Related Links

INTRODUCTION OF AUDIENCE MEMBERS

Received introductions from the audience including:  Ronald Schwartz, San Jose Senior Citizens Commission; and David Ledwitz, VTA Accessible Services.

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

Member Morrow expressed concern regarding the editorial in the San Jose Mercury News regarding the Eligibility Certification Program and comments provided by
Anne-Catherine Vinickas, VTA Marketing and Customer Service Director. 

The Committee entertained extensive discussion regarding the Paratransit Eligibility Certification Program.

Members Morrow and Rhodes requested a copy be provided to all Committee Members of the consultant report performed for the Paratransit Business Practices document noted on a memorandum distributed at the November 5, 2004 VTA Board of Directors Workshop Meeting.

Member Morrow requested the consultant report be agendized for the December 8, 2004 CTA Meeting to provide further comment and discussion.

Mr. Tacké noted that staff has previously distributed the report information to Committee Members and noted that the information will be provided to Committee Members.  

Chairperson Julian noted the arrival of audience members and requested an introduction to the Committee.

The Agenda was taken out of order.

INTRODUCTION OF AUDIENCE MEMBERS (continued)

Received introductions from the audience including:  Chris Augenstein, Congestion Management Program and Planning (CMPP) Principal Transportation Planner;
Matthew O. Tucker, Chief Operating Officer; and Carolyn Grattan Eichin, VTA Human Resources.

Mr. Tucker noted that he was not in attendance at the November 5, 2004 VTA Board of Directors Workshop Meeting due to a conflict in his schedule.   Mr. Tucker noted his participation in a study tour for the International Transit Studies Program in
South America.  He noted that accessibility issues were among the topics addressed in the study tour.  Mr. Tucker continued that the whole key is to try to make transportation more accessible and provide more mobility for everyone.  Mr. Tucker added that the key is to try to work together and develop a consensus for developing a program to meet the needs of the community and to understand that there is a balance in everything in life.  Mr. Tucker noted his transit career has been involved with American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Programs.  Mr. Tucker continued that the goal is to make the Eligibility Certification Program more open; therefore, staff is going to look for guidance from the Committee to work collaboratively to reach some conclusions.  Mr. Tucker continued that the goal is to make sure that individuals in the program are eligible for the program.  Mr. Tucker added that VTA’s intent is to make sure that the organization meets the commitment to the public and that individuals feel comfortable that the transportation system provided meets their needs and expectations.  Mr. Tucker added that the last thing VTA wants to do is provide a service that does not meet the needs of the community. 
Mr. Tucker added that over the next month or two staff and Committee will work collaboratively towards resolving issues and providing the best service for the community.  Mr. Tucker expressed his appreciation to work with the Committee over the next couple of months and noted his intent to be more visible and accessible at CTA Meetings.  Mr. Tucker continued that he and Mr. Tacké are available to assist Committee Members regarding issues that need to be discussed and addressed. 

Chairperson Julian thanked Mr. Tucker for his comments.

Vice Chairperson Stahl queried if VTA was trying to reduce the number of people who are eligible for Paratransit for OUTREACH Services and noted that there are many people who have disabilities who cannot use public transportation.  Mr. Tucker responded that there is absolutely no strategy or policy to take people off of ADA OUTREACH Service that are eligible for the service.  Mr. Tucker noted that Paratransit Services are vital services and at some point a service someone in everyone’s family may need.

Chairperson Julian proposed a workgroup to develop recommendations on the Certification and Eligibility Application Process and requested volunteers to participate in the workgroup.  

Members Rhodes, Naughten, Slack, Grant, Jensen, and Vice Chairperson Stahl volunteered to participate in the workgroup.  Chairperson Julian noted the participation of ten members for the workgroup.  Member Rhodes queried about a workshop meeting.  Mr. Tacké responded that the workgroup could be eleven members but then added that the workgroup would be restricted to the formalities of the Brown Act; however, noted if the membership of the workgroup was less than the CTA quorum then it would be an open discussion.

