Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.3 Congestion Mgmt Voting System (2) CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE : OCTOBER 10, 1991 SUBJECT: Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) Voting System Report by Lee Thompson, Public Works Director EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1) Letter from Chairman of CMA 2 ) Letter from Mayor of Emeryville 3) Copy of Congestion Management Legislation 4 ) Copy of Chapter 1 of Congestion Management Program 5 ) Draft Letter to Chairman of the CMA from Mayor RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposed voting changes for the CMA and send a letter to Chairman of CMA expressing Dublin' s position. DESCRIPTION: The Mayor of Emeryville recently requested that Alameda County and cities in the County amend their joint powers agreement which formed the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) . This amendment would change the existing CMA voting representations . The CMA was created as a requirement of the passage of Prop. 111 ( increased gasoline tax) and became the successor to the Alameda County Transportation Plan Commission (Commission) . The existing CMA voting system is based on the Commission' s voting system in which the County, all cities in the County, and all transit agencies are included. The current CMA voting system gives the County two votes, cities one vote per 100, 000 population and all cities less than 100, 000 receive one vote each. Also, Livermore/Amador Valley Transit, Union City Transit, AC Transit and BART are allocated one vote each. Attached is a letter from the Mayor of Emeryville stating his arguments for the change. The City of Oakland has also stated that they will take legal action if the voting system is not changed as they feel they are not represented fairly by population. The proposed voting system would be based on one vote per 50,000 population and all cities with less than 50, 000 would receive one vote. It would also ,eliminate votes of the Livermore/Amador Valley Transit and Union City Transit Agencies completely, the argument being that the boards of those two agencies are made up of appointed representatives from the cities and that would give those cities "double votes" . This proposal would double Oakland' s votes on the CMA, thus giving the City of Oakland a voting advantage over the rest of the cities and the County. According to the City Attorney, Prop. 111, which was passed by the voters, indicates the voting system does not have to be based on population, and any voting system can be chosen as long as it is adopted by the County Board of Supervisors and the city councils of a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population in the incorporated area of the County. Therefore, Dublin' s City Attorney feels that the City of Oakland does not have a basis for legal action based on representation by population. Staff feels that the existing voting makeup worked for the Commission and is a resonable approach for the CMA; further, that all transit agencies should be represented regardless of who sits on the Boards . Staff recommends that the City Council support the present voting system, reject the proposed change, and send the attached draft letter (or as modified) to the CMA expressing Dublin' s position. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ITEM NO. COPIES CITY CLERK FILE EIVEL) i_ S EP 3 0 1991 EDA ALAM U Y r_ CO NT � n ,(T r)I1R1_IN CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY ...................................... September 25, 1991 The Honorable Pete Snyder Mayor City of Dublin P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Mayor Snyder: In accordance with an action at its September 19, 1991 meeting, the Board of the Congestion Management Agency requests that your City Council consider the attached proposal from the City of Emeryville to change the voting composition of the Congestion Management Agency Board. I have included a revised voting table using the approved census figures. A majority of the cities representing a majority of the population plus the Board of Supervisors must approve this change for it to become operative. Very tru y yours, L/ Edward R. Campbell, Chairman cc: City Managers DRF/wrs E AY jH .B1, I . 24301 SOUTHLAND DRIVE, SUITE 200, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA 94545-1541 PHONE (510)785-2710 FAX (510)785-4861 CITY OF EMERYVILLE MEMORANDUM To: Alameda County Mayors and Board of Supervisors Date: August 20, 1991 From: Greg Harper, Mayor of Emeryville Subject: Alameda County Congestion Management Agency Voting Rights The purpose of this memorandum is to request each City Council and the Board of Supervisors to endorse a revised voting arrangement for the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CiVLA) board and to authorize execution of an amendment to the CMA point powers agreement which: • provides one vote for the County and each city per 50,000 population; • limits voting status to those transit operators with directly elected boards. Earlier this summer, several CMA board members reported that their Councils would be willing to reconsider the CMA voting rights issue in order to provide more equitable representation to the larger cities. In response to their concern, I suggested a compromise formula which provides the County and cities with one vote per 50,000 population instead of the current arrangement of one vote per 100,000 population. Table F (enclosed) compares the current formula based on 100,000 population with