Last year the SacRT board voted to change its board structure, primarily to allocate a second seat to Elk Grove, which has about double the population of the other smaller cities which have one member. But SacRT board structure is largely defined in Public Utilities Code (PUC), and legislation to change that code was not introduced. So agenda item 7.1 for this evening’s meeting (sorry about the late notice) is to authorize the General Manager to work with a legislator to develop language to reflect the board’s intent as expressed through the Board Composition and Voting Structure Ad Hoc Committee.

STAR supports the addition of a second seat for Elk Grove.

STAR believes the PUC unnecessarily handicaps the board from making changes to structure necessary to respond to changing conditions.

STAR is on record as supporting the appointment of non-elected members to the board, as both regular members and alternates. The proposal may do that for alternates, but not for regular members. In 2022, the public and a number of board members supported the idea of non-elected members. That idea was vetoed by board member Kerri Howell, who essentially said “over my dead body will any member of the public serve on this board.” That is likely why the legislation to change PUC was never introduced. But she is no longer on the SacRT board, having lost her election in Folsom.

SacRT board members, as elected officers of the cities and counties, are already overwhelmed by assignments to boards and commissions, and as a result it is difficult for them to keep up with board business, or even to attend all meetings. That is in part why about half of all calendared board meetings are cancelled.

Public members of the board would still be appointed by the city councils, or county supervisors. But they could bring expertise in transit and perspective or riders to the board, which is largely absent otherwise.

Yes, to members of the public being appointed to the SacRT board!

STAR also believes that moving away from weighted voting to one member – one vote was a mistake, as it gives far too much voice to the lower density areas of the SacRT service area (which is similar to but not identical to the County of Sacramento. We are on record as favoring population weighted voting. Which is more like one rider – one vote than the current structure. A density weighted vote would be even fairer, but probably too hard to administer. The City of Sacramento is about 1/3 of the population in the service area, but has quite a bit of the transit service because the original light rail system and much of the bus system was organized to meet the needs of state workers and other downtown workers commuting in the the suburbs. That pattern is of the past.

• SacRT
• SacRT Governance