Ex-Officio Member Heatley noted the attendance and participation of Paratransit clients at the Friday, November 5, 2004 VTA Board of Directors Workshop Meeting and added that if the Committee would consider conducting a meeting that would allow in-depth analysis with this group as well as members from other disabled groups the end result would be a process more acceptable to the broader community.

Mr. Tucker recommended that the discussion be conducted in the following way and that the workgroup would include the entire Committee to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to provide comment on the direction and to develop a consensus from a staff and Committee prospective.  Then take the information out to the public for input, comment and feedback regarding the modifications and changes to the program; therefore, providing an opportunity to explain to the public in more depth why certain restrictions or provisions are implemented in terms of the modified program.

Member Rhodes noted her attendance at the Friday, November 5, 2004 VTA Board of Directors Workshop Meeting and expressed her concern that the entities that were hired to conduct the eligibility do not know what they are doing.  Member Rhodes added that the program worked before and OUTREACH was conducting an excellent job.

Member Morrow noted his acceptance to have an open discussion with the entire Committee and added that the Committee and staff need to start somewhere. 
Member Morrow expressed his appreciation for Mr. Tucker’s willingness to come to CTA regarding this issue.

Member Grant expressed his appreciation for Mr. Tucker’s attendance and added that the Committee provided advice that was not heeded.  Member Grant noted that part of the frustration is the issues regarding the Certification Eligibility Process that are reflected in previous CTA Minutes and basically the concerns were not listened to.

Member Morrow queried if Mr. Tucker and staff would accept written suggestions and comments from the San Jose Senior Citizens Commission or the San Jose Disability Advisory Commission.   Mr. Tucker responded yes and added that first CTA and staff meet and develop a process plan regarding the provisions of the ADA rules and current policy to determine a consensus then develop a framework to receive public input and comment regarding the framework to provide additional suggestions and recommendations for improvements.  

Chairperson Julian noted that the next step is to set up a separate meeting for CTA on the Certification Eligibility Process discussion.   Mr. Tacké responded that it will be a public meeting and if an individual wanted to attend and comment then it would be the time to participate.  Mr. Tacké suggested conducting a minimum of one formal CTA Meeting before the December CTA Meeting.  Mr. Tacké noted that the December CTA Meeting could probably be used as another discussion meeting and added that CTA at that point could probably take a formal endorsement position on the program.  Mr. Tacké noted if a public meeting process is scheduled then the Committee would need to establish a framework then staff would come back to the Committee with a proposal, which would proceed forwarding the proposal to the Board of Directors for consideration. 

Member Rhodes commented that Peter M. Cipolla, General Manager, noted that staff will provide an update on the Eligibility Certification Program in January 2005; therefore, queried if the Committee should wait to review the proposed improvements on the process then allow the Committee to proceed from that point.   Mr. Tacké responded yes; however, noted the importance of getting a broader input from the public. 

Member Rhodes noted that she would like the Committee and staff to work cohesively for the benefit of everyone.  Mr. Tacké noted that it would be beneficial to start with Committee discussion.

Chairperson Julian noted that importance to schedule a meeting regarding the discussion on the Certification Eligibility Process before the December CTA Meeting and stressed the importance of Committee Member attendance and participation.   Mr. Tacké noted time constraints due to the holidays and provided possible meeting dates for the discussion. 

Ex-Officio Member Heatley noted the importance of being creative with the scheduling of the meeting discussion date due to scheduling conflicts with members of the public and noted the importance of providing adequate notice for the public and individuals with accessibility issues.

Committee Members suggested possible meeting dates for discussion of Paratransit Eligibility.  Mr. Tacké responded that time constraints may only allow one meeting before the December 8, 2004 CTA Meeting, which may be fine if the Committee conducted one good discussion regarding the process.  Mr. Tucker recommended having a polling to schedule the first discussion meeting date then discuss the next steps to advance the process.

Vice Chairperson Stahl suggested the Committee polling being conducted by e-mail and noted the consensus of how many people will be available to attend and participate in the meeting. 

Minutes of October 13, 2004

Member Michels noted a correction to the October 13, 2004 CTA Meeting Minutes and referenced Page 13 of 19, Paragraph 3, noting that the female bus operator was on her cell phone during the entire trip.  Member Michels noted that the female bus operator was on her cell phone; however, clarified that the female bus operator braked heavily during the entire trip.