the compromise of one vote for 50,000. In a related concern, several members raised the issue of "double voting" by cities whose councilmembers also sit on the CMA representing an appointed transit board. Many thought it inappropriate for these cities to have a second vote. This compromise proposal, therefore, maintains voting rights only for those transit agencies with directly elected boards -- namely, AC Transit and BART. At the same time, it also maintains a meaningful voting share for smaller cities. The net effect of these two changes is an increase of four votes on the CMA board-- from 26 to 30. In order to modify the voting arrangements as set forth in the joint powers agreement which created the Alameda County Con gestion.Xanagement Agency, eight cities representing 50 percent of the population in the incorporated area, and the Board of Supervisors must approve an amendment. This memo requests that cities and the County begin the amendment process. I ask that each City Council consider the proposal and forward the results back to the CMA by October 1, 1991 so that the CMA can move ahead in a timely manner with finalizing its policies and state-mandated plan. Enclosed is a drat: resolution which you may wish to use to facilitate action by your Council/Board. I urge your approval of this proposal which provides for an equitable and logical voting structure. If you have any questions concerning this proposal, please feel free to call me at 428-2162. _ U GREG HARPER Mayor Enclosures (2) cc: Alameda County Administrator and City Managers CMA Board members Dennis Fay, CMA Executive Director RESOLUTION TO AMEND ALAMEDA COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (ITEM 10. A.) TO MODIFY VOTING COMPOSITION WHEREAS, The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) was created pursuant to California Government Code section 65089(a); and WHEREAS, a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) dated February 20, 1991 defining the roles, purpose, objectives, responsibilities, powers and duties of the CMA was approved and executed by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population in the incorporated area of Alameda County; and WHEREAS, item 10. a. "Board Organization" of this JPA provides for the following voting members on the CMA board: • one vote for each Alameda County city for every 100,000 population or fraction thereof; • two voting representatives of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors • one voting representative each for AC Transit, BART, the Livermore Amador Valley Transit District, and Union City Transit; and WHEREAS, in .approving this JPA, the County Board of Supervisors and several cities expressed interest in modifying the voting shares to provide more proportional representation to larger cities while _. maintaining a meaningful vote for smaller cities; and WHEREAS, several cities also expressed interest in granting voting status only to transit operators with directly elected boards as- these agencies would otherwise not be represented on the CMA board; and WHEREAS, numerous alternative voting scenarios have been examined by these cities; and WHEREAS, a compromise proposal has emerged which provides one vote for the County and each city per 50,000 population, and well as one vote for each directly elected transit board; namely, AC Transit and BART; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: That the City/County of approves an amendment to Item 10.a. "Board Organization" of the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency joint powers agreement dated . February 20, 1991 to provide voting status for the following board members: • an initial vote for the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and each Alameda County city for every 50,000 population or fraction thereof; • additional votes shall accrue to the County and cities as each jurisdiction's population reaches the midpoint of the next highest increment of 50,000 (e.g, 25,001 or more); • one voting representative each for AC Transit and BART; and be it further RESOLVED: That the (City Manager/Board President) is authorized to execute an amendment on behalf of the (City/County) to the Joint Powers Agreement which incorporates the voting changes described herein. i' ALAMEDA COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY Opti F VOTING SHARES BASED ON 100,000 AND 50,000 POPULATION Current constitution with one vote per One vote per 100,000 increment of population 50,000 increment ADDITIONAL of population** VOTES WITH AGENCY POPULATION" % of NO. of % of 140. of % W 50,000 POP. VOTES TOTAL VOTES VOTES TOTAL VOTES INCREMEN T City of: Oakland- 393,000 30.23 4 15.38 8 26.67 4 Fremont 173,339 13.33 2 7.69 3 10.00 1 Hayward 1 1 1 ,498 8.58 2 7.69 2 6.67 - BerkeJey 102,724 7.90 2 7.69 2 6.67 - Alameda 76,459 5.88 1 3.85 2 6.67 1 San Leandro 68,223 5.25 1 3.85 1 3.33 - Livermore 56,741 4.36 1 3.85 1 3.33 - Union City 53,762 4.14 1 3.85 1 3.33: - Pleasanton 50,553 3.89 1 3.85 1 3.33 - Newark 37,861 2.91 1 3.85 1 3.33 - Dublin 23,229 1 .79 1 3.85 1 3.33 - Albany 16,327 1 .26 1 3.85 1 3.33 - Piedmont 10,602 0.82 1 3.85 1 3.33 - Etneryville 5,740 0.4.4 1 3.85 1 3.33 Unincorporated Area 119,882 9.22 2 7.69 2 6.67 - SUBTOTAL 1 ,299,940 100.00 22 84.62 28 93.33 Transit Operators 'J I Livermore/Amador ' Valley Transit 1 3.85 0 0.00 (1 ) AC Transit 1 3.85 1 3.33 - BART 1 3.85 1 3.33 - Union City Transit 1 3.85 0 0.00 (1 ) TOTAL 1 1 299,9401 100.00 1 26 1 100.00 j 1 30 1 100.00 4 'Source: 1990 Census Public Law 94-171 (Reapportionment File) -Oakland revised per Census Bureau proposed corrections (Oakland Tribune 6/14/91) "additional vote accrues if city/county population reaches midpoint of next highest increment of 50,000 (e.g. 25,001 or more); Only transit operators with directly elected boards have voting status; non-elected boards represented by city appointees. 