TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND FROM: Toni J. Taber, CMC
CITY COUNCIL City Clerk
SUBJECT: SEE BELOW DATE: June 21, 2022
SUBJECT: AB 2181 (Berman): Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority: Board of Directors
Recommendation
As recommended by the Rules and Open Government Committee on June 15, 2022, adopt an oppose position on AB 2181 (Berman) Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority: Board of Directors.
CEQA: Not a Project, File No. PP17-010, City Organizational and Administrative activities resulting in no changes to the physical environment. (Transportation/City Manager) [Rules Committee referral 6/15/2022 - Item B.4]
COUNCIL AGENDA: 6/21/2022
ITEM: 2.29
FILE NO: 22-1 057
CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST
Department
DOT/CMO
Date:
June 3, 2022
Coordination:
CAO
Dept. Approval:
/s/ John Ristow
/s/ Sarah Zárate
CMO Approval:
SUBJECT: AB 2181 (Berman): Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority: Board of Directors RECOMMENDED POSITION: Oppose
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
(a) Adopt an oppose position on AB 2181 (Berman) Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA):
Board of Directors.
(b) Recommend this item be agendized for the June 21, 2022 City Council Meeting.
BILL SYNOPSIS:
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is currently governed by a Board of Directors as defined by state law (Cal. Pub. Util. Code §§ 100060-100063). The law creates a twelve-member Board, consisting of five representatives from the City of San José, two representatives from Santa Clara County, and five representatives of cities within Santa Clara County excluding the City of San José. All twelve representatives are currently elected officials (either City Councilmembers, City Mayors, or members of the County Board of Supervisors), and serve two-year terms.
Assemblymember Marc Berman (AD-24) introduced AB 2181 on February 15, 2022, to propose changes to the structure and composition of the VTA Board of Directors and the process for selecting board members.
Assemblymember Berman introduced the bill in 2022 after a similar VTA governance reform bill (AB 1091) in 2021 stalled. AB 2181 initially only included extending the terms of board members from two to four years, but was substantially amended on April 18, 2022, to include specific instructions on the creation of a new hybrid board. These changes include:
▪ Replacing two or three of the five San José representatives with non-elected community members. ▪ Adding a requirement that at least one of the five San José representatives be someone who “uses public transit as their primary mode of transportation.” ▪ Replacing the Santa Clara County representatives with non-elected community members with specified expertise.
▪ Replacing two or three of the five representatives of non-San José cities with non-elected community members.
▪ Changing the election process for representatives of non-San José cities to a complex rank-choice voting scheme.
▪ Extending all board members from two to four-year terms.
Please reference Attachment A for the full legislative text.
IMPACTS TO CITY OF SAN JOSE:
This bill would not change the City’s fundamental representation on the VTA Board of Directors (five members out of the total twelve voting members) or the current selection process for the City’s five members (appointed by the Mayor with City Council approval). As detailed above, the bill would change the composition of the overall Board to replace between six and eight elected officials with non-elected community members with specified expertise. Each of the City’s five members would need to live in San José; at least two, but no more than three, would be non-elected community members; at least two, but no RULES COMMITTEE: 06/15/22
FILE: 22-284
ITEM: B(4)
more than three, would continue to be elected officials; and at least one would use public transit as their primary mode of transportation. Elected officials appointed to the VTA Board could complete their 4-year term, even if they are no longer on the City Council.
The legislation requires VTA to ensure that representatives of a single city do not compose a majority of the Board of Directors. This does not change the City of San José’s share of representation, but it does lock in existing structural inequities. The City of San José represents more than 52% of the County’s population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census Population), nearly 70% of the County’s transit riders, and 53% of Congestion Management Agency (CMA)-monitored intersections—yet is only allotted five of the twelve VTA Board of Directors (42%). This current underrepresentation is preserved by the proposed legislation.
The more consequential, negative impacts of the bill are to the effectiveness of VTA as a whole, which is of critical importance to San José and the other jurisdictions within Santa Clara County. These anticipated impacts include, but are not limited to:
1. A Board comprised of elected officials bestows much needed accountability directly to the people on the VTA governing body; a Board comprised of fewer elected leaders, as proposed by the bill, would diminish trust and effectiveness, especially considering VTA’s role in raising funding through countywide measures and the critical connection between local land use decisions and transportation.
2. The proposed selection process for non-San José representatives is exceedingly complex, raising significant concerns from jurisdictions throughout the County. Members would be selected for four- year terms through a complex voting process that potentially limits individual cities’ selection of their city group representatives.
