HomeMy WebLinkAbout0505.093:1
.1
I
~ ~
September 23, 1993
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
" . , ,.. .. ,. .
PROPOSED SEPARATION OF TRANS!T DISTRICT FROM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND MERG£R WI TH THE CONOES T ION MAl""N"'A""G"OO"""NT'", ..... A""G"EN"'-ICY..L _________ _
Members of the Council:
REPORT IN "Q:RIEF
Includ~d on the Novenilier 2. 1993 ballet in Santa Clara 2ounty. will
be an advisory vote on the consolidation of the Santa Clara County
Tr~n5'it District (Transit District) '~ith the Santa Clara County
Congestion Management Agency (('MAl.
The purpose of the proposed merger is to form a more efficient,
cost-effective~ and accountable local t.ransit agency that is better
able to develop local consensus and support to compete for federal
and state transportation funds. Based upon consideration of a
number of issues related to the proposed merger - -primarily the
adverse impact it would have on the role of the CMA. as ~ell as a
serious concern about combining the planning/progr.arruning functions
of the CMA with the operational/implementation functions of the
TransiL District --staff has concluded that the Transit District
sho,:ld r-ot be merged ·~ .. ith the CMA.
Staff recommends that Council not
consolidation of the Transit
Management Agency.
support the advisor~ vote on Lhe
District with the Congestion
Staff also recommends that Council eA~ress its intent to support
steps to develop an alternate proposal to separate the Transit
District from the Board of Supervisors and form a new transit/
t:ransportation enti ty. if the advi BOry vote does not pass on
November 2nd.
CMJ(,SOS,93
'.' "
I
I o
BACKGROUND
The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors haye approved a
resolution ordering that an advisory vote on the consolidati~n of
the Transit District and th~ CongestiDn Ma~agement Agency be placed
on the NovembEl' 2, 1993 ballot. The proposed measure is set [or-th
as follows;
Shall the Sant.a Clara COl!nty Transit District be consolidated
with the Santa Clara County Congest ion Nanagement Age~cy and
governed by a board, separate from the County Board of
Supervisors; consisting of sixt~en (16) merr.bers selected as
follows:
Five (5) members elected by district, one from each Santa
Clara County supervisorial district;
Five (5J members representing the City of San Jose,
appointed by the San Jose City Council;
Five (5) members representing all the other cities within
Santa Clara County, apI=ointed as C'un:.-er..tly provided in
the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency Joint
Powers Agreement;
One (1) merr.ber representing the County of Santa Clara.
appointed by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.
The five directly el'":cted representatives shall have four-year
terms ar~ be limited co a total of three successive four-year
terms.
The compensation of the governing board members shall boe
limited to payment for each meeting attended by the member or
for each day~s service rendered as a member by request of the
board~ together with any expenses incident thereto, as
provided by law for governing board l'T1.embers of sanitation
districts.
The governing board shall ha.ve the following advisory
committees: Cal a Policy Advisory Board consisting of one
representative of each city and one county representative and
{b) a Technical Advisory Committee consisting cf the
appropriate technical staff members frem the ci ties and county
with one vote per member agency.
The rights of the employees transferred to the ccnsolidated
agency will be protected according to applicable law.
This measure will appear in sUf1IDlarized form on the ballot as
follows:
9/23/93
Page 2
I
I
~,
".,.{"-c'c
. ";'.~'.~":"::~-,
.• --!. /.::. .....
":.~
'"
~ta Clara County Transit. DJs~.rict ~leasure: Advisory
Vote Only
Shall the Sant-a Cla..t·u Cour..ty Transit District. be
separated from the Board of Supervisors and consolidated
with the Santa Clar~ County Congestion Management Agency
to for'm a more efficient,. cost-effective and accountable
local transit agency saving a projected minimum
$ per year. A new part-time, sixteen-member
governing beard will consist of five directly-elected
members and city and county representatives, whose
compensation shall be limited to meetings attended and
authorized daysI service plus incidental expenses, with
two advisory committees to strearr,line the policy-making
process.