8120191 (SO) C11AFFER 2.6. . CONGESTION MANACEMEN'T I 115089. (a) A congestion management program shall bee l developed, adopted, and annually updated for every county that 65088. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: includes an urbanized area, and shall include every city and the (a) Although California's economy is critically dependent upon county.The program shall be adopted at a noticed public hearing of transportation, Its current transportation.system relies primarily the agency. The program shall be developed in consultation with, upon a street and highway system designed to accommodate far and with the cooperation of, the transportation planning agency, fewer vehicles than are currently using the system. regional transportation providers, local governments, the (h) California's transportation system is characterized by department, and the air pollution control district or the air quality fragmented planning, both among jurisdictions involved and an►ong management district, either by the county transportation the ,nears of available transport. commission, or by another public agency, as designated by (c) The lack of an integrated system and the increase in the resolutions adopted by the county board of supervisors and the city number of vehicles are causing traffic congestion that each day ' ncils of a majority of the cities representing n majority of the results in 4W,000 hours lost In traffic,200 tons of pollutants released pulalion in the incorporated area of the county.into the air we breathe, and three million one hundred thousand The program shall contain all of the following elements:"- dollars ( 3,100,000) added costs to the motoring public.' . (1) (A) Traffic level of service standards established for a system (d) To keep California moving, all methods and means of of highways and roadways designated by the agency. The system transport between major destinations- must be coordinated to shall include at a minimum all state highways and principal arterials. connect our vital economic and population centers. No highway or roadway designated as a part of the syste►n shall be (e) In order tq develop the California economy to its full removed from the system. All new state highways and principal potential, it is Intended that federal, state, and local agencies join arterials shall be designated as part of the system. Level of service with transit districts,business,private and environmental interests to (LOS) shall be measured by Circular 212, (or by the most recent develop and implement comprehensive strategies needed . to version of the Highway Capacity Manual), or by a uniform develop appropriate responses to transportation needs. methodology adopted by the agency which is consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual. The determination as to whether an 9 alternative method is consistent with the I Iighwny Capacity Manual shall be made by the regional agency, except that the department 65088.1. As used In this chapter the following teens have the shall make this determination instead if either (i) the regional following meanings: agency is also the agency, as those teens are defined in Section 65W.1, or (ii) the department is responsible for preparing the (a) Unless meanings: context requires otherwise, "regional agency" means the agency responsible for preparation of the regional regional transportation case improvement OS standards plan for the county. transportation improvement program. (I3) In no case shall the LOS standards established be below the (b U mess the context requires otherwise, "agency" means the level of service E or the current level, whichever is farthest from -r<w� agency responsible for the preparation and adoption of the level of service A, except where a segment or intersection has been designate) as deficient and u deficiency plan has been adopted congestion management program. t ` =rte (c) "City" includes a city and county. pursuant to Section 65089.3. la �,a (2) Standards established for the frequency and routing of public r y.� (d) "Commission" means the California Transportation transit, and for the coordination of transit service provided by Commission. Gfi� *irrx9 (e) "Department" means the Department of Transportation. separate operators. "Urbanized area" has the same meanie as is defined in the (3) A trip reduction and travel demand element that promotes ( n g 1990 federal census for urbanized areas of more Than 50,000 alternative transportation methods, such as carpools, vanpools, transit,bicycles,and park-anti-ride lots;improvements in the balance population. between jobs and housing; and other strategies, including flexible (g) "Interregional travel" means trips that have neither origin work hours anti parking inimagement programs. nor destination within the boundary of the congestion management (4) A program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions made program. by local jurisdictions on regional transportation systems,including an ' estinlate of he costs associated with mitigating those impacts. In no case shall the progrnn► include an estimate of the costs of n1ltiguting 10 ?C rRl"Wm 1 ?"POw. r."q-0 .MMEEMEMEM go-MEMO Ll� 4011M ,ems WCM -sip wo aw im bilGm ill