TO: AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM: Linda A. Nemeroff, Board Administrative Officer/District Secretary
SUBJECT: Restructuring of Inter-Agency Liaison Committees
ACTION ITEM
AGENDA PLANNING REQUEST: ☐
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Title
Consider adopting Resolution No. 25-036 approving the restructuring of the Board’s Inter-agency Liaison Committees (ILCs), including the following actions:
- Dissolve the City of Richmond and City of San Leandro ILCs, effective immediately;
- Consolidate the City of Berkeley and City of Emeryville ILCs, effective January 1, 2026;
- Establish a City of Fremont/City of Newark ILC, effective January 1, 2026; and
- Approve the ILC Committee Charter, effective January 1, 2026.
Staff Contact:
Linda A. Nemeroff, Board Administrative Officer/District Secretary
Ramakrishna Pochiraju, Executive Director of Planning & Engineering
Body
STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE:
Goal - Strong Public and Policymaker Support
Initiative - Service Quality
The Board’s ILC’s provide a forum for coordination and collaboration between AC Transit and partner local jurisdictions at the elected leadership level. They help ensure that planning efforts are advanced with the common goal of improving public transit.
BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed restructuring of the Board’s ILC’s is anticipated to have minimal fiscal impact, with the potential for modest cost savings. The immediate dissolution of the City of Richmond and City of San Leandro ILCs will eliminate associated staff time, administrative support, and meeting-related expenses. The consolidation of the City of Berkeley and City of Emeryville ILCs, effective January 1, 2026, is expected to improve efficiency and reduce redundancy with marginal cost savings. While the creation of a new liaison committee for the City of Fremont/City of Newark may result in a slight increase in administrative and staffing costs beginning January 1, 2026, these costs are likely to be offset by the savings from the dissolved committees. The approval of the charter for the ILCs (formally referenced as the ILC Parameters document) is not expected to result in any significant fiscal impact, but will allow for a more efficient use of staff time.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
Over the course of the last several decades, as far back as the 1980’s, the District’s Board of Directors created a number of ILC’s designed to foster communication and collaboration between the District and many of the cities within the District, plus the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART). The current list of ILC’s are as follows:
• City of Berkeley - AC Transit ILC
• City of Emeryville - AC Transit ILC
• Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) - AC Transit ILC
• City of Hayward - AC Transit ILC
• City of Alameda - AC Transit ILC
• City of Richmond - AC Transit ILC
• City of Oakland - AC Transit ILC
• City of San Leandro - AC Transit ILC
While these committees have proven to be an effective forum for engaging with cities and BART on matters of mutual interest, their number has grown substantially over the past decade, making it increasingly difficult for staff to support them efficiently. Additionally, the elimination of the two at-large positions on the AC Transit Board of Directors has placed added strain on remaining Board members, who must now cover a larger number of committees with fewer resources.
At the Board Retreat held in October 2024, staff proposed some solutions to better manage the ILC’s, including the consolidation of ILC’s where appropriate and dissolving those that do not meet or duplicate the work being done by other committees and commissions in the same area. Staff specifically wanted to explore the consolidation of the Berkeley and Emeryville ILC’s and the Alameda and Oakland ILC’s as well as dissolve the Richmond and San Leandro ILC’s. The idea to create a new ILC for the Fremont/Newark area was also introduced.
Staff was given direction to meet with the ILC’s to gather input on how the District should proceed. Through the process, staff identified a number of challenges and gathered the following input:
Staff’s Challenges with Current ILC Structure:
• Labor intensive for meeting preparation and follow-up (equivalent to mini-Board meetings)
• Requires dedicated staff for notetaking
• Minimal public participation other than the Oakland and Alameda ILC’s
• Occasional issues with obtaining a quorum causing last-minute cancellations
• Follow-up and accountability are sometimes a challenge with local jurisdiction staff
• Meetings do not happen quarterly due to conflicts (August recess, holidays, new appointees in January)
• Scheduling meetings can be difficult because of committee members’ schedules, which can change with little notice.
Feedback from ILCs
• All agencies support staff’s proposal, with the exception of the Alameda ILC members. They expressed concern that Alameda’s unique transit issues might be overshadowed by Oakland’s if the two are combined. Additionally, they felt that a joint meeting could become too lengthy.
