Gilroy
– South County officials are taking another shot at bringing
some balance to the north-south divide on the board of the Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority, but they are not very
optimistic.
Gilroy – South County officials are taking another shot at bringing some balance to the north-south divide on the board of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, but they are not very optimistic.
“I would like to see Morgan Hill and Gilroy split off from Milpitas because they don’t have anything in common, but I don’t think it’s going to go anywhere. We don’t have the votes,” said Santa Clara County Supervisor Don Gage, who sits on the VTA board as a county representative. “If Gilroy has a permanent seat, you’d have to add board members and that would take away authority from San Jose.”
The VTA oversees all road and transit projects in the county and is funded largely through sales taxes. Frustrated by a rotating system that forces Morgan Hill and Gilroy to share a seat with Milpitas – an arrangement equally disappointing to Milpitas – South County politicians and traffic experts have revived an “ad hoc” reorganization committee to study ways to change the VTA board.
The issue has percolated for years and last May a county civil grand jury report criticized the VTA as an organization in which “most of the strategy and tactics are set by staff. The staff spends much of its time bringing the board up to speed on decisions that the staff has already made.”
The report recommended that the VTA alter its board to ensure that members have a greater understanding of the issues they deal with.
“I think what Morgan Hill and Gilroy are looking for is representation that more fairly addresses the concerns of South County,” Gilroy transportation engineer Don Dey said.
But any change to the board structure will require the support of San Jose which controls five of the board’s 12 votes. It would also require a change to 1994 state legislation that established the VTA and similar transportation agencies throughout the state.
“It’s convoluted but we’re going to have to stay with the same framework,” said board member and Milpitas City Councilman Bob Livengood. “The original concept to give everybody a vote is politically DOA, and I’m not much for tilting at windmills.”
The VTA board structure is complicated, with 5 of the 12 seats reserved for San Jose representatives, two for county officials and the five remaining seats assigned on a rotating basis among the other 14 cities in the county. Members serve one- or two-year terms, and are not directly elected; they are appointed by the jurisdictions for which they already serve in some elected capacity.
Livengood believes the rotations need to be changed to reflect common interests and population. He thinks San Jose should hold its five seats, but at least one of the seats held by county supervisors should be reallocated to one of the larger cities in North County.
“Milpitas maybe should share with Santa Clara. We have a lot in common with them that we don’t have with our friends in South County,” he said. “But there may be some merit to taking one county seat and sharing it with Morgan Hill and Gilroy. Past history shows very clearly that supervisors assume positions very similar to the cities in their districts.”
Jane Howard, interim director of Gilroy’s Economic Development Corp., who sat on the grand jury, said recently that the VTA board makes little effort to investigate staff recommendations.
“More often than not this was a staff-driven organization with very little comments or questions from the board,” Howard said. “That’s unusual. They need to be sure they’re making truly good decisions at the VTA about the budget.”
And it is the budget-busting, $4.3 billion BART to San Jose project inspiring the latest effort to reform the board. Milpitas has endorsed the project. South County support has been tepid because of fears that the project’s immense cost will be a drain on VTA finances. A recent proposal to study a shorter BART line was narrowly defeated in spite of protests from cities that would not be served by the extension.
Morgan Hill Mayor Dennis Kennedy, an alternate on the VTA board, said the expense of BART should not be shared equally by communities that won’t directly benefit.
“Although we support a BART extension, we do not support it at the expense of projects that will benefit South County,” Kennedy said.
Kennedy wants the VTA to pursue adding more Caltrain trips to South County, which have just been cut, and providing reverse-commuter service. But at the moment, South County does not have a vote. Kennedy will rotate on to the board in January, but in the meantime, his interests are represented by Livengood.
And VTA board member and San Jose City Councilman Forrest Williams said recently that the board doesn’t need to be shuffled because it works well and gives all members votes on subcommittees.
“People complain that they aren’t being heard, but we’ve found that a lot of people don’t show up at meetings,” Williams said. “I don’t think anyone is lacking in opportunity. Everyone wants to sit on the dais, but the structure is based on size and I don’t see anyone getting less representation than they should.”
VTA Board
Group 1: 5 members from San Jose
Group 2: 3 members drawn from Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale
Group 3: 1 member drawn from Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and Saratoga
Group 4: 1 member drawn from Gilroy, Morgan Hill and Milpitas
Group 5: 2 members from the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.
