Speaker 1: Consider having council endorse one or combination of options for the future structure of the Association of Area Governments, including an option to merge with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which requires Council action.
Speaker 0: And member Ashcraft brought this item.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. So this is my item because I represent Alameda on the Association of Bay Area Governments. I'm going to try to make a complicated situation, straightforward and simple. So a brief history. First of all, of what a bag association of Bay Area Governments is. It was formed in 1961 as a voluntary association of the Bay Area's 101 cities and nine counties, recognizing that common issues cross jurisdictional boundaries. Some of the work that a bag does today include forecasts of the region's housing, jobs and population growth identifying regional housing needs. You've heard the term RINO, which stands for Regional Housing Needs Allocation, and that comes from a bag of statistics and research and also addressing resilience, which has to do with things like earthquakes and other disasters, recognizing that they don't tend to stop at, you know, city borders or county borders prepares issues, climate change reports and prepares elements of the Sustainable Communities Strategy, which is a guideline for how cities and counties comply with Senate Bill 375, which sets targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicle trips through regional allocation of housing needs and regional transportation planning. And then there is the and another example just in Alameda, we talk often about sea level rise and we are an island and we have some low lying areas. And there's actually a steady area out on Bay from island that is part of and a big, steady, empty sea. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission was created by the California legislature in 1970 to receive and allocate federal and state funding to support transportation and related infrastructure in the Nine Bay Area counties. You probably use some MTC programs and services. I bet you. I hope almost all of us have clipper cards in our pockets or wallets. Maybe your car has a fast track electronic toll collection that comes through MTC, the new Bay Bridge. Okay, there's been a little controversy, but they were MTC was on that project and they're also helping bring BART to San Jose. But elsewhere in California and around the country, local COGS funds, courts, councils, councils of governments. Right. So a bag is considered a council, a government, because it's voluntary association of all of these different 101 cities, nine counties in the rest of the state and much of the country councils of government were designated the Metropolitan Planning Organization. And that's what MTC is creating a single unified planning agency for historical reasons. The Bay Area model is different, it's bifurcated, and in recent years it's led to some problems. So a consultant team was brought in. They're called management partners. I think the council all got a hefty 90 page report that I've summarized. So you don't have to write. I hopefully you read it too. They came. They identified three specific problems and presented seven options for how the two agencies could move forward more productively. So the three problems identified were the preparation of this Sustainable Communities Strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is currently statutorily split between the two agencies. So there's two different planning staffs. They're doing some overlapping work, not always communicating so well. The second is that both agencies have some responsibility for regional land use and transportation planning, but are not formally linked through integrated management, leadership or policy structure. And third, and in some ways most important, because again, I represent Alameda on a big we are a medium sized city but I think we could all agree we want to make sure our voices heard. A bag has a financially fragile funding structure. It depends on grant funding each year and an and an annual allocation of money from the MTC. So. And I will just trying to be as diplomatic as possible. But I also want to be factual. This whole discussion did not start out on the best footing because rather than appearing like merger talks, it had the appearance, more of the appearance of a hostile takeover from MTC when late last year the Metropolitan Transportation Commission passed a resolution that said, okay, we're merging the two, we're taking 13 of 14 abig planters over to our side, a bag. You can have the planner who's dedicated to the Bay Trail. We're reducing 40% of your budget and something else, cutting your your workforce. And that led to an outcry, which was a good thing. So the there was a joint meeting of the executive boards of both Ardbeg and MTC. I give a lot of credit to Julie Pearce. She's a council member from the city of Clayton, currently the president of the bag board who said, not so fast, we need to have a voice at this table. So both boards went back to the table, decided, oh, the other provision of the the original MTC resolution was that a study of how the merger should work would take place and how it could work and could be laid out, would take place after the merger happened. The decision after the the uproar was know that the the study should take place first. So the council has looked at these maybe some of the public has there are seven options laid out. The the one that has gotten the recommendation from both Ezra Rapoport, the executive director of Air Bag and the Air Bag Executive Committee, as well as a former mayor. Gwen Regalia is a former mayor of Walnut Creek. And there's another woman who's a former San Mateo County supervisor, also endorse model for option four, which is to create a new regional agency and governance model. In other words, to have the Bay Area follow the sort of model that we see in the rest of the state and in other parts of the country, and have a unified Council of Government and Metropolitan Planning Organization, but in a carefully orchestrated fashion. Mr. Rappaport, the executive director of IBAC, wrote in a letter that he sent us. The new governance model should combine the best of Mtc's statutory responsibilities to program and allocate transportation dollars, while also supporting other non transportation issues facing the city faced facing the region. Sorry, the concerns that have been raised. Okay. And I should hasten to add that the ABA Executive Board also recommended a second option if option four provided