This advisory measure grew Out of a Transit District Board
subcommittee evaluation of means to de""elop public support for
legislation to change the governing of the Transit Distri~t.
Included as Attachr.lent 1 is a copy of a memorandum (.:lated July 27 ~
1993) from Suoervisors and Tr·ansi~ Board Members Diane McKenna and
Rod Diridon -to the Transit District Board of Supervisors,
reco'1tmending that the above reference meaSl.ire be placed on the
November 2~ 1993 ballot and providing related background
information.
If the advisory measure pa5ses~ appropriate enabling state
legislation will then need to be developed and passed in order to
effect such a change. The existing CMA Joint Powers Agreement would
also need to be amended. Finally, an election for the directly
elected represencatives (targeted for November 1394) would also
need to occur.
OBJECTIVES OF PROPOSED CONSOL!!JAI1..QN
The above referenced McKenna/Diridon memo (JI..ttachment 1) and the
resolution of the Transit District Board identify the following
objectives and benefits of the proposed consoljdation~
a. Improved coordination of efforts by all particjpating local
government agenciesj
h. Reduced inefficient duplication of effort and cumbersome and
confusing decision making resulting from the current
separation of transportation planning and management among the
County of Santa Clara, the Transit District; the Traffic
Authority, the Local Transportation Agency, the Transpoz·tation
Commission a~d the Congestion Management Agency;
CMR:SOS:93 9/23/93
page 3
· .•.
c. Streamlined prO<:'~ss for obtaining consensus on countywide
transportation priorities, improv~ public accountabilitYr
centralize responsibili.ty and authurit} ... , and improve the
balance in repre$entation and policy-ma~ing.
EVALVA1ION
There are two basic actions incorpo!'"ated ir.to the the ball at
measure: (1) to separate the Transit District from the Board of
Supervisors, and (.:;2) to merge the Transit District with the
Congestion Management Agency.
The following sections identify several issu~s and related
considerations (pro, neutra.l, con, and dependEnt upon reader's
perspective) regarding the proposed ballot measure. The information
in thig section of the staff report was developed in conjunccion
with the CMA's Technical Advisory Committee and ~as reviewed and
approved by the TAC on September 16, 1993. The TAC did not take a
pro or con position on the ballot measure. The topics addressed by
the TAC include:
-Role/Influe~ce for Cities
Role/Influence for County Board
Role/Function of CMA
-Access to Federal/State Funding
-Cost Consequences
CMA Operations
CMA Staff Structure
1. ROLB/~OERCZ FOR CITIES
A. Current city representation fa~ transit is (il advisory
via participation on the Santa Clara CQunty
Transportation Commiasiar: and Cii) indirect through one
af t_he five County Supervisors. The proposal would
provide (iJ direct city representation as well as (ii}
geographic representation through directly elected
members. The proposal cou1_d benefit cities in their
efforts to influence County transportation policy and the
operations of the transit district.
B. Representatives of the smaller cities, due to membership
rotation on the CMA Board, will tend to se:-ve relatively
short periods (1 to 2 years) as boa.rd members. The
directly elected member3 will tend to serve: relatively
long periods (4 year minimum .. 8 to 12 years prObable) .
The representatives of San Jose a.nd the County v.;ill
probably fall somewhere in-between. To the extent that
c~ntinuity as well as knowledge and understanding of a
CMR,SOS,93 9/23/93
Page 4
...
:, .
..;::.-.-::-
'-. .-'.'~. ·}~{-:~;.;l~~' .~?~r.~i '.
topic represents an advantage, the representatives from
the smaller citilOls wi~l be at a disadvantage as compared
to other board members. The role of all ci~i~s will be
diminished in relation to the non··city representation.
C. An increase in th.e number of board members (from 12 tc
16) will diminish the r~lative influence for current ~~
board members on CMA functi~ns.
~. ROLE/INFLUENCE POR COUNTY BOARD
A. The functions and impacts of the Boa~d of supervisors
regarding transit will be substantially reduced. It is
unlikely that the Board would continue to be able to
provide strong leadership on transit issues.