3. VTA has numerous critical challenges to face – from pandemic recovery, to helping its employees recover from the May 2021 mass shooting, to leading major infrastructure and funding projects – and this reform effort could distract from those tasks.
Additionally, VTA began a major Board Enhancement process in 2019 to address many of the concerns expressed in the proposed legislation. That process generated more than 80 recommendations, roughly 60 percent of which have been advanced to date. Further changes to Board practices, training, and resources are planned by VTA, including through ongoing implementation of Board Enhancement process recommendations, but do not require legislation to proceed.
POLICY ALIGNMENT:
The proposed “oppose” position aligns with elements of the existing 2022 Legislative Program policy position (approved by Council on 11/30/21), namely Local Control, Transportation Funding, and Rapid Transit/Rail Infrastructure.
SUPPORTERS/OPPONENTS:
The bill is opposed by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, the City of Mountain View, and numerous individuals representing cities throughout Santa Clara County. The City of Morgan Hill and City of Sunnyvale have adopted “oppose unless amended” positions. Other Santa Clara County cities are considering oppose positions as well.
STATUS OF BILL:
AB 2181 has passed the Assembly and is slated to be heard by the Senate Transportation Committee on June 28, 2022.
FOR QUESTIONS CONTACT: Zane Barnes ([email protected]) / Tom Westphal ([email protected]) / Andrea Arjona-Amador ([email protected])
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 2, 2022
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 18, 2022
california legislature—2021–22 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2181
Introduced by Assembly Member Berman
February 15, 2022
An act to amend and repeal Section 100060.2 of, and to amend, repeal, and add Section 100060 of, the Public Utilities Code, relating to transportation.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 2181, as amended, Berman. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority: board of directors.
Existing law creates the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) with various powers and duties relative to transportation projects and services and the operation of public transit in the County of Santa Clara. Existing law vests the government of the VTA in a 12-member board of directors, which consists of 2 representatives of the County of Santa Clara who are members of, and appointed by, the county’s board of supervisors, 5 representati ves of the City of San Jose who are city council members or the mayor and appointed by the city council, and 5 representatives of the other cities in the county who are city council members or mayors of those cities as pro vided by agreements among those cities, whose terms of office are 2 years, as specified.
This bill, on and after July 1, 2023, would revise the membership of the board of directors to instead consist of 2 representatives of the county who are community members and appointed by the president of the board of supervisors with board of supervisors appro val, 5
97 representatives of the City of San Jose, including at least 2 city council members or the mayor and 2 community members, appointed by the mayor with city council appro val, and 5 representati ves of the other cities in the county, including at least 2 community members and 2 city council members or mayors of those cities, elected through a rank ed choice voting process by the city councils of those cities, as specified.
The bill would impose city or county r esidency requirements on the community members serving on the boar d of dir ectors, as pr ovided.
The bill would, on and after July 1, 2023, authorize the board of directors to include ex officio nonvoting members from regional transportation or governmental bodies and would increase the directors’ terms of office to 4 years. To the extent this bill would mandate that a local government provide a new program or higher level of service, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimb urse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 100060 of the Public Utilities Code is line 2 amended to read:
line 3 100060. (a) The government of the VTA shall be vested in a line 4 board of directors that shall consist of 12 members, as follows:
line 5 (1) Two representatives of the county and one alternate who line 6 shall be members of the board of supervisors of the county , line 7 appointed by the board of supervisors.
line 8 (2) Five representatives of the City of San Jose and one alternate line 9 who shall be city council members or the mayor of the City of San line 10 Jose, appointed by the city council.
line 11 (3) Five city council members or mayors selected from among line 12 the city councils and mayors of all of the cities in the county, other line 13 than the City of San Jose, as provided by agreements among those line 14 cities. The agreements may pro vide for the appointment of 97 — 2 — AB 2181
line 1 alternates, who shall be city council members or mayors, for those line 2 city representatives.
line 3 (b) An alternate may vote in the place of a director represented line 4 by that alternate if the director is absent.
line 5 (c) To the extent possible, the appointing powers shall appoint line 6 individuals who have expertise, experience, or knowledge relative line 7 to transportation issues.
line 8 (d) This section shall become inoperative on July 1, 2023, and, line 9 as of January 1, 2024, is repealed.
line 10 SEC. 2. Section 100060 is added to the Public Utilities Code, line 11 to read:
line 12 100060. (a) The government of the VTA shall be vested in a line 13 board of directors that shall consist of 12 v oting members, as line 14 follows:
line 15 (1) Two representatives of the county, who shall be appointed line 16 by the president of the board of supervisors with board of line 17 supervisors approval by at least a four-fifths vote, consistent with line 18 both all of the following requirements: following:
line 19 (A) One representative shall be a nonelected community member line 20 with expertise in financing and accounting.