not viable, proved to be not viable because right now in the resolution 40 to 10, that's an MTC resolution. The revised resolution gives the two governing boards of Airbag and MTC only till July one, 2016, to come to an agreement on how to move forward and specifies that planning grants will terminate on that date, which right now is less than six weeks away. So what Ezra went on to say is that while we see a change in governance is crucial to the long term mission of regional planning, we are convinced that the air bag and MTC boards cannot address governance in the timeframe needed to sustain a bag unless that the planning grant expires. Unless both boards adopt an alternative merger implementation plan, which probably can't happen by July 1st, in which case he would recommend Rapoport in the ABA Executive Board recommend the alternative, which is the approval of option seven. And Option seven is to enter into a contract between air bag and MTC to consolidate staff functions under one executive director . We already know that Executive Director will be Mtc's Director Steve Hemminger and enter into an emotive memorandum of understanding to pursue new governance options. The and so and that option seven is the option that MTC would like to see adopted. Um, I want to go on to just note briefly that management partners, the consultants that did this report, note that the implementation of Resolution 40. Putin ten would change airbags historic role as a regional land use planning agency, which is perceived by most stakeholders as having a staff sensitive to what local government interests and government. Sensitive to local government interests and a governing body capable of representing the diversity of local government concerns. Placing a big staff under the empty MTC administrative structure could lead to a perception that IBAC has less influence and the management partners said. It also found that most local governments are very concerned about MTC, the Regional Transportation Agency, becoming a comprehensive regional planning agency, inclusive and responsive to local governments. And there is a significant concern for losing local control over important issues. So what I'm recommending, and I'm happy to hear from my fellow council members and see if I can answer any questions. Is that so? On Thursday of this week, I'll be attending the air bag General Assembly meeting in Oakland and the General Assembly, presuming we have a quorum, that 101 cities and nine counties will vote and our vote will be the direction we give to the bag board when it then meets in joint session, I think in the following week with the MTC board. So I have a recommendation I'd like to make, but I also would like some flexibility to listen to my fellow representatives. I give huge credence to the air bag board who have gone through this, who, you know, really stop the train from going off the rails, brought it back, but also are mindful of the fact that if we just say no, we don't want it, we just want to keep things as they are. Come July 1st, the planning grant disappears and they will be greatly disabled. So I. I believe that it is time to enter into a new model to have the option for this new regional agency and governance model. I also agree with the the former mayor and county supervisor who recommend that MTC be requested to rescind Resolution 4210 to give time for both bodies to come to an agreement about the the governance model model moving forward. Otherwise, it's negotiation with a gun held to your head, you know, quick in less than six weeks, unwind one agency, create to figure out the governance models. So I'm hoping that this is something that others at the meeting on Thursday will agree with. Option four Request to rescind Resolution 4210. And then I have great respect for as rapporteur for the executive director. If on Thursday it looks like they can't get movement or they can't get the votes from the rest of the the board , I suppose. Option seven could be considered and the difference is the the contract is entered into to consolidate staff functions. So rather than creating this new agency with maybe a different way, you know, model going forward. Basically it all goes over to MTC under their executive director. And I will also add that one of our constituents in Alameda is Randy Rentschler, program director at MTC four. He's been with him for 20 some years and he came to City Hall and met with the city manager and assistant city manager, Lismore, Madame and myself. And you know, I understand Mtc's position, but they see it from their position as that metropolitan planning organization. I'm concerned about local control. I'm concerned that Alameda, as a mid-sized city, have a voice in issues in the region that affect us in the way we do business. Transportation is an important part of that, but it's not the only part. So anyway, those are those are my recommendations. I hope that was understandable. Thanks for your time.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I would like to know if it's appropriate to divide that ask so that we have a vote first on option four and then have a second vote on what to do with option seven. Is that because that's my understanding division of question. So that's how I propose it.
Speaker 1: So I think you can do it that way. What I was hearing, the question is. Sort of flexible. Is there a support for option four and then flexibility depending on what happens at the meeting?
Speaker 0: Right. So I thought I'd like to start with or or we can discuss that. They were people are on that first part the first part of the ask and our discussion. Council members. So I. I personally am supportive of the comments of starting with option four, along with asking C to rescind Resolution 1442 ten and continuing to fund a bag until option for it can be fully implemented. But I do support that as our first. Position other council members.
Speaker 2: Vice mayor in reading this mountain of. It's it's really almost like a schoolyard fight. That's been my understanding. It's mandated by the the Senate bill that has mandated this merger. And, I mean, that's one characterization of it. And. It seems that. I would like to have more local control and I tend to look at a bag as the agency that better reflects local control because of the participation that is. Is his mandated by its organization. So I think option four and again, I think it buys time to help us understand what the next step is and trying to discern whether it's better than option seven, I think is a difficult thing given the short amount of time that we've had to look at this.