B. County Board representation on the new cr·1A wil] be oae of
sixt.eeu seats versus the two of t .... elve seats on the
current CMA Board.
3 • ROLE/FUNCTION OP' CKA
A. The p·llrpoae, objectives and functions of the C'MA
(planning and programming) are completely different from
those of the transit system (operations and service
delivery) .
B.
The CMA currently serves as a county-wide forum for
consensus building and collectivle. decision making on
project prioritization and programming for fed~ral/6tate
funding. It is likely to tak~ on the added role of long
range county-wide transportation plan..,ing. The CMA~ s
role could also expand further to address multi-modal
transportation, land use and air quality issues. By
contrast, the Transit District is primarily cO!lcerned
with operat.ional o.spect~ of day-to-day serv-ice delivery,
short-range ope:cacional plan!;.ing, and project specific
expanSi0:il and implemantatic:l for bus ar.d rail transit.
By combining the functions of these t ..... ·o agencies, one or
the other will tend to dominate. Given the very large
staff and budget of the transit system, it will tend to
dominate and thereby diminish the role and effectiveness
of the current QI.A funet ians, including the
responsibilities and expectations for a multi-modal
approach to reducing congestion in the County.
The existinq CMA has and will likely continue to take on
an expanding role and level of responsibility Ci.e.
County !,iiide transportation plar .. ning), in the same manner
.-... :
,.
9/23/93
page 5
and for the same reasons that MTC has evolved cv~r the
last 30 years r even without inclus~on of responsibility
for thl! transit system. Merging the Trar.sit District
with the CMA would be a significant expansion in the role
and profile of the new CMA.
C. If the primary objective of the merger is implementation
of rail transit in Santa Clara County, then the proposed
merger of the Transit District: and the CMA is:.
advantageous in cerms of foc1.:sing aut'l,ority and
responsibility for Lmding and implementation in a single
entity.
D. If the objective is to have the CMA continue and expand
its role as a forum f::"r collective decision making for
planning and funding of transportation projects and
related transportation, land use and air q'..lality planning
issues. then the proposed merger would be
disadvantageous.
4. ACCBSS TO l'BPDAL/STATB FllNDING
A. One of the points made in favor of m~rging the transit
system with the CMA is that it will assure that Santa
Clara County speaks \\lith a urlited voice at M'TC and
therefore Santa Clara County is likely to be more
cOTr,petitive for federal and state funds for transit
projects (streamlining process r centralize responsibil i ty
and authority} .
On the other hand, Santa Clara County appears to be able
to achieve this objective through the efforts of the CMA
to develop a consensus through information sharing r
understanding and informed decision making. The fact
that there are differing opinions and compet.ing interests
within the county is to be expected and is healthy and
vital to good d~cision making.
B. The extent that mc act iens recognize and support the
interests of rr~jor transportation providers (Caltrans,
BART, AC Transit. etc.) apart from the CMA process, the
proposed merger would be beneficial in terms of removing
any ambiguity regarding transit projects and funding in
Santa Clara County.
C. The transformation of the 0ItA into primarily a transit
district will impair th"! perceived (and probably actual)
objectivity of the CMA,' s project.: selection/prioritizdtion
process for state and federal funds.
<:MR: 50S: 93 9/23/93
page 6
•
-./-" .. '
S • COST CONSBQl7BNCIi:S
A. The fundamental cost consideration is the total cost to
the taxpayer and not relative increases and decreases for
particular agencies. Available info~ation indicates
modest, if any, projected staff and administrative cost
savings due to the merger. Potential savings in
operating costs have yet to be evaluated.
6 • CMA OPERATIONS
A. The size and scope 0: the Transit District is so much
large~ than the CMA (IOD to 200 times larger in terms of
budgets) that the CMA decision making process (agendas
items, d.iscussions~ committees, budgets, etc.) will be
heavily influenced by and skewed toward transit.
B.
Tte Transit District has an annual operations budget of
approximately $170 million plus another $10e to $150
million per year in capital projects. The existing CMA~
by comparison, has a current operating budget of
approximately $1.5 million and no budget for capital
projects.
