|
Recommended VTA Quarter-Cent Sales Tax Scenario
Mr. Collins reported that the original 2000 Measure A Program was based on the robust economy in 1999-2000. Measure A tax projections at that time were projected to bring in $6 billion over the 30-year timeframe for the tax. He noted the impact of the economic downturn and indicated that VTA’s current tax sales estimates for the half-cent 2000 Measure A sales tax is $4.4 billion, a $1.6 billion decrease over 30 years. VTA has had to decrease bus and light rail service by 18 percent and is operating on a very tight budget, but now has a balanced budget. When the 2000 Measure A sales tax goes into effect in April 2006, 18.5 percent of the money will fund VTA’s operations. Although this would make VTA a little more stable, there is still not enough money to complete all of the 2000 Measure A Projects. Thus, the need for an additional quarter-cent sales tax.
Mr. Collins reported that over the last couple of years, VTA has presented half-cent sales tax scenarios, three-eighth cent sales tax scenarios, quarter-cent sales tax scenarios, and no sales tax scenarios to the Board of Directors. In June 2005, the Board of Directors began to get some consensus around a quarter-cent sales tax, and as a result, staff presented the following quarter-cent sales tax scenarios to the Board of Directors at their September 16, 2005 Workshop Meeting: 1) Run 5: Current Plan – BART to Silicon Valley by 2015, 2) Run 6: Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) Poll – 30-year tax with Pavement Management Program and several other new projects, and 3) Run 7: BART to Silicon Valley by 2018. At the September 16th Meeting, staff received direction from the Board of Directors to come back to the Board with one proposal that merged together Runs 5 and 6. Feedback from the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and community stakeholders was also considered. Consequently, a recommended VTA Scenario has been developed for Board adoption at the November 3, 2005 Board of Directors’ Meeting.
Member Stuchinsky left the meeting at 5:07 p.m., the quorum was lost,
and a Committee of the Whole was declared.
Mr. Collins directed attention to Attachment 1, VTA 2000 Measure A Transit Program, VTA Scenario – October 2005, and provided an overview. He noted the following new items that were not listed in the previous proposals: 1) Line Items #25 a&b, Mineta San Jose Airport People Mover - The initial San Jose Mineta Airport People Mover includes a special premium non-stop service from the future Santa Clara BART station to the airport terminals. If funding for a fixed guideway technology is identified, it could potentially be brought on line by 2019; 2) Line Item #30, Pavement Management, County Expressways & Bike/Pedestrian – Accounts for $717 million over a 30-year period and is roughly $10 million a year in today’s dollars for a program of cities preparing local streets and roads. There is about $3 million a year for the County Expressway system and a balance of about $1.3 million year to a bike and pedestrian program; 3) Line Item #31 – Increase Service from 12.4 percent to 24 percent; and 4) Line Item #32 – Increase Senior/Disabled Programs.
Member Burnett noted that the program allocates $10 million for pavement management. He queried about the adequacy of the amount allocated, how TAC feels about it, and how the amount compares to the amount that was spent on the 1996 Measure B for pavement management. Carolyn M. Gonot, Chief Development Officer, noted that 1996 Measure B had $90 million total for the Pavement Management Program, which allocated $10 million a year, but was not escalated. She noted that the $10 million is escalated per year in the new program and indicated that TAC went on record at their September 9, 2005 Meeting, stating the importance of fund escalation for pavement management.
Member Tebo expressed his serious concern regarding the constant increases in the cost estimate for the Mineta San Jose Airport People Mover. He noted that the cost keeps increasing by another $100 million, which now totals approximately $700 million. He referred to the City of San Jose and noted that there were two elections where the voters were promised that VTA would provide a connection to the airport. Mr. Collins noted that there is no final design on the Mineta San Jose Airport People Mover, a conceptual study has been done by the City of San Jose. The City of San Jose is the lead on the Mineta San Jose Airport People Mover and is responsible for 50 percent of the total cost.
Member Tebo re-stated his concern about the prioritization and estimated cost of the Mineta San Jose Airport People Mover Project, noting that the project needs to be moved up and should be funded as soon as possible.
Member Probst queried if the sale of excess property would be considered unexpected revenue for VTA. Mr. Collins indicated not necessarily, noting that this is a capital program and that VTA may need the surplus property for operations. Ms. Gonot noted that any monies VTA receives due to the sale of excess properties is not assumed either in the operating or capital plan at this time and anything VTA would do either through joint development revenues or selling of property would be additional towards the operating plan.
Member Okuzumi referred to VTA’s recently released new ridership projections for the BART extension and referred to the methodology that was used, a program called Bay Cast, and asked if the same tool was used for projecting the ridership on the BART SFO extension. Ms. Gonot noted that a previously Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) model was used for BART SFO. VTA has worked closely with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to update its model and has a much more defined mode choice model. VTA’s model is a full regional model and uses 2000 census data.