the the impacts of interregional travel.The program shall provide credit 65089.3. (a) The agency shall monitor the implementation of all for local public and private contributions to improvements to elements of the congestion management program. Annually, the regional transportation systems. However, in the case of toll road agency shall determine if the county and cities are conforming to the facilities, credit shall only be allowed for local public and private congestion management program, including, but not limited to, all contributions which are unreimbursed from toll revenues or other of the following: state or federal sources.The agency shall calculate the amount of the (1) Consistency with levels of service and performance standards, credit to be provided. except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c). (5) A seven-year capital improvement program to maintain or (2) Adoption and implementation of a trip reduction and travel improve the traffic level of service and transit performance demand ordinance. standards developed pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2), and to (3) Adoption and implementation of a program to analyze the mitigate regional transportation Impacts identified pursuant to impacts of land use decisions, including the estimate of the costs paragraph (4), which conforms to transportation-related vehicle associated with mitigating these impacts. emissions air quality mitigation measures. (b) (1) A city or county may designate individual deficient (c) The agency, in consultation with the regional agency, cities, segments or intersections which do not meet the established level of and the county,shall develop a uniform data base on traffic impacts service standards if, prior to the designation, at a noticed public for use in a 'countywide transportation computer model and shall hearing,the city or county has adopted a deficiency plan which shall approve transportation computer models of specific areas within the include all of the following: county that will be used by local Jurisdictions to determine the (A)'An analysis of the causes of the deficiency. quantitative impacts of development on the circulation system that (fi) A list of improvements necessary for the deficient segment or are based,on the countywide model and standardized modeling intersection to maintain the minimum level of service otherwise assumptions and conventions. The computer models shall be required and the estimated costs of the improvements. consistent with the modeling methodology adopted by the regional (C) A list of improvements,programs,or actions,and estimates of planning agency. The data bases used in the models shall be costs, that will (i) measurably improve the level of service of the consistent with the data bases used by the regional planning agency. system, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 65089, and (ii) n� Where the regional agency has Jurisdiction over two or more contribute to significant improvements in air quality, such as counties, the data bases used by the agency shall be consistent with improved public transit service and facilities, improved the data bases used by the regional agency. nonmotorized transportation facilities, high occupancy vehicle facilities, and transportation control measures. The air quality management district or the air pollution control district shall establish and periodically revise a list of approved improvements, 65089.2. (a) Congestion management programs shall be programs,and actions which meet the scope of this paragraph. If an submitted to the regional agency.The regional agency shall evaluate improvement,program,or action is on the approved list and has not the consistency• between the program. 'and the regional yet been fully implemented, it shall be deemed to contribute to transportation plans required pursuant to Section 65080. In the case significant improvements in air quality. If an improvement, of multicounty regional transportation planning agency, that agency program, or action is not on the approved list, it shall not be shall evaluate the consistency and compatibility of the programs implemented unless approved by the local air quality management within the region, district or air pollution control district. (b) The regional .agency, upon finding that the program is (D) An action plan, consistent.with the provisions of Chapter 5 consistent, shall incorporate the program into the regional (commencing with Section 66000) of Division 1 of Title 7, that shall transportation improvement program as be implemented, consisting of improvements identified in P g provided for in Section. I3 or improvements,65082. If the regional agency finds the program is inconsistent,it may paragraph ( )' p , programs, or actions identified in exclude any project in the congestion management y paragraph (C), that are found by the agency to be in the interest of g g program from (lie public's health,safety and welfare.The action plan shall include inclusion in the regional transportation improvement program. a specific implementation schedule. (2) A city or county shall forward its adopted deficiency plan to 65089.6. A proposed development specified in a development the agency.The agency shall hold a noticed public hearing within 60 agreement entered into prior to July 10, 1989,shall not be subject to clays of receiving the deficiency plan. following the hearing, the any action taken to comply with this chapter,except actions required agency shall either accept or reject the deficiency plan in Its entirety, to