Influence of individual me~ber{s)
sixteen member board than on the
Tra~sit District Board.
is less likely on a
current five member
c. Combining transiL operations ~ith the current and likely
future CMA. functions: might, theoretically, be a move
toward a broader integration of County-wide land use,
transportation, and air quality plans and actions.
On the other hand, an argument can be ma.de that a
transit-oriented agency, due to its narrow focus, is an
unlikely basis upon which to buila a consensuS for
countywide planning.
D. A larger number of policy board members could result in
inc.reased accessibi 1 i ty by the public to the decision
making body. rt could also cause uncertainty rega~ding
who one should contact (i.e. city, county or directly
elected representative) .
E. Given their other political and professional
responsibilities, is it reasonable to expect that members
of the expanded CMA beard will have sufficient time ':..0
effectively govern both the transit system and CMA
functions?
CMR: 505: 93 9/27J/93
Page 7
,",-"
7.
o
Representatives frem the smaller ci':ies t}''Pically have
their respective city council responsibilities plus full
time professional jobs and no staff. San Jose and county
Board of Supervisor representatives cypically have
council/board responsibilities which are in effect their
professional jobs. They also have assigned staff. The
directly elected representatives are less likely to have
a similar level of other political responsibility, but
would li1.cely have full time pr-ofe.5sional jobs and mayor
may not have staff available.
CIIA STAPF STltOCT1lJ\E
A. If the Transit District and the CMA are merged, a
probable staff organizatiol'!al structuz"e would be to have
one executive director. This approach would accentuate
the shift of the CMA to a transit district operating
philosophy and psychology. Given the size of the Transit
District's budget and the scope of transit-related
management decisions that wO\lld need to be made on a
regular basis, the director w.ould have to be, or of
necessity become, primarily a transit manager.
B. A.T'l alternative staff organizational structure would be to
keep the transit system and (;MA functions relatively
separate by having two separate directoI-S independently
reporting directly to the Board. This approach may offer
the best hope of retaining some of the independence and
relative objectivity of t~e current CMA function if such
an arrangement can be made to 'Work. Ho""ever, this
approach is not believed to be workable over any extended
time period.
QONCLU~
Based upon consideration of the issues involved. staff concludes
that the Transit District should not be merged with the CMA for the
following primary reasons:
• The existing role and function of the CMA are highly
satisfactory in terms of local aW3reness and participation by
cities, as well as overall staff and organizational leadership
~~d effectiveness at boch the county and regional level.
• The planning and programming functions of the CMA should be
separate and independent of operational and implementation
functions; in order to maintain objectivity, breadth, vision
and consensus.
9/23/93
Page 8
• Transi t operations, by naturE! ci its
size (laO to 200 times larger than
diminish the role and effe:::tiveness
functions.
disproportional large
CMAf. will seriously
of the current CMA
Furthermore, steps should be taken at aI'. appropriate tir.:e to
develop a proposal to separate the Transit District from the Board
of Supervisors and form a new t.ransit/transpcrtation entity.
Alternatives that could be considered if the ballot measure fails
include at least the following:
a. The option of separating the transit district from the
B':lard of Supervisors and forming a new transit district
entity rather than merging it \\lith the O" .. ~. Such an
entity could provide many of the benefits of the Pz"oposed
merger, without the concerns for the impact on current
CMA functions_
b. Another alternative would be to separate all of the
current functions of the Santa Clara County
Transportation Agency (transit, roads, a.irports) from the
Board of SUp€rvisorE and form a new multi-modal
transportation entity, which w~uld he respcnsible for
operational and implementat~on functions related to
expressways and other county roads; bus~ light rail T and
CalTrain; and county airports.
c. If a primary objective is to reduce the number of
transportation agencies in Santa Clara County, the
possibility of merging the Local Transportation Authori ty
(LTA) with the dMA could be considered. The functions of
the LTA, which tend to be project prioritization and
funding allocation and not opf!:rations and implementation T
are more similar and compatible ..... ith those of the CHA, as
compared with the Transit District. The merger of the
LTA and the CMA, along with an alternative like
B (above); coupled 'Wi th the approach~ng sunset provisions
of the Traffic Authority, ..-ould establi~h a single entity
with responsibility for transportation planning and
programming functions, and a single county level entity
with responsibility for operations and implementation.