line 21 (B) One representative shall be a nonelected community member line 22 with e xpertise in infrastructure management, construction line 23 management, or project management.
line 24 (C) The nonelected community member s shall r eside in the line 25 county.
line 26 (2) Five representatives of the City of San Jose, who shall be line 27 appointed by the mayor of the City of San Jose with city council line 28 approval, consistent with all of the following:
line 29 (A) At least two representatives shall be city council members line 30 or the mayor of the City of San Jose.
line 31 (B) At least two representatives shall be nonelected community line 32 members who, to the extent possible, have expertise, experience, line 33 or knowledge relative to transportation issues. line 34 (C) The mayor of the City of San Jose shall appoint at least one line 35 representative pursuant to this paragraph who uses public transit line 36 as their primary mode of transportation.
line 37 (D) The nonelected community members shall reside in the City line 38 of San Jose.
97 AB 2181 — 3 —
line 1 (3) Five representatives of the cities in the county , other than line 2 the City of San Jose, elected in a manner consistent with all of the line 3 following:
line 4 (A) At least two representatives shall be nonelected community line 5 members who, to the extent possible, have expertise, experience, line 6 or knowledge relative to transportation issues.
line 7 (B) At least two representatives shall be city council members line 8 or mayors of the cities in the county , other than the City of San line 9 Jose.
line 10 (C) The nonelected community members shall reside in one of line 11 the cities in the county, other than the City of San Jose. line 12 (C)
line 13 (D) To the extent possible, each regional group, as provided for line 14 by agreements among the cities in the county, other than the City line 15 of San Jose, shall be represented on the board of directors by a line 16 representative elected pursuant to this paragraph. line 17 (D)
line 18 (E) The representatives shall be elected through the follo wing line 19 ranked choice voting process:
line 20 (i) VTA shall develop an application process.
line 21 (ii) In order to be eligible to be selected, a candidate shall line 22 complete an application and submit the application to VTA. line 23 (iii) VTA shall create one rank ed choice ballot that includes line 24 only those candidates that submitted complete applications. line 25 (iv) The city council of each city in the county , other than the line 26 City of San Jose, shall, in a public forum, rank those candidates line 27 using the ranked choice ballot created pursuant to clause (iii) and line 28 submit the ranked choice ballot to VTA by a date determined by line 29 VTA.
line 30 (v) VTA shall count the rank ed choice ballots submitted line 31 pursuant to clause (iv).
line 32 (E)
line 33 (F) (i) If a representati ve who is elected as a city council line 34 member or mayor of a city in the county , other than the City of line 35 San Jose, no longer serves in that capacity as a city council member line 36 or mayor, the representative may continue to serv e on the board line 37 of directors until their term on the board of directors expires, except line 38 as specified in clause (ii).
line 39 (ii) If a representati ve continuing to serv e on the board of line 40 directors pursuant to clause (i) would violate the requirements of 97 — 4 — AB 2181
line 1 subparagraph (A) or (B), the representati ve shall not continue to line 2 serve on the board and shall be replaced in a special election line 3 conducted through the process described in subparagraph (D). (E). line 4 (b) In addition to the 12 v oting members described in line 5 subdivision (a), VTA’s board of directors may include e x officio line 6 nonvoting members from regional transportation or governmental line 7 bodies.
line 8 (c) VTA shall ensure that representatives of a single city do not line 9 compose a majority of the board of directors.
line 10 (d) A representative appointed or elected pursuant to this section line 11 shall serv e a four -year term and may be reappointed without line 12 limitation.
line 13 (e) VTA shall implement guidelines to provide for the removal line 14 for cause of a representative appointed or elected pursuant to this line 15 section.
line 16 (f) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2023. line 17 SEC. 3. Section 100060.2 of the Public Utilities Code is line 18 amended to read:
line 19 100060.2. (a) Except as otherwise provided, the term of office line 20 for each director shall be two years and until the appointment and line 21 qualification of their successor . A successor shall be appointed line 22 not later than 30 days immediately upon the e xpiration of a line 23 director’s term. A vacancy exists whenever a director ceases to line 24 hold office on the city council or board of supervisors from which line 25 they were appointed. Any vacancy shall, within 60 days of its line 26 occurrence, be filled for the balance of the term by the body that line 27 made the original appointment.
line 28 (b) This section shall become inoperative on July 1, 2023, and, line 29 as of January 1, 2024, is repealed.
line 30 SEC. 4. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that line 31 this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimb ursement to line 32 local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made line 33 pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division line 34 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
O
97 AB 2181 — 5 —