August 24, 2004

SUBJECT: Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Inquiry into the Board Structure and Financial Management of the Valley Transportation Authority

REPORT IN BRIEF

The City of Sunnyvale must by law respond to recommendations made by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury regarding the Board Structure and Financial Management of the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).

The Grand Jury has recommended that legislation be put forth to cause the VTA Board of Directors to be elected or appointed as a main public service responsibility.  The Grand Jury further recommends that legislation be put forth to reduce the size of the VTA Board.

This report discusses the Grand Jury’s recommendations and provides alternatives for responding.  Staff believes that the recommendations fall outside the purview of the City of Sunnyvale, but that further analysis could be conducted of the Grand Jury recommendations by one or a group of major constituency agencies identified in the Grand Jury report as appropriate to implement the recommendations.

BACKGROUND

In June, 2004, the City Council received the final report “Inquiry into the Board Structure and Financial Management of the Valley Transportation Authority” from the 2003/04 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Attachment A).  The City must by law respond in a manner prescribed by California Penal Code Section 933.  The Grand Jury’s instructions are to respond to Recommendations I and II only of the Report, and four possible actions for responding are dictated. 

The first recommendation is for enabling legislation to be sponsored by one or more of the major constituent agencies on the VTA, such as the County Board of Supervisors, to provide for VTA Board members who are dedicated to transportation that are either directly elected or appointed as the main public service responsibility (or some combination of the two).  This recommendation is based on the finding that the current VTA Board does not provide direct voter representation, makes accountability remote, creates conflicts in Board members’ responsibilities, and overextends Board members.

The second recommendation is for the current size of the VTA Board to be reduced to 5 to 7 members.  This also would be accomplished through enabling legislation sponsored by one or more of the major constituent agencies of the VTA Board.  This recommendation is based on the finding that management oversight of the VTA is inefficient given the current size of the Board.

Penal Code Section 933.05 requires the City to respond to these recommendations with one of four possible actions:

1.      Recommendations have been implemented

2.      Recommendations have not yet been implemented but will be in the future.

3.      Recommendations require further analysis.

4.      Recommendations will not be implemented because they are not warranted or are not reasonable.      

Existing policy

Land Use and Transportation Element Goal R1, Protect and sustain a high quality of life in Sunnyvale by participating in coordinated land use and transportation planning in the region.

Land Use and Transportation Element R.1.3.1, Participate in intergovernmental activities related to regional and sub-regional land use and transportation planning in order to advance the City’s interests.

DISCUSSION

Staff believes that the recommendations of the Report are not within the purview of the City of Sunnyvale alone to implement.  However, City policy calls for the City to participate in coordinated transportation and land use planning in the region, and the City is an active participant in the VTA.  With respect to Recommendation I regarding providing for members dedicated to transportation through direct elections or main public service requirements, staff believes that further analysis could be conducted by an agency or agencies identified as being responsible for implementing this recommendation, to determine whether this approach would provide better voter representation, and accountability and reduce conflicts and overextension of Board member responsibilities.  The City and its VTA representatives should actively participate in any analysis that occurs to determine whether it is in the City’s best interests.

With respect to Recommendation II to reduce the size of the VTA Board, again the Grand Jury recommendation calls for implementation by one or more major constituent agencies of the VTA.  On its’ own the City of Sunnyvale is not a major constituent agency, but could and should participate in discussions on the make up of the VTA Board.  In July, 2003, the City Council took a formal position to support a representation scheme that increases individual City representation but keeps voting and representation rights proportional to population, while maintaining or only slightly increasing the current number of members of the Board.  As part of this policy consideration, the Council encouraged cities that were concerned with representation to work within the existing City group scheme to improve communication and representation.  The outcome of this most recent consideration of representation by the VTA Board was improved dialogue between all City group representatives.  This is an example of how the City might participate in further analysis of the VTA Board structure or enabling legislation to change the Board structure, should a major constituent agency or group of agencies choose to pursue this. 

Staff is recommending that the City Council respond to the Grand Jury by stating that it believes that Recommendations I and II would require further analysis. Staff further recommends that the explanation of this response should indicated that on its’ own the City of Sunnyvale is not a major constituent agency, and would therefore not be responsible for conducting further analysis, but would participate as appropriate as it relates to the City’s interests.

VTA Board Response to Grand Jury Report

The Chair of the VTA Board has responded to the Grand Jury Report (Attachment B).  The VTA Board, through the Chair, disagrees with all findings and recommendations.  No formal Board consideration was made of this response. 

The City Council could alternatively choose to cite the VTA response as a basis for rejecting the Report recommendations.  Since the VTA is an agency that could be considered responsible for implementing the recommendations, the Council could reference the VTA’s finding that they are not warranted or reasonable.  Staff believes that ongoing dialogue over Board representation as it relates to the management of the VTA is reasonable, and that exploration of the Grand Jury’s recommendations need not be dismissed out of hand.

FISCAL IMPACT

None.

PUBLIC CONTACT

Public contact was made through posting of the Council agenda on the City's official notice bulletin board, posting of the agenda and report on the City's web page, and the availability of the report in the Library and the City Clerk's Office.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Authorize the Mayor to sign the Response to Grand Jury Report form indicating that Recommendations 1 and II require further analysis by a major constituent agency or group of agencies, and that the City of Sunnyvale on its own does not constitute a major constituent agency that would be responsible for implementing the recommendations.

2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the Response to Grand Jury Report form indicating that Recommendations I and II will not be implemented because they are not warranted or reasonable, and cite the VTA Board response as justification of their infeasibility.

3. Consider other options.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends Alternative #1: Authorize the Mayor to sign the Response to Grand Jury Report form indicating that Recommendations 1 and II require further analysis by a major constituent agency or group of agencies, and that the City of Sunnyvale on its own does not constitute a major constituent agency that would be responsible for implementing the recommendations.