The specifics of any such alternative entity should corne out of a
responsible assessment of issues and options. The CMA could serve
as an appropriate body to commission and oversee the preparation of
such a study.
CMR:50S:93 9/23/93
page 9
RSCQMMENDATION
staff recommends that COllncil not support the advisory vote on the
consolidation of the Santa Clara County Transit District with the
Santa Clara County Congestion iofanagemant: Agency, scheduled for
November 2, 1993~
Staff also recommends that Council express its int.ent to support
steps to develop an alternate proposal to separate the Tra.nsit
District from the Board of: Supervisors and form a new
transit/transportation entity, if the advisory vote does not pass
on November 2nd.
Respectfully submitted,
'#~/ cQtutyv-
MARVIN L. DVERWAY
Chief Transportation Official
Assistant 4ty Manager
K&\~ETH R. SCHREIBER
Di.l:''9ctor of Planning a!1d
Community Environment
Attachments: 1. Memorandum dated July 27, 1993 from supervisors
Dianne McKenna and Rod Diridon
cc: Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Congestion Management Agency (Mike Evanhoe, TAC Members 1
9(23/93
Page 10
0.
Dia 11 Il(! ,HcKel111{l
'''''f'' ' •• ,,,, ,"',/11"' Jj"/.,, ..
MEMORANDUM
TO: Transit District Board of Supervisors
/..' tv
F.90M: Dianne McKe'il~-?l
R~
SUBJECT: Transit DistrIct Governance
DATE: July 27,1993
Ftegommended Action
H is recommended that the Transit District Board of Supervisors approve
placing on Ihe November 1993 ballot for voler consideration an advisory
measure deanng with Ihe consolidation of Iransponalion agencies in the
county and a reconfigura1ion of the governing body.
The proposal consists of separating the Transit Dislrict from Ihe Board of
Supervisors and merging it with the county Congestion Management Agency
(CMA). The new merged agency would be governed by a 16-member board,
conSisting of five representatives from the CHy of San Jose, five from the other
dties in the county according to th9 er.isling C/.'A model, one from the Board
of Superwisor.3, and five directly elected representatives, using the current
supervisorial district boundaries.
Background
Earlier 1his year, Supervisor Zoe L,:,fgren, as Transit District Chalr, appoin1ed a
Board subcommittee to develop a proposal to separate the Transit District
from the Board 01 Supervisors. The intent was to put before the voters an
adviSOry ballo! measure to develop public support for legislafion 10 change
the gO\lerning cf the Transit District.
:
I
;.,;
, ,.'
Page 2
In de ..... eiapi:1g a proposal !or Transit Dislrict governance. the 'Board
subcommittee was concerned that es:ablishing a S2parate Transit District
would contribute to the proliferation of transportation agencies in the county.
In addition to the Board of Supervisors, the county has numerous agencies
involved in transportation policy, including the CMA. TraHic Authority, the
Measure A Local Transportation Authority (LTA) and the Transportation
Commission. This situation results in a cumbersome and confusing
transportation decision-making process. Therefore, it is proposed that the
Transit District be separa:ed from the Board of Supervisors and merged with
the CMA.
From a local perspective, merging the Cr-.."tA and the Transit District would
resul1 in a streamlined process for obtaining consensus on CClUr.ty
transportation priorities. It presents an opportunity for impro .... ing
accountability. centralizing responsibility and authority. providing balanced
representation and improving cost-effectiveness. The Transit District staff and
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation are expected to have cost savings
figures available at the Board's July 27th meeting.