Member Grant referenced the October 13, 2004 CTA Minutes, Page 6 of 19,
Paragraph 3, noting Member Grant’s query regarding the cost of a bus ticket in 2036 based on the 5 percent fare increase where Roger Contreras, Chief Financial Officer, responded that staff would provide and forward the information to Committee Members. 

Member Grant noted that staff has not provided the information regarding the cost of a bus ticket in 2036 based on the spreadsheet table information and queried when the information would be provided to the Committee Members.   Mr. Tacké responded that staff will forward the request for the information. 

M/S/C (Morrow/Rhodes) on a vote of 11 Ayes, to 0 Noes, to 0 Abstentions to approve the Minutes of October 13, 2004 with the correction.

Mr. Tacké requested clarification regarding the information being requested and queried if the request is to take the current fare and increasing it by 5 percent each year through 2036.   Member Grant responded that the request is that Mr. Contreras use the spreadsheet projections on what the bus fare would be in 2036 and added that it is based on 5 percent increase every other year.  Member Grant added that the request is for a number since OUTREACH Service would cost twice as much for a single ride.  Member Grant noted his concern and added that the information should be available since they are predicting that type of increase and financial analysis.  Mr. Tacké responded that staff will forward the request for the information.

NOTE:     M/S/C MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Valley Transportation Plan 2030 (VTP 2030)

Mr. Augenstein provided a brief overview and background on the Valley Transportation Plan 2030 (VTP 2030).  Mr. Augenstein commented that staff is aware of some typographical errors in the document plan and noted that staff does want to receive comments from the Committee Members.  Mr. Augenstein noted that all the refinements could not be addressed and reprinted in time for Committee review and comment. 

Mr. Augenstein noted that the VTP 2030 is a long-range transportation plan intended to provide a planning and policy framework for VTA to work within the 25-year life of the plan, which identifies sources of funding and amounts of funding that are reasonably expected to be available during the life of the plan.  Mr. Augenstein continued that the document states the programs and projects that the Board of Directors would like to see implemented during the timeframe of the plan.  Mr. Augenstein noted that it is not a programming document and it does not set project priorities or specific schedules for when specific projects are to be implemented.

Mr. Augenstein noted that the VTP 2030 is an update to the Valley Transportation Plan 2020 (VTP 2020), which was VTA’s first long-range transportation plan that the
Board of Directors adopted in 2000.   Mr. Augenstein continued that the document plan is updated with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP); therefore, both are in parallel cycles.  Mr. Augenstein noted that the projects and programs feed into the RTP, which Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the project sponsor for the RTP. 

Mr. Augenstein added that between VTP 2030’s adoption and now staff has actually implemented many of the programs and studies that were called for in VTP 2020. 
Mr. Augenstein continued that the studies assisted staff in developing the project list that feeds into the VTP 2030 project list and staff has implemented a few programs that were called for in VTP 2020, most notable is the Community Design and Transportation Program, which CTA was very instrumental in helping develop.  The Community Design and Transportation Program is a program to integrate transportation and land use and that is essentially VTA’s primary program to integrate transportation and land use, which was adopted by the Board of Directors in the fall 2002.

Mr. Augenstein noted that the update of VTP 2030 began about a year ago when staff began bringing projects to the Board’s attention in preparation for distributing more detailed planning documents.   In January 2004 staff presented the first cut of the project list and program allocations to the Board of Directors.  The program allocations are essentially the dividing up of the total sum of funding that staff believes will be available for projects and programs in Santa Clara County during the timeframe of the plan and noted that many of these long-range projections come from the MTC.  Mr. Augenstein noted that the outreach process also began in January with numerous public meetings conducted throughout the County, including open houses, presentations, and an interactive website available that was ADA accessible.  Mr. Augenstein noted that individuals could review all the program areas and project lists proposed and send comments as well as receive responses back from staff.  Mr. Augenstein noted that staff responded to 300 – 400 e-mails.   Mr. Augenstein noted that every month beginning with January staff forwarded items to the Board of Directors, which lead to the adoption of the program area allocations and project list in the draft document in April 2004; therefore, those program area allocations and project lists have not changed.  Mr. Augenstein continued that since that time staff has worked with MTC to make sure that VTA’s programs and projects are accurately reflected in the RTP.  Mr. Augenstein added that it was a very involved process where staff had to define projects and cost estimates in more detail to MTC. 