• To reduce the burden on staff, Alameda ILC members proposed the following alternatives:
o Hold remote meetings, similar to the General Manager’s Access Committee (GMAC), scheduled sequentially after Oakland’s meetings for efficiency. (Note: GMAC is not a Brown Act Committee and is not subject to the Brown Act’s teleconferencing requirements.)
o Reduce the number of meetings from four to three per year.
o Use artificial intelligence tools for notetaking.
• Staff has not presented a proposal to the Oakland ILC, as it has not convened since the initial proposal was brought to the Board. The Oakland ILC would not be directly affected by the proposed restructuring.
Development of a Formal Committee Charter to Govern ILCs
Staff has developed a formal ILC Committee Charter (Exhibit A to Resolution No. 25-036) to replace the previously adopted ILC Parameters. This charter offers a more structured and comprehensive framework for the governance, organization, and administration of the ILCs. It consolidates all relevant information into a single document, standardizes the ILC structure across all ILC’s, and introduces efficiencies such as streamlined minute-taking and limited meeting durations. It also limits ILC meetings to a maximum of three per year, unless urgent issues require additional sessions. Additionally, the charter outlines ILC membership requirements including the appointment of alternates, details agenda posting requirements in compliance with the Brown Act and allows for joint meetings when two ILC’s share overlapping concerns or regional priorities.
Recommendations:
After reviewing all the feedback received, staff is recommending the adoption of Resolution No. 25-026 to:
- Dissolve the City of Richmond and City of San Leandro ILCs, effective immediately;
- Consolidate the City of Berkeley and City of Emeryville ILCs, effective January 1, 2026;
- Establish a City of Fremont/City of Newark ILC, effective January 1, 2026; and
- Approve the ILC Committee Charter, effective January 1, 2026.
Staff wishes to note that no other ILC’s are proposed for consolidation other than those specifically mentioned in the staff recommendation.
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:
The proposed restructuring of the Board’s ILC’s offers several advantages. By consolidating and dissolving certain ILC’s, the number of committees requiring staff support will be reduced, easing administrative burdens and streamlining the preparation and follow-up associated with meetings. The introduction of a formal ILC Charter provides a standardized governance framework across all committees, including clear guidelines for membership, meeting frequency, agenda requirements, and procedural consistency. Meeting management will improve through limits on the number and length of meetings, helping to reduce scheduling challenges and meeting fatigue. The charter also facilitates joint meetings for committees with overlapping concerns, promoting regional collaboration. These adjustments align the ILCs more closely with current city partnerships and transit planning priorities, especially considering recent changes such as the elimination of at-large Board positions.
There are some disadvantages to the proposed restructure. Dissolving committees such as Richmond and San Leandro might slightly reduce direct engagement with these cities, which could affect how some local transit issues are addressed. Since public participation in many ILC’s is already limited, fewer meetings and committees might reduce opportunities for community input. Additionally, scheduling and coordination challenges may continue even after consolidation, as member availability and quorum requirements remain considerations.
Overall, the proposal seeks to strike a balance between enhancing efficiency, and ensuring consistent governance, while addressing concerns about maintaining strong local representation and effective engagement across all partner jurisdictions.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:
Staff initially proposed a larger consolidation effort, which would combine the Oakland and Alameda ILC’s, but given the concerns expressed by the City of Alameda, staff decided not to recommend consolidation at this time. Staff believes the recommended restructuring serves the best interests of AC Transit and its partner jurisdictions.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION/POLICIES:
Staff Report 24-487 - Inter-Agency Liaison Committees - Structure & Appointments
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 25-036 with Related Exhibit A (ILC Committee Charter)
2. ILC Parameters
Prepared by:
Linda A. Nemeroff, Board Administrative Officer
In Collaboration with:
Robert del Rosario, Director of Service Development & Planning
Approved/Reviewed by:
Robert del Rosario, Director of Service Development & Planning
Ramakrishna Pochiraju, Executive Director of Planning & Engineering
Aimee L. Steele, General Counsel/Chief Legal Officer
Linda A. Nemeroff, Board Administrative Officer/District Secretary
Salvador Llamas, General Manager/Chief Executive Officer