From a regional perspec1ive, the focus of the county's transportation effort
ever the next 20 years will be on delfvering the Measure A program. which
depends upon the county's being able 10 obtain 'ederal and state matching
funds. Curremly. the CMA "nd the Transit District are both involved in the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) process \0 obtain funding for
transit projects. Although their interests are similar, there are times when they
are at odds with each other. This is because U"lC CMA also has to take into
considsra:ion the priorities of the county's 15 cities, which usually are local
streets and roads projects.
If the Transit District is merged with the Ct ... 'IA. then there will be an assurance
that the county will be speaking with a united voice at MTC. This will enhance
its ability to obtain the necessary state and federal malching funds needed for
the Measure A program. as well as fO( other important transportation prOjects.
..
o
Page 3
Governance
11 is proposed that a merged CMNTrar1sit DiStrict ..... ~ould be governed by the
current CMA Governing Board. with a slight modifica1ion. The CMA
Governing Board cons~sts of 12 members: 10 representing the ciUes. one fram
the Board of SupeNlsors, and one from the Transit District Board. It was
established according to the following principles. which would continue to
make sense for a merged CMAlTransit District:
o Representation on the Governing Board based upon pop!Jlation,
o City groupings based upon common community interF:'sts, wherever
possible.
o City groupings that make sense geographically.
o The Goveming Board kept to a size that would allow i1 to function
effectively as a decision-making body.
~t also is the intent to t:.ave a majority of the Governing Board made up of
indivlduals wno have decision-making responsibility for both land-use and
transportation policy. This is essential for e:lsuring a link.age between ~and
use!l.ransportation in the county.
tt is proposed that 1he current CMA Governing Board structure be modified by
replacing the Transit District Board apPOintment with five directly elected
members, .one from each supervisorial district. This would result in a
CMAlTrdnsit DistriC1, Governing 80ard conSisting of five represen!atives: from
the City of Sari Jose, five from the other cities according to the current CMA
model, one from the Board of SL:pervisors. and five directly elected
representattlles.
1t makes ser.se to continue 10 have one member of the Board of Super.risOl's
represented on the new merged agency's Governing Boa.rd because of the
Board of Supervisors' responsibilitles for the county road and expressway
systems, and for fand 4 use p~anning in the untrlcorporated areas of the county.
Page 4
The directiy elected representati" .. es wouid serve lo~r~year terms arid be
limited to a tota! of three successive terms. These positions WOL.::!d be part
time and non-salaried. Meetjng stipends and other related issues would be
governed by exis.ting state taw pertaining to Sanitation Districts_
This Goveming Board structure avoios the politically dIfficult Issues of having
to rearrange city groupings for the appointed city represen1atives, and having
to redraw district lines for the directly E!lected representatives.
The Governing Board would have two advisory committees: (a) Policy
Advisory Board (PAB), modeled after the existing Tramc Authority PAS; and (b)
Technical Advisory Commitlee (TAC). consisting of city and county stafl
according to the existing CMA model. tt also is the intent to estabnsh a strong
committee structure to enhance the effectiveness of the Governing Beard's
declston-making process.
Process
Some of the steps necessary to bring about a merger of the CMA and the
Trans~ District include the Ic!lowing:
o Voter approval of an advisory ballot measure in November 1993.
o Developing the necessary enabling legislation.
o Ame:1ding the CMA's Joint Powers Agreement (.}PA).
o Impfementing the transition and merger.
o Holding an eieC1;ion in November 1994 for the directly elected
re prase :1tatives.