Mr. Augenstein commented on the transit section and noted the Market Segmentation Analysis study that VTA will embark on in the spring 2005, which is going to be a comprehensive study of all the markets in Santa Clara County.  The Market Segmentation Analysis study will include all markets travel in Santa Clara County and will provide feedback on how VTA can make services better for customers based on our resources and facilities.

Mr. Augenstein referenced Page 121 – Services and Programs for People with Special Needs, where all of the work is outlined that is currently going on with regards to special programs including the Paratransit Program and planning process for Paratransit. Mr. Augenstein continued that the Community Bus Program and flex routing offers possibilities to improve service for certain segments of the community and allow them to have greater access and options to transportation systems.  Mr. Augenstein added that essentially almost all of VTA’s entire fleet are low-floor vehicle buses and the entire light rail fleet is low-floor accessible.  Mr. Augenstein noted that staff is currently working to upgrade the platforms to make the light rail platforms accessible; however, noted a funding issue related to the upgrade.  Mr. Augenstein noted the Golden Getaway and Golden Giveaway Programs, which staff is reviving and revamping to make those programs more useful for the senior communities.

Member Rhodes queried about senior programs.  Mr. Augenstein responded that these are new programs and are detailed in the document.

Mr. Augenstein continued and noted accessible information and a number of on-going programs currently being implemented, most notable is the real time information system that is related to advance communication system and the accessibility hotline, which provides information about how to get access to services. 

Mr. Augenstein continued that the next steps for the plan are essentially being presented to all VTA Advisory and Standing Committees in November and will be forwarded to the Board of Directors for consideration in December.  Staff is presenting the document to the committees for further input on the plan to fine tune the document before it is presented to the Board of Directors for adoption in December.

Member Michels expressed her concern regarding the document being presented at such a late date.   Mr. Augenstein responded that the Committees have a month to provide comments to staff regarding the document. 

Member Rhodes expressed her concern regarding the large content of the document in accessible media.  Member Rhodes expressed her concern regarding how things are being brought to CTA.  Mr. Augenstein responded that the program areas allocation and project lists were presented to CTA in spring 2003 and the documents were reviewed then. Mr. Augenstein added that the website was active from January – June; however, that was the period when staff was asking for input regarding the program area allocation and project lists.  Mr. Augenstein noted that staff is aware of the timeframe of delivery of the document to the Advisory and Standing Committee Meetings; however, would still like to receive Committee input on the plan.

Chairperson Julian responded that one-month is not an adequate amount of time for review for the Committee and requested that the time for review and comment be extended.   Mr. Augenstein responded that the Board of Directors will consider the document at the December 9, 2004 VTA Board of Directors Meeting. 

Vice Chairperson Stahl expressed her concern regarding the time constraints relating to the review of the plan by CTA.  Vice Chairperson Stahl referenced Page 122 – Paratransit Services Program and noted the importance of examining many of the Paratransit related issues in the plan.  Mr. Augenstein responded that the last bullet point on Page 122 – Paratransit Services Program is not intended to indicate that VTA is looking at alternative service deliveries concepts to take trips away from Paratransit it was intended to say that VTA is going to do everything possible to enhance the services so that everyone can have better access to services.  Mr. Augenstein added that staff is willing to reword the paragraph to better state what VTA means.

Chairperson Julian expressed his concern and noted that the Committee requires additional time to review and comment on the plan.  Chairperson Julian noted that the other VTA Advisory Committees most likely require additional time to review and provide their comments as well.  Chairperson Julian stressed that CTA is not in favor of the plan until they have been given adequate amount of time to review and discuss the document.

Member Morrow expressed his concern regarding the large content of the accessible version of the document and noted that it is going to take a large amount of time to review the entire document; therefore, requested additional time to review the plan.