Member Okuzumi referred to the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) poll and queried if the Committee could be provided information regarding the poll. Mr. Collins referred to a memorandum that was addressed to the VTA Board of Directors from Carl Guardino, SVLG, which indicated Mr. Guardino’s interpretation of the poll results. Mr. Burns noted that staff could provide the memorandum to the Committee.
Member Tebo queried about the total cost for the Vasona Light Rail Project, Phase A. Mr. Collins noted the cost was $314 million for about 5 ½ miles. Member Tebo expressed concern regarding the high cost of $200 million to extend the line to Vasona Junction and also expressed concern about the Initial Program scheduled finish date of 2031.
Member Tebo queried if it would be possible to have an airport people mover to go from the San Jose Airport terminal to light rail, since BART to San Jose is not expected until sometime in the future rail. Ms. Gonot noted that VTA was originally committed to bringing the Airport People Mover over to the Metro Station Light Rail working with the City of San Jose. Then with BART being brought into the plan, it was a connection to BART. Ms. Gonot noted that one of the problems right now is that it is fairly ill defined and it is unknown how much engineering has gone into the cost estimate. The City of San Jose is currently the lead, and they do not have any funding sources identified to match what is coming out of 2000 Measure A. VTA would have to look at this issue again working with the City of San Jose.
Member Burnett agreed with Member Tebo’s comments regarding the importance of the Airport People Mover. Member Burnett quoted the following high priority projects from the SVLG’s poll: 1) BART to San Jose-42%, 2) Buses for disabled-34%, 3) Caltrain upgrades-28%, 4) electrifying Caltrain-25%, 5) Airport People Mover-25%, 6) more bus service-22%, 7) light rail to East San Jose-15%, and 8) two new light rail lines-12%.
Vice Chairperson Schulter referred to Line Item #32, Increase Senior/Disabled Programs, and queried about the small amount of funds being allocated to the program, noting that the program polled high, that there is a shortage of paratransit funds, especially as demand for these services increase. Mr. Collins directed attention to Attachment 4, New 30 Year ¼ Cent Sales Tax/Increase Service, VTA Potential Long Range Operating Forecast, Line Item #20, ADA/Paratransit Program Growth, beginning in the year 2008. Mr. Tucker noted the Senior/Disabled Program is an unspecified program; it is a program, that if approved through the process, staff would work collaboratively through the Board of Directors as well as with other stakeholders to implement the program. VTA has already accounted for increases in paratransit in its Operating Budget.
Vice Chairperson Schulter expressed concern regarding the Paratransit/OUTREACH service, noting that the service has gone from extremely good service to a service that is pretty shaky. He noted when looking at the service’s whole picture, there is a need to look at the usability and how people are affected.
Member Tebo expressed concern regarding the limited amount of time the Committee had to review the Recommended VTA Quarter-Cent Sales Tax Scenario, noting that the Committee does not have time to give their recommendations to the Board of Directors. Upon query of Member Tebo, Ms. Gonot noted that CAC would have to have a Special Meeting prior to the November 3, 2005 Board of Directors’ Meeting in order to have additional time to review the item and to submit comments to the Board of Directors.
Upon query of Member Probst, Ms. Gonot noted that CAC’s comments would be forwarded to the Board of Directors at their November 3, 2005 Meeting. Ms. Gonot noted that the CAC Chairperson or Vice Chairperson could ask to speak at the Board Meeting summarizing CAC’s comments.
Vice Chairperson Schulter noted he is in support of VTA’s proposal, noting that there are issues contained in the proposal. He noted that it would helpful for the CAC, as an operating group, to have more time to work on these issues and to be more supportive.
Member Okuzumi expressed concerned about the cancellation of the September 7, 2005 CAC Meeting, and also expressed concerned regarding the numerous CAC Meeting cancellations throughout the year. She requested that the CAC Meetings be held monthly.
Upon query of Member Tebo, Ms. Gonot noted that CAC Members could send their comments to the Board Secretary Office to be forwarded to the Board of Directors.
Mr. Burns referred to the article in the San Jose Mercury News indicating the following projects being shelved: 1) Airport People Mover, 2) electrification of Caltrain, and 3) Downtown East Valley (DTEV), etc. He clarified that this is not VTA’s intention and referred to VTA’s Board Memorandum, noting this is a 30-year program and things are going to change over its lifetime. He added that VTA would re-evaluate the program every year and that it is VTA’s expectation that projects in the Completion Program today will be moved into the Initial Program.
On order of Vice Chairperson Schulter, there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole reviewed and forwarded recommendations to the Board of Directors regarding the recommended VTA Quarter-Cent Sales Tax Scenario.
| 
Rider's Links 
