The Fall General Assembly of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) revisited the association's history and looked at other models of regional governance for inspiration in the future. President Gwen Regalia recalled how ABAG's regional mission at its inception in 1961 was undone ten years later when an administrative assistant's embezzlement led to state creation of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). MTC was given responsibility for a Regional Transportation Plan and authority for distributing federal and state transportation money. ABAG was left with responsibility for allocating housing needs to Bay Area cities and counties, but with no funds to assist in creating the affordable housing included in the allocations.
Local jurisdictions, counties and cities, are ABAG's customers and dues paying members in the voluntary association. As a result, ABAG's planning functions have been shaped in response to funding from members or other agencies. The agency is currently involved in CALFED, the Estuary Project, and other planning for the Bay, including the Bay Trail; hazardous waste facility siting and the Green Business program; earthquake hazard mapping; and services for local government such as finance, insurance, and power brokerage and staff training.
Meanwhile, MTC's regional planning has also been shaped by local jurisdictions, especially county transportation plans. SB45 (Kopp) dictated a "return to source" of state transportation money for each county based on population rather than strategic regional needs. Furthermore, MTC has strongly supported county sales taxes measures to raise more transportation funds. These sales tax measures specified projects with voter appeal, instituting planning by county initiative rather than by regional criteria. However, MTC retains some regional funds to distribute and coordinates advocacy for increased funding from the state and federal government, so counties find it worthwhile to cooperate in regional transportation planning.
MTC finds the current arrangement of regional planning and governance to be efficient. ABAG seeks changes. The two agencies will soon conclude a joint task force that was to explore restructuring, an alternative to state legislation requiring study of a merger (see August/September 2003 issue).
How have other regional bodies evolved, those that were not fractured in infancy?
Wendy Davis described the first council of governments (COG) in Texas, the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), created in 1966. It has approximately the same population as the Bay Area with twice as many member governments: 16 counties, 162 cities, 23 school districts and 28 special districts. (Neither ABAG nor MTC includes schools and special districts.)
As the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization, NCTCOG is responsible for transportation planning. This Fort Worth-Dallas area COG also does air quality coordination; wastewater, stormwater, and solid waste planning; regional police training; job training; criminal justice planning; services for the elderly; emergency preparedness planning; and research and information technology services. (There is no affordable housing requirement as in California.) Davis observed that combining transportation planning with other planning made sense since transportation planning affects air quality, access to jobs, mobility for the elderly, and emergency mobilization. She sees synergies in the benefits derived from programs, savings in administrative and support functions and development of greater cooperation among jurisdictions.
The North Central Texas structure does reflect the sensitivity of transportation funding. The executive body has only 13 members while transportation funding priorities are determined by a Regional Transportation Council of 33 locally elected officials plus six transportation providers. (MTC was established before that federal requirement and does not include transportation providers.) NCTCOG staffs both bodies under one Executive Director. Four of the locally elected members sit on both bodies, aiding coordination.
Closer to the Bay Area, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), had to reinvent itself in 1999 when joint powers agreements between city and county were weakened as suburbs incorporated. The new six-county SACOG has a representative from each city and county and makes decisions with "three threshold" voting: to pass, a proposal needs support representing at least 50% of the population, 50% of the counties and 50% of the cities. (ABAG members have an equal vote regardless of population; at MTC, the five more populous counties each have two Commissioners.)
SACOG is responsible for transportation planning, air quality conformity, transportation and land use studies, housing need determination and airport land use. All parcels in the six counties are in the Global Information System; PLACE3S software has been used to generate a more detailed regional vision than the Bay Area's Smart Growth Strategy. The Chairman of SACOG's board, Bill Hughes, said transportation money is the primary lever for achieving the vision.
Oakland City Councilmember Jane Brunner, on ABAG's Executive Board, asked how other COGs handle land use planning. In the Dallas-Fort Worth area, collaboration supports a "Just Say No" response to poor development proposals, and sales tax rebates reduce the incentive to take retail sales from neighbors. Sustainable development goals dictate more funding "points" for responsible land use patterns so private developers push local government for development patterns that will merit public infrastructure support. (The Mayor of Hercules complained that after following Smart Growth precepts to the letter, funding for the Hercules Amtrak station is "nowhere in sight".) In SACOG the policy is to direct transportation money to areas with supportive land use planning. Hughes also seeks to ensure that affected transit providers and school districts have had face-to-face meetings with those who are to approve projects.
The importance of face-to-face regional interaction to good regional planning and governance came up several times during this General Assembly. From his experience with the National Association of Regional Councils, William R Dodge saw agreement on an " equitable growth compact with teeth" coming out of regional assemblies that have established network rules and relationships. Even in Portland, the only region with directly elected regional decision makers, there is a Metropolitan Policy Assembly of local elected officials meeting biweekly to advise the Metro Council. Also needed is a sense of regional citizenship so, for example, reducing air pollution would be seen as a personal responsibility. Regions must demonstrate the ability to respond to emergency and infrastructure needs to "compete globally and flourish locally."
The Public Policy Institute of California Survey, November 2002, found that 81% of people in the Bay Area agree that "Local governments should work together and have a common plan for regional land use and development." We have yet to figure out how to do that.
Guest Writer Eva Alexis is the President of LWVBA and LWVBAEF. LWVBA was a cosponsor of the ABAG Fall General Assembly.