Member Morrow queried on the funding issues related to the 25-year plan and noted if the funding is not available from Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the State then this document will need to be revised.  Mr. Augenstein responded that the document is revised every four-years just the same way the RTP is updated every four-years since both documents are long-range transportation plans that are updated regularly to responded to economic changes.

Member Morrow queried about the funding costs under Transportation Development and if there was a pool of funding for Paratransit and if VTA incorporates the funding into its operating costs.  Mr. Augenstein responded that the funding pays for the broker.

Member Rhodes recommended that the Committee advise the Board of Directors to delay consideration of the plan for another month to allow the Committee to review what was presented to the Committee in an untimely manner.

M/S/F (Rhodes/Morrow) on a vote of 8 Ayes, to 3 Noes, to 0 Abstentions to recommend to Board of Directors delay consideration of the Valley Transportation Plan 2030 for another month to allow the Committee time to review and comment on the document.  Members Lasich, Slack, and Naughten opposed.

Member Grant queried why the document did not have an index section.   Mr. Augenstein responded that an index will be in the final plan; however, noted that it could not be produced in time to be distributed to the Committees. 

Member Grant asked why an additional month to allow the Committee to review the document would be an issue considering that it is a 30-year plan document.

Member Slack queried when and how the Committee would receive the index. 
Mr. Augenstein responded that he will prepare the index and e-mail the index to the Committee in a week.

Member Slack noted that the Committee has to focus on the areas that relate to the Committee and should not review the entire volume.   Mr. Tacké responded that he and Mr. Augenstein could hone in on the areas that the Committee would have an interest in reviewing and providing comment and send the page numbers of those sections to the Committee Members.  Mr. Tacké noted that areas of interest to the Committee are on a number of pages; however, accessible issues are throughout the document and are incorporated in all the design elements of the document.  Mr. Tacké noted that there are sections that are of specific interest to the Committee that would be very beneficial for the Committee to focus on. 

Member Slack queried if the specific areas of interest could be completed in the next couple of days.   Mr. Tacké responded that staff will complete and distributed the information to the Committee Members. 

Ex-Officio Member Heatley referenced Page 123 – Program Funding and queried about the program funding and what program section it was related.  Mr. Augenstein responded that it is a typographical error and is associated with the Community Bus Program; therefore, it is not related to Paratransit and related to the Community Bus Program.

Ex-Officio Member Heatley expressed concern regarding the issues relating to readers regarding how the section structure flows in the accessible version of the document.

Member Rhodes queried if staff had a plan for seniors and individuals who are transit dependent.   Member Rhodes asked about community input regarding the Community Bus Service and will the service be accessible.  Mr. Augenstein responded that all VTA services implemented will be accessible. 

Member Rhodes stressed the importance to have community input on the plan to address everyone’s needs and noted the importance of the issues being addressed. 
Mr. Augenstein responded that the Community Bus Program is described in the transit section and referenced Page 108 – Table 2-26 Community-Based Service
Consensus-Building Planning Process.  Mr. Augenstein added that it is a process for building consensus regarding the Community Bus Program and this is what VTA will embark on when it begins to implement the Community Bus Program.  Mr. Augenstein continued that there is an entire process where there are community meetings, extensive outreach, and public input on developing the Community Bus Program.  Mr. Augenstein noted that the Community Bus Program is still in the conceptual stage.

Member Grant referenced Page 122 – Paratransit Services Program and suggested removing the bullet regarding the brochure titled “Which Service is Right for You?” due to it being a very hot topic.   Member Grant referenced Page 104 – Plans for Future Bus Service Improvements and queried if there were any plans for Paratransit Improvements.  Mr. Augenstein responded that Paratransit is always looking at ways to improve service. 

Member Grant further expressed his concern regarding Paratransit Improvements in the plan.  Mr. Augenstein responded that staff can add more discussion regarding what VTA is doing to improve Paratransit Services.

Member Rhodes suggested that staff examine ways to reduce costs but not impact Paratransit Services.

Ex-Officio Member Heatley referenced Page 122 – Paratransit Services Program and noted that the State is getting its first grant coordinating Health and Human Services with Department of Labor to share resources and bring costs down; therefore, it would be beneficial to start figuring out what funding float with those in transportation in communities and what funding can be leverage to the local level to address elderly, disabled and low income transportation issues.