be taken with respect to the trip reduction and travel demand but the agency may not modify the deficiency plan. If the agency element of a congestion management rejects the plan, it shall notify the city or county of the reasons for paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section program pursuant to that rejection. (c) The agency, after consultation with the regional agency, the department, and the local air quality management district or air pollution control district, shall exclude from the determination of 65082. (a) A seven-year regional transportation improvement conformance with level.of service standards, the impacts of any of program shall be prepared,adopted,and submitted to the California the following: Transportation Commission on or before April 1, 1990, (1) Interregional travel. December 1 of each odd-numbered year thereafter, updated impact Co est uctio ' rehabilitation, or maintenance of facilities that two years,pursuant to Sections 65080 and 65080.5 and th guidelines adopted pursuant to Section 14530.1, to include projects •and (3) Freeway romp metering.. programs proposed to be funded,in whole or in part,by funds which (4) Traffic signal coordination by the state or multijurisdictional are apy of the following: agencies. (1) For flexible congestion relief projects, as defined in Section (5) Traffic generated by the provision of low and very low Income 164.2 of the Streets and Highways Code. housing. (2) For urban rail transit and commuter rail projects. (d) For the purposes of this chapter, the impacts of a trip which Major projects shall include an escalated current cost updated to originates in one county and which terminates in another county at least November 1 of the year of submittal,and be listed by relative shall be Included in the determination of conformance with level of priority, taking into account need, delivery. milestone dates, as 9 service standards with respect to the originating county only. A defined in Section 14525.5, and the availability of funding. W roundtrip shall be considered to consist of two Individual trips. (b) For purposes of the regional transportation improvement program submitted to the commission on December 1, 1991, and every two years thereafter, congestion management programs adopted pursuant to Section 65089 shall be incorporated into the 65089.4. (a) If, pursuant to the annual monitoring provided for regional transportation improvement program. Local projects not in Section 65089.3,the agency determines,following a noticed public included in a congestion management program sl►all not be included hearing, that a city or county is not conforming with the in the regional transportation improvement program. Projects a' requirements of the congestion management program, the agency programs adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be consist(. shall notify the city or county in writing of the specific areas of with the seven-year capital improvement program adopted pursuant nonconformance. If, within 90 days of the receipt of the written to paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) of Section 65089, and the notice of nonconformance, the city or county has not come into guidelines adopted pursuant to Section 14530.1. conformance with the congestion management program, the (c) Other projects may be included in the regional transportation governing body of the agency shall make a finding of improvement program if listed separately. nonconformance and shall submit the finding to the commission and (d) Unless a county not containing urbanized areas of over 50,000 to the Controller, population notifies the Department of Transportation by July 1 that (b) Upon receiving notice from the agency of nonconformance, it intends to prepare a regional transportation improvement the Controller shall withhold apportionments of funds required to be program for that county, the department shall, in consultation witt► apportioned to that nonconforming city or county by Section 2105 of the affected local agencies, prepare the program for all counties for the Streets and Highways Code,until the Controller is notified b the which it Y prepares a regional transportation plan. agency that the city or county is in conformance. (e) The regional transportation improvement program may not change the project delivery milestone date of any state project as 65089.5. Failure to complete or implement a congestion shown in the prior adopted state transportation program without the management program shall not give rise to a cause of action against consent of the department op other agency responsible for the a city or county for failing to conform with its general plan, unless project delivery. the city or county Incorporates the congestion management program into the transportation element of Its general plan. ML 650,91. The rogiortal lrutsportatiou plan shall Itteludc: (a) A t>ulicy eletuenl that considers important transportation isstWS uacl describes the desired short-and long-range transportation goals, and pragnattic ohjeclive iuld policy statements.The objective and policy stalenu ttls Shull consider probable funding constraints. (b) An action element that describes the programs and actions necessary to implement the plan and assigt::: implementation responsibilities. The action element shall also include a program for developing intradly artd intercity bicycle programs. The action element shall include all congestion management i tt programs adopted by the commission pursuant to Chapter 2.6 (commencing will, Section 