• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

OFFICIAL STATEMENT Relating to $16,500,000 Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District Special Transit Service District No.1 General Obligation Bonds The date of this Official Statement is August 17, 1960 ALAMEDA CONrrRA COSrrA rrRANSIT DISTRIC11 ) Special Transit Service' District No.1 Show'ing Motor Coach Routes to be Operated by the District ) ·0 , ./ / Sa n Francisco G)Oakland RESIDENTIAL AREA ® Berkeley o Hayward INDUSTRIAL AREA G Ri chmond ® San Leandro COMMERCIAL AREA o Alameda G El Cerrito ®San Pablo ......... MOTOR COACH ROUTES ® Albany .-- BOUNOARY Of SPECIAL TRANSIT SERVICE DISTRICT NO . 1 @ Pi edmont @ Emeryville ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT Board of Directors ROBERT K. BARBER, President WILLIAM J. BETTENCOURT, Vice President J. HOWARD ARNOLD ROBERT M. COPELAND WILLIAM H . COBURN, JR. PAUL E. DEADRICH JOHN L. McDoNNELL Officers and Executives JOHN R. WORTHINGTON, General Manager ROBERT E. NISBET, Attorney GEORGE M. TAYLOR, Secretary JOHN F. LARSON, T reasurer-Controller ALAN L. BINGHAM, Public Information Manager Special Services DE LEUW, CATHER & COMPANY, San Francisco ARTHUR C. J ENKINS & ASSOCIATES, San FranCIsco Consulting Engineers ORRICK, D AHLQUIST, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, San Frclilcisco Bond Counsel B ANK OF AMERICA N. T. & S. A., San Francisco THE FlRST NATIONAL CITY BAN K OF NEW YORK, New York HARRIS TRUST and SAVINGS BANK, Chicago Paying Agents BLYTH & CO., INC., San Francisco Financing COlZSultants TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODU CTORY __ ___ _ THE BONDS _______ __ ___ ____________________ . _______ _________________ . __ _____ ____ _____ __ _____ -__ ___ ___ ______ _____ _____ _ 2-3 Authority for Issuance ___ ____ ___ ____ __________ _____________ _____________ _____ ____ ______ ___ __ __ _ 2 Description of Bonds _____ _____ . ______ ___ . _____ __ _____ ___ . __ _____________ .. ___ _____ _______________ . _____ ________ _ 2 Redemption _____ ____ __ ___ ______ __ ___ ____ _______ ___ __ _______________ __ ______ _______ ___________ ________ _____ ___ _ 2 Application of Bond Proceeds _________ _____ __ ____ ___ __ ______________________________ ___ __ ______ _____ ____ _ 2 Security of Bonds ____ ________ ____ __ ____ ________ ____ _____ ______ __. _____________________ ____ __ _____ ___ __ ____ ___ __ . __ 2 Paying Agents __ ___ ___ __ ___ _____ ______ _____ __ __ ___ _________________ ___ __ ______ ____ ____ ____ ___ _______________ ____ __ _ 2 Registration _________ ___ ___ __ ___ ___ ____ _____ ___ ________ __ ______ __ ___ _____ _________ ___ _______ ____ ___ _______ _ 3 Legal Opinion ____ __ __ ____ __ ____________ ____ __ ________ _____ ___ __ ____ ___ ________ ___ __ _____ __ _________ ____ __ ____ -____ ._ 3 Tax Status ------ ----------- ------ -. -- -------- --- -------- -- -- -- --- ---- -- ----- -- ------ ---- --- -- --------------------- ---- 3 Legality for Investment in California _____ _____ __ ____ __ __ ____ ____ __ ____ __ ______ ___ __ ___ ___ __ ___ _ 3 THE DIS TRICT __ ____ __ ___ __ . ___ _____ ____ ___ __ _____ _______ ___ __ ___ ____ ___ ____________ _. ____ __ _____ ______ ____ _____ __ __ 4-13 General ______ ___ ________ ____ ___ _____ _____ ______ _____________________ __ __________ ___ _. __ _________ __ ___ _______ ___ __ 4 Organization __ _______ ___ __ _____ . _____ ___ ________________ ___ _______ ___ ____ __ . _____ __________ _ 6 Officers and Finances __ ____________ ____ _______ ______ _______ __________ __ ____ __ ____ __ __ . ___ 7 Acquisition of Properties ________ ___ ____ __ ____ ___ ____ __ ___ __ ____ ___ _______ ___ __ __ __ 8 Population Records and Forecasts __ ____ . ___ ______ __ ____ __ __ ____ ___________ _ 9 Traffic and Revenues ___ ___ _________ ______ __ ____ __ __ ________ __ ____ _____ ____ ______ ____. ______ __ ________ ______ . __ __ 10 Revenue Projections, Debt Service and Taxing PoweL __ ___________ _: __ ______ __ ___ ___. __ _ 11 Assessed Valuation and Bonded DebL ___ __ ____ __ __ ._._ .. __ ____ __ ____ __ ____ _______ _____ __ 12-13 ECONOMIC BACKGROUND 14- 19 Contra Costa County Cities _____ ____ _____ ______ . ____ _. ________ .. __ . __ __. ______ __ _____ __ __ . ______ _ 14 Alameda County Cities _______________ ___ _... ___ ___ . ____ . __ .. _. ____ . ___ __ ___. __ ____ _ _. _____ . ___ . __ 14-16 Industry . __. ___ ___ _____ __ ______ ___ ___ _. __ __. _. __ . __ __.. ___ ._. __ ._ .. _. __ _. ______ __ _____ __. ___ . ____ __ __ ._ 16 Agriculture _______ _____ ___ ___ .. ____ ___ ____ ___ .. _________ . __ __ ______ .. __ _. __ . __ __.. ____ __ . ___ . ________ . ____ ._ 17 Retail Sales ______ . ___ _____ __ ____ __ .. ____ . __ ___ _. _____ ___ . _______ ____ __ _. ___ __ ____ ._ .. _____ __ ___ ____ _____ . __ i7 Banking and Finance ___ . __ __________ __ ____ .. ____ _____ __ . __ __ ___ __ _. _____ .. __ ___. __. ____ ... _________ .. __ _ 18 Transportation _______ .. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ .... ______ __ . __ . ________ ___ __ __ _. ___ __ ___ . __ 18 San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit DistricL _____ ._ 19 Appendix I-SUMMARY FEASIBILITY REPORT ____ . _____ __ ___ ______ .. _. __ ... ____ ____ _____ . ___ . __ __. ___ __ 21 - 28 Appendix 2- ABSTRACT OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT ___ _. __ ________ . ________ ._.. ___ _______ ___ __ .. 29- 32 11 ALAMEDA-CONTRA COST A TRANSIT DISTRICT 506 FIFTEENTH STREET • OAKLAND • CALIFORNIA To WHOM IT MAY CONCERN : The purpose of this Official Statement is to furnish information regard­ ing the issuance and sale of $16,500,000 general obligation bonds of Special Transit Service District No. 1 of Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District. It is presented for the information of all who may become holders of those bonds. The material contained in this Official Statement was compiled for and at the direction of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District by Blyth & Co., Inc., in its capacity as financing consultant to the District. Attached to and made a part of the Official Statement is the summary feasibility report of Messrs. DeLeuw, Cather & Company, independent engineers retained by the District for studies and recommendations relating to the acquisition and oper­ ation of mass transit facilities. Other summaries of engineering and legal documents contained in the Official Statement do not purport to be complete or authoritative. Reference is made to the documents on file at the office of the District for full information. This Official Statement is not to be construed as a contract with pur­ chasers of the Bonds. All statements herein contained which involve estimates or matters of opinion, whether or not expressly so designated, are to be read as such and not as representations of fact. All legal matters incident to the authorization, issuance, and sale of the bonds are subject to approval of Messrs. Orrick, Dahlquist, Herrington & Sutcliffe, San Francisco, as Bond Counsel to the District. The execution and delivery of this Official Statement has been authorized by the District. August 17, 1960 ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT By ROBERT K. BARBER President of the Board of Directors By JOHN R. WORTHINGTON c;eneral lWanager 111 View of East Bay cities and San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge from downtown San Francisco. Albany and Berkeley at upper left; Oakland , Emeryville and Piedmont upper center; Alameda to right of estuary, with Naval Air Station at front and residential sections to rear. San Leandro and San Lorenzo extend southward behind the estuary. To the ri ght of center in the foreground are the ex clusive bu s ramps in San Francis co leading to the Transbay Transit Terminal. © Photo by Clyde Sunderland INTRODUCTORY The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District embraces the most densely populated parts of Alameda County and Contra Costa County. These areas lie directly east of San Francisco across San Francisco Bay. The District is almost co-extensive with Special Transit Service District No.1, which includes eight in­ corporated cities in Alameda County, three adjoining cities in Contra Costa County, and a number of unincorporated suburban sections tributary to this metropolitan area. The Special Transit Service Dis­ trict, including a recent annexation, has an estimated population of 940,000 and covers approximately 240 square miles. Property within the District has a current estimated market value approximating $6 billion. Mass transportation has always been a vital factor in the economy of the East Bay cities. In earlier years this came about as a result of economic dependence upon San Francisco, to which Clty a large number of residents commuted daily to work. During recent decades, and particularly from the onset of World War II, the economic dependence of the East Bay upon San Francisco has been much reduced, though the total traffic between the two areas has continued to increase. The east shore of San Francisco Bay now has a well-established industrial belt extending from Richmond in the north to Hayward in the south, a distance of over forty miles. Many persons employed in this area reside in San Francisco. Com­ mercial enterprises of the principal cities included in the metropolitan area now rival those of San Fran­ cisco and supply the daily needs of a somewhat larger underlying population. Thus, without appre­ ciable reduction in the number of persons commuting to San Francisco, an increase has taken place in the number moving daily to and from places of employment within the East Bay. The Key System, a private company now associated with National City Lines, has long provided mass transportation both within the area and between San Francisco and the East Bay. Efforts of the company to cope with the problems of growth and necessary modernization were hampered by heavy capital requirements and tax burdens, and have not kept pace with the needs of the area, resulting in a generally unsatisfactory transit situation.

Load more

  40

Copy Link