Member Grant queried where the Committee would forward comments regarding the document.  Mr. Augenstein responded that comments should be forwarded to Mr. Tacké and he will direct them to Mr. Augenstein and CMPP staff.

Vice Chairperson Stahl queried about the date of the December VTA Board of Directors Meeting.  Michelle Garza, Board Assistant, responded that the VTA Board of Directors Meeting is scheduled for December 9, 2004.

The Committee reviewed and commented on the Valley Transportation Plan 2030
(VTP 2030).

Note: M/S/F Means Motion Seconded and Failed.

FY 2005 First Quarter Paratransit Services Performance Report

Mr. Ledwitz provided a brief overview on the FY 2005 First Quarter Paratransit Services Performance Report.  Mr. Ledwitz commented that the report is prepared to summarize certain paratransit service data as well as presents and compares summary information for the first quarter of FY 2005 and FY 2004.  Mr. Ledwitz noted that the first quarter include the months of July, August, and September.

Mr. Ledwitz commented that customer utilization of VTA’s paratransit services continues to be strong with over 227,000 passenger trips provided during the first quarter of FY 2005.   Mr. Ledwitz noted that the cost per trip continues to decline as productivity improves and the late rate remains low and holding at one percent of all trips. 

Mr. Ledwitz continued that average scheduling call-waiting time has increased and the number of incoming scheduling calls has increase by two percent.  Mr. Ledwitz noted that Subscription Services are strong with the highest levels in the history of the program. Mr. Ledwitz added that the overall eligibility approval rate for new and recertifying applicants is 97.5 percent.

Mr. Ledwitz commented that the First Quarter Paratransit Ridership decreased by
6.2 percent with a total of 227,433 passenger trips.  Mr. Ledwitz noted that the number of Same-Day trips increased by 29.1 percent and the Customer Trip Late rate decreased by 36.8 percent.

Mr. Ledwitz noted that the number of No-Shows rate has declined by 6.7 percent and total Paratransit expenses decreased by 8.6 percent between the first two quarters. 
Mr. Ledwitz continued that the average net cost per trip is now $26.08 compared to $27.29 last year; the number of scheduling calls per day increased by
2.6 percent and the average wait time for each scheduling call to be answered increased from 1 minute, 20 seconds to 1 minute, 23 seconds; an average of 1,443 subscription trips were provided per weekday during the first quarter and added that this average number of subscription trips represents 47.1 percent of total average weekday ridership. 

Mr. Ledwitz added that Orthopaedic Hospital conducted 1,698 eligibility evaluations during the first quarter with an overall approval rate of 97.5 percent. 

Mr. Tacké noted that the average call waiting time increased but it was an increase of three seconds.   Mr. Tacké noted that it is important to keep in mind that the eligibility certification numbers are based on a new program and added that a year from now the number comparison will be more reflective.

Member Grant queried about information regarding the average wait to obtain an interview.   Member Grant noted that he was told that it is taking about six weeks to obtain an interview appointment.  Mr. Tacké responded that there is a delay at this time and noted that contractually Orthopaedic Hospital has to schedule appointments within ten days of the date that a customer calls.  Mr. Tacké added that when there was a sudden spike of 2,000 eligibility expirations in August eligibility terms were extended the interviews were spread out over several months.  Mr. Tacké noted that about two months ago the interview wait time had reached five weeks; however, added that as of a week ago the wait time is below four weeks.  Mr. Tacké continued that staff exercised a clause in the contract with Orthopaedic Hospital to increase the interview staff for a six-week period as well as reduce some of the interview questions to make the interview time shorter.  Mr. Tacké noted that Orthopaedic Hospital is trying to approach 800 interview appointments during the month of November assuming that they do not receive a lot of No-Shows.  Mr. Tacké noted that eligibility certification interviews have a very high No-Show rate and that is creating some problems; therefore, the plan is by the end of December to be back to normal wait time for interviews; hopefully, by January an individual can call and get an interview scheduled within ten days.