Speaker 0: The other council members want to weigh in on this. Member.
Speaker 4: I guess I. There's voluminous material here. I mean, this one is a 99 page document.
Speaker 3: And then there was the letters.
Speaker 4: SB SB 375 passed in 2008. So that was a while ago, eight years ago? Not not recently. I really like a little bit more input from staff if I realize there's a meeting next week or this week.
Speaker 0: But there's.
Speaker 4: You know, ideally I'd like to have staff evaluate this and come to a recommendation, but I don't know if there's time for that. So.
Speaker 1: I mean, can I just give a brief perspective on it? I think it did start with SB 375 because that created forced this marriage unwilling partners to come up with one one plan. Plan B area. And basically, there were there's two different interests, completely money based transportation projects. What will get actually done in the region? And then more sort of outreach. Let's talk to the community. And I think each one were going in separate directions and then they'd meet and be off sync. And so then they had there was a lot of frustration. But this frustration goes back to the last 55 years, actually, because about every ten years a bag in MTC has had an issue and has talked about merging. And this, I think, is the closest it's ever come. And part of the issue, the biggest issue is what to do with the governance structure. There's two different. There is the MTC commission and there is the air bag board. Both have. Very legitimate, valid interests and roles, but they don't really mesh together. And so what option for does is it says, let's not have those two different governing boards and let's create a new one. What option seven does as it says initially, let's combine the staff under one executive director. And what the mayor and I heard at the mayor's conference was the expectation is that that executive director will be Steve Hemminger, the Executive Director of MTC.
Speaker 0: As opposed to AVA.
Speaker 1: Right. Or as or someone else. Correct. Or a third unbiased right individual. So, so forcing those that staff to work together with different interests and the executive director continuing to report to two boards with different interests. And the reason that option seven is discussed is because it says that both agencies have to agree on one option and so a bag believes that MTC will not go. My time's up. A bag believes that.
Speaker 3: My.
Speaker 1: MTC will not support a new governing structure. And so their compromise is option seven, which says two boards initially and then an option to study a full merger later on. So. I actually agree with where this council seems to be going is option for if possible. But taking away the gun to your head on restricting the funding.
Speaker 2: Vice Mayor And I think with that background, again, it buys us time to be able to. Give direction to our representatives in the eventuality that it goes to something like option seven. We really have to understand what we're getting with getting into.
Speaker 0: Amber Ashcraft.
Speaker 3: So I was just going to say that, first of all, I do. And by the way, our city manager at one time worked for a bank. So she she knows quite well the inner workings of that agency and the relationship with MTC. But one of the things that the management partners consultants study noted and somewhat ironically, their recommendation to consultants was option six, which neither Mtc's executive board or the board chose is an option. And even when they noted in that to execute a contract between MTC and a bank to consolidate planning functions within MTC and enter into an MRU to create new regional agency and governance model. But then quickly note that such an MRU may or may not be legally binding. So it really is a compromised position borne of reality. So I think if and I don't know how big and if it is, but if MTC could be persuaded to rescind the the resolution or amend that July 1st date to, you know, six months from now or whatever, it's this is a big step. As as Ms.. Chimique noted, these discussions have been broached before. This is the first time it's ever been so close to actually happening. So certainly if we take more than six weeks to figure out the details and possibly with a facilitated discussion, which is something that the consultant's report recommended, I think some progress may be made.
Speaker 1: So.
Speaker 0: Remember they said.
Speaker 7: What we seem to be talking about here is the difference between a merger and a takeover of two entities. I trust that our representative to a bag council member, Maryland, as you Ashcraft has been very involved in this issue. And so if you have a recommendation, one of her recommendations is to pursue option four then. And I think she's our duly appointed member involved in this, so I'm fine with that.
Speaker 0: So I would like us to actually vote the way we do, give you that authority for that first vote, assuming that that's what the ask was. That's what I heard.
Speaker 3: One of the.
Speaker 0: That's one of the. So I. Did you want to make a motion for that first part.
Speaker 2: Of.
Speaker 0: My speech?
Speaker 2: Authorize our representative to represent the city in voting for option for us listed in this in the staff report.
Speaker 0: And can I'm out a friendly amendment to also the second part here of asking MTC to rescind a yes 4210 and continue to fund a bag until option four can be fully implemented.
Speaker 2: Exactly.
Speaker 0: All right. So the motion, um, the one on second. I'll second all those in favor.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: I. I.