•
GOVERNING BOARD COMPOSITION
It is proposed that the Transit District be separaled tram the Board 01
Supervisors and merged with the CMA. The new me-rged agency wo~ld be
governed by a 16-member board consisting of the foliDwing representation:
City of San Jose
Los Altos
Los Ailos Hills
Mountain View
Palo Alto
Santa Clara
Sunnyvale
Campb.il
CUpertino
Los Gatos
Monte Sereno
Saratogd
Gilroy
Milpitas
Morgan HI!I
County Board of Supervisors
Directly Elected
(One from each Supervisorial District)
Number of M.mbers
5
3
5
:,.-,,/
;'" ,~:,~"
--------
RESOLUTION AND ORD~R OF TkE BOARDS or SU;E?VISOPS Of THE
SANTA CLAR.1\ COlINTi' TRN~srT D1srRICT P.,);D T:-.:E c')uwn' or Sl\NTA
CLARA CALLING AfJD PF.O·1I DING FOR A SPECIAL CCUNTY1-iI DE E1..EC?Ior..r
ON l~OVENBER 2. 1993 fOR AN AD'nSORY VOTE 0:: THE: CONsOLrD ..... 'TrOJ~
OF THE DISTRICT WITH THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY CO~GESTION
l'lANAGEMEN' AGEl.'CY AND ORDERING THE CONSOLr~ATrOI'; O~ THIS ELECTION
WITH THE STATEWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HE.LD ON THE SAf1E DATE
WHER£AS. the effective alleviation of traffic congestio~ in
Santa Clara CQunty requires cloGe cOQ~dination cf the efforts of
all participating local government agencies; and
WHEREAS, the present separation of transpcrtation planning
and management betw~en the County ot Santa Clara~ the Santa Clara
county Transit District, the Santa clara County Tr~ffic Authority,
the Santa Clara County Local Transportation Autho[ity. the Santa
Clara County Tt:ansportation Commission and the Santa Clara County
CongEstion Management Agency results in an inefficient duplication
of effort and a cumbersome and confusing decision-making process;
and
~~EREAS. the consolidation of countywid~ ~~blic transit
planning and project administration in one local public agency
~ould streamline the pt:ocess fo~ obtaining consensus on countywide
transportation prior i ties, improve publ ic accountabil i ty.
centralize responsibility and authority, and improve the balance
in representation and policy-making; and
WHERF.AS, it is necessary to amend various state statutes to
accomplish the foregoing changes; and
1
~HEREAS, it is app~op[iate to first refer these issues to
the voters for the!c advisDry opinion b~fore requesting such ne~
legi:;lation;
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the Boards of Supervisors
of the Santa Clara County Transit District and the County of Santa
clara that the measure hereinafter set forth in full be submitted
to the voters of such District for an advisory vote at an election
to be held and conducted on November 2, 1993. and that the
Begistrar of Vot~rs be, and he hereby is, directed to publish such
notice as may be required by law for the time and in the manner so
required anQ to place the same on the ballot at an election to be
beld countywide on November 2, 1993, such election to be
consolidated with the statewide special election to be held on
said date. The proposed measure is set forth as follows:
Shall the Santa Clara county Transit District be
consolidated with the Santa Clara County Congestion
Management Agency and governed b:t a board~ separate from
the County Boa~d of supervisors, consisting of sixteen (16)
members selected as follows:
Five (5) members elected by distrlct~ on~ from each Santa
:lara county supe[visorial district;
Five (5) members representing the City of ~an Jose,
appointed by the S?n Jose Cit)· Council;
Five (5) members representing all of the other cities
within santa Clara county~ appointed as currently provided
in the Santa Clara county Congestion Management Agency
Joint Po~ers Agreement;
2
,
'. i 1,'1 'II
O~e 'I) ~e~b~r Ccp(~s~ntt~~ th~ County oi S6nt~ cla~~.
appulnted by tll'6' Santil clA:'.!I (o1Jnty 603rd .of Supervi.:S'Hs.
Tbc fiv~ direc~ly ~l~~ted r~pr~~~nt6tlv~S shall bave
Cour-y~ac t~rm6 and be limited to ~ t~r~l of th~ee
6ucc~~$ive fQUt-y6~r ~~(~G.