Member Grant expressed his concern and noted that the wait time for an interview is something that requires monitoring and queried if that information could be included in future reports.   Mr. Tacké responded that staff monitors this as management and noted that staff does not see this as a reportable item since it really is a short-lived issue. Mr. Tacké added that staff has reviewed the rest of the eligibility expiration dates over the next two years and noted no other peaks.  Mr. Tacké added that priority has been given to new customers; therefore, people who need to re-certify are having their eligibility extended so that they are not impacted.  Mr. Tacké added that staff is aware of how far out the scheduling of the interviews are and at this point it is less than four weeks. Mr. Tacké suggested that next month staff can report out how many weeks the wait time for interviews for scheduling if that will suffice.

Member Grant noted the importance of the information.   Mr. Tacké agreed; however, added that it is a management issue that staff will be monitoring as the contract administrator.  Mr. Tacké continued that staff is doing its best to rectify the problem and will keep the Committee informed as to the wait time for an interview; however, noted that it is less than four weeks at this time.  Mr. Tacké noted that staff will provide the wait time for interviews information at the next meeting.

Member Grant noted the reason for his concern is that some individuals trying to
re-certify where told that it would be six weeks for an interview.   Mr. Tacké responded that the re-certify applicants are being pushed out as far as necessary but those people are not being impacted because their eligibility is being extended indefinitely; therefore, they are not going to be denied service.  Mr. Tacké noted that the priority right now is for people re-certifying to have their eligibility extended so that their transportation service is not impacted as well as giving priority to new customers.  Mr. Tacké added that staff is doing everything possible to get the schedule back on track.

Member Grant noted the wait time for an interview delay is valuable information for the Committee Members to be aware of the delay regarding the interview.

Member Rhodes expressed her concern regarding the information relating to the delay in the interviews and noted that the Committee should be provided with the information regarding eligibility certification and the appeals process.

Member Slack queried about the No-Show rate regarding the Eligibility Certification interviews.   Mr. Tacké responded that the rate is 15 percent of scheduled Eligibility Certification interviews.

Chairperson Julian queried if the No-Shows are due to accessibility issues regarding the facilities.   Mr. Tacké responded that this is something that staff intends to address in the context of eligibility vendor productivity and added that staff does not see it as an ADA issue regarding why the people are not showing up for the interview appointments. 

Mr. Tacké continued when the Eligibility Certification Program is modified it may be an opportunity to implement some changes to reduce the number of No-Shows.   Mr. Tacké continued that a lot of work is ahead of the Committee regarding the implementation of modifications to the Eligibility Certification Program.

Member Rhodes left her seat at 2:25 p.m., the Quorum was lost,
and a Committee of the Whole was declared.

Vice Chairperson Stahl noted the importance of the information related to 2003 being provided in the report.   Vice Chairperson Stahl noted one of the major issues is that people do not know where to obtain the information regarding Eligibility Certification application brochures.  Mr. Tacké responded that the paratransit service brochures distribution list was expanded and added if a new brochure is needed after the modifications to the program then this will be the opportunity to flood the community with the brochures.

Member Rhodes took her seat at 2:30 p.m. and a quorum was declared.

Member Lasich commented on several individuals stating that they were under the impression that they had a choice to use traditional County transportation service or Paratransit Service; therefore, they did not bother sending in the brochure for eligibility.

Mr. Tacké responded that a long time ago there were services that were specifically funded and marketed to seniors for paratransit services and the eligibility for the program was disabled or over the age of 65; however, these senior programs do not exist anymore under the ADA.

Member Lasich commented on an article in the San Jose Mercury Newspaper regarding eliminating individuals from Paratransit Services that were believed to be ineligible. Mr. Tacké responded that he has never found the news to be balanced and the information being reported may be incorrect.   Mr. Tacké responded that the program was to make sure that people who are not eligible for paratransit are not on paratransit but staff is not trying to kick people off the program.  Mr. Tacké added that the focus is on the people who are eligible for the service.  Mr. Tacké noted that the current drop in the program costs has little to do with the Eligibility Certification Program but in fact most of the money saved has to do with changes in policy and operational practices as well as negotiated reductions in vendor rates, ultimately reducing the cost in trips but mostly vendor costs going down because of operational efficiencies.

Member Lasich requested a copy of the figures presented in the performance report. Mr. Ledwitz responded that the information is included in the report and is part of the packet as an attachment.   Elaine Baltao, Human Services and Fixed Route Management Analysis, distributed a copy of the figures to Member Lasich.

Member Naughten commented that part of the No-Show issue is due to transportation issues to the interview and added that the program should provide transportation to the interview and appeals.

Member Morrow noted the importance regarding information being provided to the Committee regarding the wait time to obtain an interview for the Eligibility Certification.

Member Morrow commented on the Friday, November 5, 2004 VTA Board of Directors Workshop Meeting and noted the concerns from Board Members regarding the Paratransit Eligibility Certification Program.

Member Rhodes expressed her concern regarding the interviewers being qualified to conduct and determine Paratransit Eligibility. 

M/S/F (Rhodes/Naughten) on a vote of 10 Ayes, to 1 Noes, to 0 Abstentions to have staff report on the wait time for individuals to obtain an interview for the eligibility certification be included in future reports.  Members Lasich opposed.

Member Grant requested that staff provide a monthly update including the wait time for new and re-certifications for an appointment to be re-certified or for new applications once they call.   Mr. Tacké responded that he has agreed to provide that information each month and advise the Committee of the waiting time.

Member Rhodes queried if Mr. Tacké would provide the information each month and include it in the quarterly report so that the Committee could refer back to the information.   Mr. Tacké responded that he would rather not want to make that part of the quarterly report since staff believes this to be a short-term issue; however, noted if the wait time for interviews becomes a chronic problem then it will be put on the quarterly report to be monitored.  Mr. Tacké added that it is not an ADA issue that it is a contractual management issue that will be addressed by management.  Mr. Tacké added that the vendor is not out of compliance because the number of requests for interviews exceeds the contractual limit of 630; therefore, it is not an issue of ADA compliance.  

Member Naughten left her seat at 2:52 p.m., the Quorum was lost,
   and a Committee of the Whole was declared.

Mr. Tacké noted priorities that need to be addressed at the December CTA Meeting.

Chairperson Julian requested a motion to extend the Committee Meeting.

Member Rhodes motioned to extend the Committee Meeting an extra 15 minutes.

Member Gallo suggested that she or another Committee Member ask Mr. Tacké the current wait timeframe for people calling in for re-certification and new applications interviews; therefore, the information will be provided to the Committee and reflected in the Committee Minutes.   Mr. Tacké responded yes and added that the information can be provided to the Committee in the Committee Staff Report.

Member Naughten took her seat at 2:54 p.m. and a quorum was declared.

M/S/F (Rhodes/Morrow) on a vote of 9 Ayes, to 2 Noes, to 0 Abstentions to recommend to extend the Committee Meeting 15 minutes.  Members Lasich and Jensen opposed.

The Committee reviewed and commented on the FY 2005 First Quarter Paratransit Services Performance Report.

Member Morrow left his seat at 2:56 p.m., the Quorum was lost,
and a Committee of the Whole was declared.

CTA Transit System Ridership Report

The CTA Transit System Ridership Report was deferred.

Chairperson’s Report

The Chairperson’s Report was deferred.

Committee Staff Report

Mr. Tacké provided a brief report regarding CTA appointments and re-appointments. Mr. Tacké noted the following two new appointments to CTA from the Human Services Category - Community Options and from the Individuals with Disabilities Category - represented by Diana Nguyen.  Mr. Tacké continued that the appointment and re-appointment nominations were forwarded to the Board of Directors for consideration and if approved then the Committee will have a total of 16 voting members.  Mr. Tacké added that CTA still has three vacancies in Human Services Category and two vacancies in the Individuals with Disabilities Category.

Member Morrow took his seat at 3:01 p.m. and a quorum was declared.

Ms. Garza noted that the nominations for appointments and re-appointments to CTA have been forwarded to the November 18, 2004 Administration and Finance Committee Meeting and will be forwarded to the Board of Directors for consideration at the December 9, 2004 VTA Board of Directors Regular Meeting.

The Committee received the Committee Staff Report.

Announcements

There were no Announcements.