Speaker 0: EPSTEIN. Sorry. Epstein So four in favor of that one abstention. So then you have authority for for that part of the ask. And then if I heard correctly, you want to do you want to explain the second part of what you were seeking?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I you know, while it might be nice to have our staff do research, a bag has been living with this for. A while now. And they have been at these executive level talks and they know their finances. So the fact that the back executive committee's second choice, follow up option, backup plan, they called it, is this option seven. If they can't buy additional time, it keeps a bag from essentially. Dissolving. I mean, if you don't have the funding, you can't it. Every year they go out to various. Funding grant organizations. And that's a tough way to keep your your funding stream. And they get some funding stream from MTC. But MTC is saying, look, I know you can't continue to be a financial drain on us. And and MTC does have some some concerns. There's some labor issues that I felt was getting a little too much into the weeds. That's something that both boards can can get into. But if MTC really stands firm and refuses to rescind Resolution 4210, then I don't want to leave a bag in the vulnerable position of just. Just dissolving, I would rather see an orderly process. And so, you know, we know from being up here long enough, there are a few perfect solutions. Here's an example that I do give great credit credence to the folks who have been working hardest at this and would just like that as a backup plan.
Speaker 0: And Vice Mayor.
Speaker 2: Just a question and a point. If I understood correctly, if a bag dissolves, the name TK becomes the regional planning. Regional planning body.
Speaker 3: And I think preserving local control is important.
Speaker 0: It was hard for me to accept option seven. I almost didn't want to leave it at the first one because I do feel that option seven and the rest of these actually look more like a hostile takeover. And that then it just I don't see I don't see I'm very concerned that we will, in fact, be losing . If MTC is not in a position or willing to negotiate at this point and accept option four, I don't expect them to step up and give us any more protections or control. And I'm very concerned about losing our local control. So I'm personally not. I have very serious concerns about agreeing to option seven. Yes, I by.
Speaker 2: The process timing issue. The vote will happen on Thursday if. If our position is not. It doesn't prevail. Are they going to work it out during that Congress and have a second vote?
Speaker 3: So the way it works on Thursday, as I understand it, is first we have to see if we have a quorum and then we vote on whatever it is. I mean, a motion not dissimilar to what we're doing tonight. There'll be a discussion and and I would expect that the number one recommendation, option four, is going to be up for a vote. And if that gets the majority vote, then that's what the MTA, the air bag executive board will take to their joint session with the a bag with the empty board. Now, I don't mean to diminish Alamitos significance in any way, but people, we are one out of 101 cities. So, I mean, but I, I take this seriously and I did read 99 pages of report to understand it in May or to your point about it seems more like a hostile takeover. Trust me, some of the options are even more like a hostile takeover. And the do nothing let it go by default, I don't think is is a good option, just my personal view.
Speaker 2: But is that going to be is there going to be a second vote on. On Thursday, or do we get another chance to come back and evaluate what happened? You can report what happened on Thursday and then we can. We can be more informed before we jump to another option.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't know. I don't know that that's going to happen, by the way.
Speaker 2: You don't know that what's going to happen. There's not another vote.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is no. Because. Okay, bear in mind that right now, the way Resolution 4210 reads, both boards have to come to an agreement by July 1st or else the funding for IBAC goes away. So there the clock is ticking unless they're persuaded to rescind those provisions in in resolution for issue ten. So for that reason, I don't think it's going to get bounced back again. Now, if there's not a quorum, the vote won't be taken. So, I mean, I don't know everything, but no, I don't expect this to come back to the city level. I think. Well.
Speaker 2: The question I have is a quorum is established. There's a motion to go with option for second to everybody votes and it loses. Does that mean someone can make a motion at that meeting and say, okay, what's your choice?
Speaker 3: Absolutely. And I think that's part of the reason that as Rapaport and the executive board of a bag have that second fallback option. And again, I give them a lot of credence and respect in Sacramento.
Speaker 7: Mayor I'd like to move. Council member as he asked Kraft's second option as our backup plan to support. You know, I think there's value in these two entities and I hope that they work it out.
Speaker 2: Secondly.
Speaker 0: Any other questions? Comments. All those in favor I oppose. I oppose. Abstain and one abstention. So three in favor. One oppose and one abstention.
Speaker 3: Okay, thank you. I've got my marching orders. Thank everybody. And I will report back at the next hour.
Speaker 0: And thank you for your work on this. You did a great job. Thank you very much. Next night a9c.
Speaker 1: Consider directing the city manager to prepare a presentation on neighborhood parking permit programs.
Speaker 0: This is member day sales referral.
Speaker 7: Great. Well, thank you very much. The reason why I put together this referral was in light of our decision several weeks ago, about 1435 Webster Street. At which point in time a resident had indicated a desire for a parking permit program.
Consider Having Council Endorse One or a Combination of Options for the Future Structure of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), including an Option to Merge with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which Requires Council Action at the May 17, 2016 Meeting. (Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft)