The independent and non-partisan counsel’s office reviewed  legislation governing how the commission, which also operates as the Bay Area Toll Authority, can spend that money, and said: ”We think that the purchase and operation of a regional governance co-location facility is not among the purposes that BATA or MTC is authorized to engage in or promote.”

The opinion says the Main Street building “substantially exceeds the administration office needs related to toll bridge project and program administration.” It says the Legislature could pass a law requiring the commission to rescind the purchase.

“I think they should sell the building because what they did was illegal,” said state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, a former member of the commission who requested the review and has opposed the building purchase.

A state audit, requested by a legislative audit committee at DeSaulnier’s suggestion, is pending, and expected in June.

MTC officials declined to comment, saying only that they received the 10-page opinion late and were carefully reviewing its conclusions.

The commission voted in  October to buy the 1942 building for $93 million, and to spend up to $74 million in improvements. The Bay Area Air Quality Management  District and Bay Conservation and Development Commission have stated their intentions to move into the shared building.

Article source: http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2012/05/07/mtc-real-estate-deal-questioned/

The commission, the Bay Area’s regional transportation planning and financing agency, voted 8-6, with two members absent, to buy 390 Main St. for $93 million and spend up to $74 million on improvements to the 1942 building. The deal is expected to close today or Friday.

The almost 500,000-square-foot building, constructed as a tank assembly plant and most recently used as a postal center, will be overhauled and turned into a regional government headquarters. In addition to housing the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and its bridge operations division, the Bay Area Toll Authority, the structure will be home to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and, possibly, the Association of Bay Area Governments. Part of the building will be leased out.

“It will serve as an excellent regional governance center,” said Jack Broadbent, executive director of the air board.

Joyce Roy, a transit activist who opposed the move, agreed that putting regional agencies in the same building “is going to speed up the process of getting a true metropolitan planning agency in the Bay Area.”

The decision came after hours of testimony and four meetings at which Oakland officials, including Mayor Jean Quan, argued that the commission should keep its offices in their city, preferably by building a glass high-rise downtown. Other critics said the half-mile distance from BART was too much.

The commission first voted to buy the building in July – for $105 million – calling it the best option for a new home that its real estate consultants could find. The decision angered Oakland officials and captured the attention of East Bay legislators who questioned whether it is legal to use bridge toll revenues to buy real estate, some of which will be leased out.

Six weeks later, after state legislators backed a request by Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, for an audit of the legality of using toll money, the commission backed off the decision and appointed a committee to investigate the deal further. Last month, at the committee’s recommendation, the commission voted to bid on the building, then back on the open market. Last week, the bid was accepted. After a 45-minute closed-session meeting Wednesday, the commission voted to buy the property.

Rehabilitation of the building, which will be almost completely gutted then modernized, is expected to take about a year.

Voting to buy the building were Commissioners David Campos, Bill Dodd, Steve Kinsey, Jake Mackenzie, Kevin Mullin, Jim Spering, Scott Wiener and Adrienne Tissier. Opposed were Tom Bates, Dave Cortese, Federal Glover, Mark Green, Scott Haggerty and Amy Rein Worth.

E-mail Michael Cabanatuan at mcabanatuan@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page C – 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Article source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/12/BA241LGVHF.DTL

In response, Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord), Chair of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, issued the following statement:

“MTC is disconnected from those they serve,” said DeSaulnier.  “By refusing to await an independent review by the State Auditor, today MTC became a prime example of what is wrong with government.  MTC needs to be held accountable for their use of toll payer money.  I am also concerned that if MTC is spending reserve revenues for this acquisition, there may not be sufficient funds available for an emergency.”

“MTC has not demonstrated an immediate need to spend $179 million of toll payer funds on a building in San Francisco,” said DeSaulnier.  “After MTC’s behavior I plan on introducing comprehensive legislation next year to drastically overhaul regional governance in the nine county Bay Area region.  Government needs to be more transparent and responsive to the people they serve.”

The Senate Transportation and Housing Committee will also hold hearings this fall to examine MTC’s governance structure and statutory scope of authority.  The Committee’s review may include but not be limited to the following:  (The State Auditor is also scheduled to examine much of this.)

• How did the MTC AdHoc Committee (charged with making a recommendation to the Commission on this deal) do its research to make its recommendations?  Did it meet in public?  If not, why not?  As the Committee took an official vote, was the AdHoc Committee governed by the Brown Act?  If so, how did the AdHoc Committee comply with the Act?
• The promise MTC made with voters to spend excess toll proceeds for transportation improvements:  Is it legal and appropriate for MTC/Bay Area Transportation Authority (BATA) to spend toll revenues on the purchase of an office building?
• Should the Commission have sought legislation to amend the law to provide the authority for this deal?  The Legislature regularly analyzes changes in law to provide specific statutory authority for real property acquisitions and disposal.  Why didn’t MTC/BATA seek such authority for this project and the creation of the Bay Area Headquarters Authority, where it could be fully vetted and debated in public?
• Where did MTC/BATA get the $179 million available for this project? 
• Are there projects that will not be built because MTC/BATA is tying up toll revenues for decades to pay off bonds issued to finance the building? 
• If there are no projects to spend this money on, doesn’t that imply that the tolls are too high and can be lowered? 
• If these are bond proceeds, does that mean MTC/BATA issued too many bonds and are keeping tolls unnecessarily high to support them?

Give us your opinion on this issue….

Share

Article source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/incontracosta/detail?entry_id=98585