65(Jt3S). (c) A financial element that summarizes the cost of plan in►plentenlalion, compares these costs to it realistic projection of available revenues, and ineludes eslitttales of expected surplus and deficits. It shall contain recommendations for the allocation of funds and for the development of new sources of revenues if needed. I i a t � ' I I j I i i DRAFT Chapter 1 Congestion Management Agency PURPOSE AND INTENT OF LEGISLATION Pertinent Statutes California Government Code section 65089 (a)states "A congestion management program shall be developed, adopted, and annually updated for every county that includes an urbanized area, and shall include every city and the county. The program shall be adopted at a noticed public hearing of the agency. The program shall be developed to consultation with, and with the cooperation of, the transportation planning agency, regional transportation providers, local governments, the department, and the air pollution control district or the air quality management district, either by the county transportation commission, or by another public agency, as designated by resolutions adopted by the county board of supervisors and the city councils of a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population in the incorporated area of the county." The suceeding chapters of the Congestion Management Program for Alameda County describe the other statutory requirements of the CMP law; Appendix A contains the full text of the pertinent sections of state law. Intent and Philosophy The CMP law vests considerable authority with the congestion management agencies. The for example. The agencies are required to police local government conformance with the CMP, legislation also forges a new relationship between local government and the state Department of Transportation (Caltrans). New highway projects in the urban areas can only be included in the State Transportation Improvement Program if they are included in a CMP; thus, funding of highway protects is now, in part, controlled by local government in the form of the CMAs. This new authority comes with the responsibility to recognize federal and state funding limitations and to work with Caltrans and MTC to formulate cost-effective projects. , The Alameda County CMP is designed to meet the challenges of the law. Furthermore, the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency is prepared to develop effective working CMA is relationships with all levels of governmal t overnment,aworkin sector.t getheramcanaresolneyregional also prepared to demonstrate that local g g problems. THE ALAMEDA COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) was created by a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA), dated February 20, 1991. This JPA specifies the composition of the CMA governing board, its functions, duties and powers, and other administrative matters. The JPA also sets forth many objectives for the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, including the following general goals: • Position Alameda County jurisdictions,.including the transit operators, to better compete for limited state and federal transportation dollars; • Seek a consensus on future improvements to major roads, the freeways and transit services in Alameda County; and 1 T Page 1 Alameda County ` ,�, � �.. June 27, 1991 DRAFT • Foster early communication among the cities, the co,-,y, and transit operators on transportation projects and issues, and on the system of roadways and transit designated in the Congestion Management Program. Composition of the CMA Table 1 shows the voting composition of the CMA board based on current population figures. The voting representation is based on the following formula contained in the JPA: • one vote for each Alameda County city for every 100,000 population or fraction thereof, • two voting representatives of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors; • one voting representative of each of the transit operators; • one non-voting representative each of the California Department of Transportation (District 4), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Each city's voting representation is adjusted according to the above formula following the publication of each national census or during the intervening periods using California Department of Finance population estimates. Voting A majority of the authorized vote of the CMA board is required to adopt or amend the Congestion Management Program, for the adoption of a resolution of conformance or non-conformance with the adopted Congestion Management Program, to approve or reject a deficiency plan or to levy fees or charges. A majority vote of those present and voting is required for any other action. Alameda County Transportation Plan Commission The CMA is for all purposes the successor to the Alameda County Transportation Plan Commission created by Principles of Agreement between the Board of Supervisors and the Mayors' Conference, and assumes all powers, duties and responsibilities regarding the Congestion Management Program and transportation planning and programming. Functions and Responsibilities The Alameda County CMA has the following functions and responsibilities: • Prepare, adopt, revise, amend, adminster and implement the Congestion Management Program for Alameda County. • Develop, adopt and update the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan. Paze 2 Alameda County June 27, 1991 Congestion Management Program ©r AFT Table 1 y g Alameda Count Congestion Management Agency Voting