreement and any amendments to the agreement to be filed with the localagency formation commission in each county within which all or any partof a local agency member’s territory is located.

(b)  Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any agency orentity administering a joint powers agreement or amendment to such anagreement, which fails to file the notice with a local agency formationcommission required by this section on or before July 1, 2017, shall notthereafter, and until those filings are completed, issue any bonds or incurindebtedness of any kind.

95

— 2 —Ch. 173

SEC. 3. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this actcontains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies andschool districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencingwith Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

O

95

Ch. 173— 3 —