The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5.1 Voting Composition Proposal f CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 23, 1992 SUBJECT: Written Communication: Proposed Change to the Congestion Management Agency Voting Composition by the City of Alameda (Prepared by: Richard C. Ambrose, City Manager) EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit 1 : Letter from Mayor William Withrow, Jr. , City of Alameda dated March 12, 1992 Exhibit 2: Comparison of Alameda County Congestion Management Agency Voting Shares Based on the Original 100,000 population formula and the Revised 50, 000 population formula RECOMMENDATION: �(,'JConsider Proposal from the City of Alameda. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None. DESCRIPTION: The Cities of Alameda County and County of Alameda entered into a Joint Powers Agreement for the purpose of forming the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency as required by State Law. One of the most hotly debated issues the Congestion Management Agency and its members have . faced is the -issue-regarding the percentage `of votes which each agency within the County receives. The original Joint Powers Agreement was adopted with a formula that provided one vote for every 100, 000 increment of population for the cities and the incorporated areas of the County and one vote for each of the four transit operators in the County of Alameda. As provided for in the Joint Powers Agreement, the City of Oakland received 15.38% of the total votes and the City of Dublin received 3.85% of the total votes. The Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority also received 3.85% of the total votes. In the last several months, the City of Oakland circulated a proposal to the north County agencies and the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to revise the voting structure to provide one vote for every 50, 000 increment of population and to remove the votes from the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority and the Union City Transit Authority. This proposal received the required majority vote of a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population, as well as the affirmative vote of the Board of Supervisors. Since the action of the Board which was taken in February of this year, there has been considerable concern on the part of other agencies in the County regarding Oakland's attempt to control the Congestion Management Agency through the revised voting structure. This control not only has implications regarding the distribution of future transportation related revenues, but also implications related to land use planning as they affect the Congestion Management Plan. The Board of Supervisors adopted the revised voting formula with the statement that it would consider another formula if proposed by the Mayors' Conference within the next 30 days. At the March meeting of the Alameda County Mayors' Conference, Mayor William Withrow, Jr. of the City of Alameda (a city which voted for the ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES T0: ITEM N0. ♦ EFILE ITY CLERK Oakland - formula) , indicated that his city was going to reconsider its earlier action and would propose a new voting formula. On March 12, 1992, the City received a letter from Mayor Withrow proposing that a voting formula be adopted which revises the voting share to be one vote per 100,000 which rounds to the nearest 50,000 population. Mayor Withrow Is proposal also would remove the vote from all transit agencies, but give them advisory status. As an advisory member, the transit operators would be allowed to participate in all Congestion Management Agency Board discussions, make motions, and be allowed to serve as voting members of subcommittees. However, the advisory members would not be allowed to vote on motions or actions by the CMA Board and would not count towards CMA Board quorum. Mayor Withrow suggested that MTC, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and CALTRANS be added to the CMA Board as advisory members. Under this compromise proposal, the City of Oakland would receive 21 .05% of the total votes and the City of Dublin would receive 5.26%. It is Staff fIs recommendation that the City Council consider the Alameda compromise position which apparently provides the Tri-Valley and the Tri- Cities areas with approximately the same combined percentage of the votes as the original JPA adopted voting formula (36.8% vs. 34.6%) . a:323cong.agenda#9 Na r. 15 '92 11: 10 SANFRX525 series City of Ahii)('cl;i C.A1if01'1113 M�IR 1992 Y 01 OU3LIN j March 12, 1992 Re: Congestion Management Agency (CMA) . Voting Composition - Compromise Position Dear Mayor: The CMA voting composition consists of two elements - transit agency representation and proportional voting by population. The recently revised composition has caused consternation because the reduction in voting shares for some areas renders them ineffec- tive. I am proposing a .compromise position for CMA voting composition which I believe more equitably treats all jurisdictions. First, I propose that all transit operators, regardless of whether their board is independently elected or not, become advisory members. The current transit agency representation is skewed to include .. only some operators . I believe that all operators should be represented; however, since all operators operate within some or all of our jurisdictions, I do not believe that they should have additional votes. I would further suggest that these operators be treated by the CMA board similar to the way MTC treats its advisory members. Specifically, the advisory members should be allowed to participate in all CMA Board discussions, they should be allowed to make motions, and should be allowed to serve as voting members of subcommittees. The advisory members would not be allowed to vote on motions or actions by the CMA Board and would not count toward a CMA Board quorum. In addition, I would like to suggest that three additional agencies be included as advisory members: MTC, BAAQMD, and Caltrans. I think that it is important to include these members because these agencies also have decision making authority over funding and regulatory requirements of our program. Second, I would propose that the voting share be revised to be one vote per 100, 000 population which rounds to the nearest 50, 000 population. Under this scenario the CMA Board would have a total of 19 votes. The number and percentage of votes, by jurisdiction, is shown on the attached table. Although this E. William Withrow,Jr., Nfayor 01flce of the Mayor, Hoorn 301 rvil ill Cily Hall WE] 2283 5unta Clara Avrnur: • 99501-4956 415.7-1811545 Ma r. 13 '92 11: 11 SHNFHXyd� series rHA D1LI(4-n4Z:)4J4 -2- scenario would reduce some of the larger cities proportionate shares of the votes based on population, I believe that .the CMA Board's mandates include items which are better gauged by other factors, such as congested roadway miles and future growth. This voting composition would also better reflect the "American" system of government which includes a balance of representation both by entity (Senate) and by population (House of Representa- tives) . This type of composition would also encourage the smaller entities, where growth, and thus congestion, are most likely to be occurring, to participate meaningfully in this process. I hope that this compromise is acceptable to you and welcome your comments. I ask that you take this proposal to your Council/ Board for action in a timely manner, in order that we may put this issue behind us. When your Council has taken action, please send the results to the Administrative Director of CMA, Dennis Fay; the Executive Director of the Alameda County Mayors Conference, Cecil Riley; and to the President of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, Mary King. very truly yours, E. William .Withro , Jr. Mayor TmnpIw\CMAICMAVoW C,'MA VOTING STRUCTURE OPULATIUN OTES ERCEN'I'AGE �l TY MI�"r^'maM^�fM.l' OAKLAND 372242 4 ~21.05%n FREMONT 173339 2 10.53% HAYWARD 111498 1 5.26% BERKELEY 102724 1 ALAMEDA 77200 1 5,26% SAN LEANDRO 58223 1 5.26% LIVERMORE 56741 1 5,267o UNION CITY 53782 _.1 5.26% - - PLEASAN TON . 30553 N E«VARK 37861 1 5.260I DUBLIN 23229 1 5.26%, ALBANY 1 6327 1 S.260/o PIEDMONT 10602 1 5.26% EMERYVI:LLE 5740 1 5.26010 ALAMEDA COUNTY 119682 1 5.26To TOTAL � 1279182 19 99,96% BIT ALAMEDA COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY Option 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 o ulation** VOTES WITH AGENCY POPULATION* % of NO. of % of NO. of % of 50,000 City of: POP. VOTES TOTAL VOTES VOTES TOTAL VOTES INCREMENT 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 111 ,498 8.58 2 7.69 2 6.67 - Berkeley 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 ;5 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 - Emeryville 5,740 0.44 1 3.85 1 3.33 - Unincorporated Area 119,882 9.22 1 2 7.69 2 6.67 - SUBTOTAL 1 ,299,940 100.00 22 84.62 28 93.33 Transit Operators 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 ,299,940 100.00 26 100.00 30 100.00 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. 8/20/91 (SO)