Caltrain approves governance reform plan

Under the recommendation, the San Mateo County Transit District will no longer have sole final discretionary appointing power of an executive director, general counsel and auditor. A majority of the Caltrain board will now decide upon the executive director, and Caltrain will maintain its own general counsel and auditor separate from SamTrans. However, SamTrans will remain the managing agency and will be repaid $19.8 million owed to it for its 2008 agreement, when it agreed to be paid less in exchange for being made managing agency of the rail system. The three counties agreed in 1991 to pool their money to purchase the rail system, previously privately owned. SamTrans will also get an additional $15.2 million to account for the payment delay over the years.

The $19.8 million and $15.2 million paid to SamTrans will come from various sources. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission will pay $19.6 million for the 2008 payment and San Francisco will pay $200,000. MTC is a Bay Area regional agency responsible for transportation financing and coordination created by the state in 1970. San Francisco will pay $6,080,000, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority will pay $9,120,000 for the delay in payment from the original agreement. The payment must be within 12 months of the final agreement into an escrow account, or it will be void.

The oversight role of SamTrans, known as the San Mateo County Transit District, has concerned the Caltrain board because it has ultimate oversight in hiring and firing staff. SamTrans serves as the managing agency, giving it control over staffing and ultimately hiring and firing the Caltrain executive director. San Francisco and Santa Clara counties have pushed for changes to the three-county train system’s governance structure to ensure their counties are more involved in decision making, staffing and authority. San Mateo County representatives have fought to avoid broad changes that left it with diminished influence, creating a divided dynamic on the board. According to various board members, the contentious governance talks have impaired Caltrain’s ability to recruit staff and reduced staff time for other projects.

The Caltrain board approved the recommendation at its March 3 meeting. However, the recommendation is not final and still requires approval from Caltrain’s member agencies of SamTrans, the city and county of San Francisco, and the VTA. While the agreement represents a tangible step toward reform, all three must agree to the changes, something still uncertain at the San Mateo County level. Pine acknowledged the governance proposal was different than SamTran’s February pathway forward proposal. He noted everyone has to make compromises, with the question remaining of what was in the best interest of transit on the Peninsula.

“We will have to see how the SamTrans board reacts. I know many SamTrans board members still feel strongly the pathway forward proposal is the best we can do,” Pine said.

Caltrain Vice Chair Charles Stone, a Belmont councilmember who also is on the SamTrans board, said it was hard to imagine the recommendation leading to adoption by the member agencies. He remained concerned about the additional costs to Caltrain through more staffing amid fiscal uncertainty. He noted the approval process that will now take place could take months or even years to complete. He was troubled that the $19.8 million put into an escrow account has conditions attached. He argued it was disrespectful to put conditions on money already owed to SamTrans regardless of agreements. Under the agreement, SamTrans will receive the money upon conveyance of its right-of-way agreement in San Mateo County to Caltrain.

“Based on comments [SamTrans] members have made in public meetings, my sense is this deal is not something that the SamTrans board would accept,” Stone said.

Negotiations over governance reform have taken place in numerous meetings for more than a year. The board initially hoped to complete a recommendation agreement by its self-imposed deadline of December but could not reach an agreement. Meetings have been contentious, when several representatives from Santa Clara and San Francisco counties left a June 25 meeting over concerns of litigation from SamTrans. However, progress was made over the last few months following liaison work between Caltrain staff and board members, including a straw proposal road map and several draft recommendations that culminated in the approved proposal March 3. SamTrans will likely discuss the issue at its next regular board meeting.

The Caltrain vote was 8-1 for, with Stone voting against it.

curtis@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 102