Under a proposed levy, San Mateo County residents would be taxed — more than $600 million over the life of the measure — to subsidize transit services primarily operated by agencies outside our jurisdiction, namely BART and MUNI.
While these agencies provide valuable service within the county, San Mateo County taxpayers have no voting representation on their governing boards, no contractual service arrangements, and no operational oversight or influence over how locally generated tax dollars would be spent in support of these services.
Local leaders are now grappling with whether San Mateo County should join up to four other Bay Area counties in a regional effort to fund public transit through a half-cent sales tax. This measure, which would appear on the November 2026 ballot as a citizens’ initiative, is enabled by Senate Bill 63, authored by state senators Scott Wiener and Jesse Arreguín.
It is well known that many of our regional transit agencies — including Caltrain, BART and MUNI — remain at serious risk due to ongoing structural deficits stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic and sustained changes in work and commute patterns. SB 63 is a response to that reality, intended to stabilize and modernize our regional transit systems.
I commend the many local and regional leaders who have worked tirelessly to prevent the collapse of public transit in the Bay Area. Their leadership has been essential.
But even the most well-meaning regional solution must be built on a foundation of equity, transparency and accountability. As currently written, SB 63 does not include the safeguards needed to ensure that San Mateo County taxpayers and riders receive the level of service and benefit that should accompany such a significant financial contribution.
This proposal is an unprecedented ask. In past regional transportation funding efforts — such as regional bridge toll increases governed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission — revenue allocations were wholly developed with county input and oversight. Senate Bill 63, however, offers no such guarantees.
Our county depends on a complex mix of regional transit systems — SamTrans, BART, Caltrain, and MUNI — but we only exercise operational control over SamTrans and share governance of Caltrain. Without formal service agreements or enforceable accountability measures, we have little assurance that new tax revenue will be used to directly benefit our local communities. Our unique lack of governance authority is why our participation in a new tax requires a specific accountability structure.
In response, I am proposing amendments to SB 63 to protect the interests of San Mateo County while contributing to the broader regional vision. Chief among these proposals is the establishment of a San Mateo County Regional Measure Oversight Committee (ROC), which would govern all SB 63 funds flowing to BART and MUNI derived from San Mateo County.
The ROC would be empowered to enforce performance-based disbursement of funds. No tax dollars would be automatically released to external agencies without measurable compliance with agreed-upon service standards and interagency agreements. These agreements would govern a range of obligations — from minimum service levels, station maintenance standards, and public safety benchmarks, to fare coordination and schedule integration. For example, BART and MUNI would be required to maintain equitable service levels in San Mateo County that are proportional to other service areas, with no disproportionate service cuts during fiscal shortfalls. Fare structures must remain regionally consistent and may not include surcharges based on county origin. Moreover, San Mateo County riders must be able to rely on clean, well-maintained and safe station environments. If these standards are not met, the ROC would have authority to issue formal notices of noncompliance, withhold funds until deficiencies are addressed, and redirect unspent revenue toward SamTrans projects benefiting San Mateo County riders at the conclusion of the tax collection period.
These accountability terms are not abstract policy preferences — they are baseline expectations that every taxpayer deserves. If we are being asked to pay, we must also be given the tools to guarantee we receive what we’re paying for.
A regional funding solution for transit is necessary and urgent. A faltering Bay Area transit system will only worsen the challenges we already face: unaffordable housing, growing traffic congestion, and rising greenhouse gas emissions. But we cannot accept a structure in which hundreds of millions of dollars could leave San Mateo County without a guaranteed return, without enforceable oversight and without recourse if our expectations are not met.
To the city and county officials, transit advocates and community leaders who have worked to bring us this far: thank you. Your leadership has kept this conversation alive. I encourage you to remain just as committed to ensuring that San Mateo County is not left behind.
San Mateo County must not — and will not — be the exception when it comes to having power over monies raised for transportation.
Assemblymember Diane Papan, D-San Mateo, represents the 21st Assembly District including Bayside communities of San Mateo County.
(5) comments
Most Californians have no idea how much they are being fleeced by their government. Just returned from Boston where checks for dinners and even small purchases were notably lower due to their 6% sales tax. And they have much better, safer and more convenient public transportation there than we do here. The last thing we need is a new regressive sales tax for our politicians to mismanage as usual.
Our current "one party government " in power will never address the problem of transit costs overruns due to the political contributions transit unions make to Democrats. While it benefits the transit unions it hurts all other non-transit union workers.
She has the typical solution for every and each problem. Just get more funding, form another committee, attend thousands of inconsequent meetings, and never, ever listen to her constituents. As easygerd mentioned along with many others; form a true regional transit system that can optimize economies of scale, boot out labor union influence and set up a system that is coordinated, and efficient, instead of the cobbled together mess that we have gotten ourselves into. Yes, it will mean firing the redundant, already demonstrated, marginal management teams and destructing the administrative burden. Wishful thinking, of course, the deep state grinds on and has long lost its intended purpose.
"Our county depends on a complex mix of regional transit systems — SamTrans, BART, Caltrain, and MUNI — but we only exercise operational control over SamTrans and share governance of Caltrain."
The correct phrase isn't 'complex mix' but 'complete mess'. All transit agencies (BART, VTA, Muni, Caltrain, Samtrans) have shown mismanagement by their boards and MTC (with members Canepa, Papan) withholding public transit funding and rerouting it to a slush fund to make these agencies look poor.
Companies in trouble merge or get bought out. Combine all 28 agencies and make that complex mess work for the residents.
Thanks for your guest perspective, Ms. Papan. As usual, I hear of a push for more money regardless of which county it goes to and no word of fiscal management. Instead, you propose we waste more taxpayer money on another oversight committee which supposedly will “fight” for a fair share but with no guarantee of anything resembling fiscal management. Has San Mateo had any formal service agreements or enforceable accountability measures in the past? If not, why would other organizations agree to it now? You say a faltering Bay Area transit system will only worsen the challenges we already face: unaffordable housing, growing traffic congestion, and rising greenhouse gas emissions, but have you stopped to think that the costs of continually propping up transit systems to operate at 100% capacity with only 50% or less ridership is contributing to these challenges? Except for transit union workers under no threat of anybody who will practice fiscal management. Vote NO on any tax measures supporting transportation until these folks decide to practice fiscal management. Don’t worry, if you change your mind, more transit taxes will always be proposed because ever increasing salaries, pensions, and benefits must be paid for when transit operates at 100% capacity with 50% ridership.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.