ThOI!' c01lLp.gn.;a.tL.:.n of tbe g~vtircd.r,g bO!lrd 1:II."e!ClbC1'5 &h",ll be
li.ited to paym~nt fer ~~ch E~¢tin9 attend~d by the ~eQbel
o~ tor e~cb days-:service (end~r~d as a aember by cequ~Gt
of tba bo~rd# tCgethet Yith ~ny ~xpen'e. incideot the~eto~
~= pcovided by l~v tor governing ~ard membe(s of
BanIt~tLon di$t~ict ••
The vovernin9 bo~rd shall have the following advisory
¢o .. ~tte.5J raj a policy Advisory Board ~6n5i~tin~ of one
r.pr~~entativ~ of each city ~nd one county raptesentative
and (b) ~ rechoical ~ovisory CommItt •• con~iBtio9 of tbc
approp~iat~ technlcftl $taff·memb«c~ (rpm the citle£ and
county with one vote pe~ m~~.~ aseocy~
~e eights of ' the e~ployce& tcan~fetc~d tQ the con$olidated
ugeney will ~ pcotee:ted according to applicable lew.
Such ~a5U£~ will app~ar in 8umDarl~ed term on the ballot as
follows:
SANTA CLARA ~OYNTY r~SIT DISTRrCT KEASURE
lIeasuce ADVISORY VOTE ONLY
Shell the SaDt~ Clera county Transit Oistclct be
aeperpt.d LrQm the 50ard ot SupervIsors and
con8011dat.d with the Santa Clara County Congestion
l'Iana9't:'lIent Agency to foOQ a IIOI(~ eff.i.c~ent.,
cost-etfective and ~cceuntable local tran~it ~gency
sAvinq & projected _1ni.ua $ p~r year. A new
p~rt-t1 •• ~ 5ixteen-m • .o.r goVirnrnq-Doacd viII ~oasi&t
of five ~ir~ctly-elected .ember& ~od city and county
"epce.ent.ativelO, whose eOl&pen.se:tion .sho6l,ll ~ liJRited
to .eetln9s attended ~nd ~utho,iz.d daYE~ £@rviC9 ~lU6
inc~d.nt.l .xpen8~8~ with two advisory co~itteea to
IOtre6.1iQ9 the policy-.akln~ prOCe6&.
3
i
I 8E IT fURTHER RESOLVED THAT:
1. The polls for the election hereby ordered shall be
opened on the day of the election at 7:00 A.M. and shall ~e k~pt
open until 8=00 P.M. on the sa~e day, at which time such polls
shall be ClOSEd~
2. The consolidated precincts~ polling places, and
@lection office~s serving at such election polls in such precincts
shall be the same, where applicable. as provided for any other
stat~yide or local elections to be held on November 2; 1993.
3. ?he Re9istrar of voters of the Caunty of Santa Clara is
he~eby orde~ed and di£ected to proYid~ the elect jon pr~cincts.
polling places and voting booths. toqether with all other election
supplies for the conduct of such election. fo~ the elections so
consolidated, which in this ~a6e shall be the same, and there
shall be only one set ~f election officers at such precincts. The
Registrar of voters is further ordered and directed (1) to set
forth on all sample ballots relating to such consolidated
elections, to be mailed to the qualified electors of the County of
Santa Clara~ such m€asure hereinabove set forth~ and to mail with
such sa~ple ballots to such electors a printed copy of arguments.
if any, for and aqainst such measure, and (2) to pcovide absent
voters ballots for such consolidated elections therewith, foe the
use of the qualified electors of the County of Santa Clara, who
may have been entitled thereto in the manner provided by law.
4
,
,
•
•
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the S~nta
Clara county Transit District. ~t2te of California.
on ~. ____ by the follo· ... ing vote:
AYES: HONDA; LOfGREN, GONZALES, DIRIDOH~ MCKENNA
NDES:
ABSENT:
Zoe Lotgr~n, Ch~1rpeIson
Transit District Board of
Superviscrs
PASSED AND .ADOP'I'ED by the Board of Supervisors of the
county of Santa C!aca; State of California, on
by the following vote:
AYES: HONDA, LOFGREN, GONZALES, DIRIDON, MCK£!"-mA
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
PHYLLIS A. PEREZ~ Crer1<---or.t"h"e;----
Board of Supervisors and Ex Officio
Secretary of the Transit District
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
ROBERT A~ WEERS------------
Deputy County Counsel
5
ifon Gonzales, Cha~rpe[son
county Board of Supervisors