Composition Voting NfenlbLrs Number of Votes 2 Alameda County Cities: 1 Alameda 1 Albany 2 Berkeley 1 Dublin 1 Emeryville 2 4 Fremont 2 Hayward 1 Livermore 1 Newark 4 US Oakland 1 Piedmont 1 Pleasanton 1 San Leandro 1 Union City Transit Operators: 1 BART 1 AC Transit 1 Livermore Amador Valley Transit 1 Union City Transit o Total Vote 26 Non Voting Members = 1 Metropolitan Transportation Commission__ Caltrans, District 4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District Page 3 Alameda County June 27, 1991 •: Congestion Management Program DRAFT • Coordinate transportation planning and programming within Alameda County and with contiguous counties. • Coordinate the countywide input to: (1) the California Clean Air Act and d the Transportation a rea Control Measures of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Y Air Quality Management District; (2)the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and Caltrans for the Flexible Congestion Relief, Rail Bond and Traffic System Management funding programs; (3) MTC guidelines for County Transportation Plans pursuant to Government Code section 66531;v(einen Program and Transportation CTC1O Spate;Transp)orMtation Regional Transportation Imp Improvement Program. • Prepare, adopt, update and administer the Combined Road Program or the successor federal funding program. • Levy and collect fees and charges, including administrative and operating costs. • Seek state and federal funding to defray the cost of preparing, adopting, amending, administering and implementing the Congestion Management Plan and other CMA duties. Other functions could be added by amendments to the JPA or by actions of the state or federal government. Technical Advisory Committee The Alameda County Transportation Advisory Committee �ofAone will function as staff representative technical h advisory committee to the CMA. The po. city and the County; one staff representative uthorit each Transit Metro ' t n�Transportat representative Commission, of the Alameda County Transportation y, Caltrans and the Bay Area Air aQualitys Me e g ems n tD Pa icipate. The Exec five Dines o�of the public works and planning dep P CMA is the Chairperson of ACTAC. Appeal Process A city or the county may appeal actioof reconsider a is action. If the C1MA eghe�rejec the appealing agency first requests the C reconsideration or the appeal, the action of the CMA may be appealed to the member local jurisdicitons (cities and the county). An appeal must be filed with the CMA within thirty ( 0 days ys of the action being appealed. The CMA must act upon the appeal within sixty (60) days. If the action is appealed, the local jurisdictions will e achion of the CMA will appeal verruled if a sixty (60) of following the CMA action on the appeal the local jurisdictions representing a majority adopt of trulepsoandaprocedu es governing the action to overturn the CMA action. The CMA process. At least one public hearing will be held at least thirty (30)days pnor to adopting the rules and procedures. All local jurisdicitons will be notified of the date and time of the public hearing. Administrative Costs The administrative costs of the CMA are paid from levies on each city and the county in proportion to the new fuel tax subventions under Proposition 111. The levies are based on the annual budget, which is adopted by April 1 of each year. The CMA ill con that fuel tax to legislative measures which provide funding for these administrative c to local government can be fully employed to address local transportation needs. Page 4 Alameda County June 27, 1991 Congestion Management Program \\� •' ( �/// [¢�y�dg�yj R g t Sad I8' CITY OF DUBLIN P.O. Box 2340, Dublin. California 94568 City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza. Dublin, Californ:a 94568 October 3 , 1991 The Honorable Edward R. Campbell Chairman, CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY 24301 Southland Drive, Suite 2001 Hayward, CA 94545-1541 Dear Mr. Campbell : At our meeting of October 10, 1991, the City Council of the City of Dublin considered the proposal from the Mayor of the City of Emeryville to change the voting system of the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) Board. The City Council rejected the proposal and reaffirmed the existing voting allocations . The existing CMA voting system was based on the Alameda County Transportation Plan Commission voting system, which we feel was a workable and fair solution. The CMA was created as a result of to the passing of Prop 111 and became, for all purposes, the successor to the Alameda County Transportation Plan Commission. According to our City Attorney, Prop. 111, which was passed by the voters, indicates the voting system is not required to be based on population, and any voting system can be chosen as long as it is adopted by the County Board of Supervisors and the city councils of a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population in the incorporated areas of the Alameda County. After reviewing the history and information regarding this subject, the City Council of the City of Dublin believes the present CMA voting system best serves the interests of the County as a whole. Sincerely, Peter Snyder, Mayor CITY OF DUBLIN PS/mb • a :oct/03cmavtg r �r Administration (415) 833-6650 • City Council (415) 833-6605 Finance (415) 833-66=-'.0 Building Inspection (='15) 833-6620 Code Enforcement (415) 833-6620 Engineering (415) 833-6630 • P!anninc (415) 833-6610 Police (4i5) 833.6670 • Public V%forks (215) 833.6630 • R=-cieaiion (4151 833-66-5