Related Links

The Regular Meeting of the Committee for Transit Accessibility (CTA) was called to order at 1:08 p.m. by Chairperson Morrow in Building A, Auditorium, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California.

ROLL CALL

Members Present
Adam Byrnes, staff aide representing Cindy Chavez (Ex-Officio Board Liaison)
Emma Eljas
Sandra Gouveia
David Grant
Katie Heatley (Ex-Officio)
Troy Hernandez
Marjorie Jensen
Martin Lasich
Laura Michels
Aaron Morrow, Chairperson
Barbara Rhodes, First Vice Chairperson
Barbara Stahl, Second Vice Chairperson
Randy Tamez

Members Absent
Linda Gallo
David Julian
Thomas Slack
Dai Qui Vu

A quorum was present.

INTRODUCTION OF AUDIENCE MEMBERS

Received introductions from the audience including: Bill Lopez, Chief Administrative Officer; Terry Applegate, Silicon Valley Independent Living Center; David Ledwitz, Accessible Services; Bob Escobar, Employee Relations Manager; Michael T. Burns, General Manager; Dan Smith, Operations Planning, Training, and Accessible Services Deputy Director; Mike Hursh, Operations Maintenance Deputy Director;
Walter Schinke, Silicon Valley Independent Living Center; Mark Thomas, Technical Training Supervisor; Ron Young, Bus Technical Trainer; Steve Johnstone,
VTA Operations Senior Management Analyst; Jim Unites, VTA Operations Planning;
Susan Stark, VTA Controller; Jim Lawson, Government Affairs Manager; Kurt Evans, Government Affairs Manager; Edna Pampy, VTA Accessible Services; and
Martin Bishop, N.E.E.D. Project.

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

Ms. Applegate referenced the Ridership Initiative to Develop Energy-Efficiency (RIDE) Task Force Committee and expressed concern regarding the lack of member attendance and participation in the RIDE Task Force Meetings.   Ms. Applegate requested that staff provide information on low-income fares discussed at the RIDE Task Force Meeting.

Adam Byrnes, staff aide representing Cindy Chavez (Ex-Officio Board Liaison),
took his seat at 1:15 p.m.

Mr. Schinke expressed concern regarding South County bus stop accessibility issues. Mr. Schinke referenced the South County Survey study and noted that many of the South County bus stops are not accessible.  Mr. Schinke stated that many of the South County bus stops fall under the grandfather clause.  The grandfather clause pertains to the State, County, and City but does not apply to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines.

Mr. Bishop stressed the importance to recognize that the Committee for Transit Accessibility (CTA) in their advisory capacity is accountable to the VTA Board of Directors and not VTA staff.   Mr. Bishop stated that the CTA Chairperson has the authority to place any item on the Committee Agenda.

Marjorie Jensen, Interested Citizen, referenced the tracking information table of CTA motions and recommendations to the VTA Board of Directors and queried when the Committee would receive the table.   Chairperson Morrow responded that the Committee would receive the CTA Tracking Report on a quarterly basis and the information table would be distributed with the June 7, 2006 CTA Agenda Packet.

Quarterly Report from the General Manager

Mr. Burns provided a brief overview of the Quarterly Report from the General Manager.   Mr. Burns commented that he would provide a quarterly report to the Committee and the purpose is to provide an update regarding VTA organization. 

Mr. Burns introduced Bill Lopez, Chief Administrative Officer, who replaced
Kaye L. Evleth who recently retired from VTA.   Mr. Burns commented that Mr. Lopez is responsible for the Administrative Services Division including: employee services, employee benefits, workers compensation, and employee relations.  Mr. Burns stated that Mr. Lopez and the Administrative Services Division would work collaboratively with the CTA Committee as necessary.   

Mr. Burns introduced Mike Hursh, Operations Maintenance Deputy Director, who is responsible for Operation’s Maintenance at VTA.   Mr. Burns noted that he has a prior working relationship with Mr. Hursh in San Francisco and stated that he is pleased to have Mr. Hursh as part of the VTA organization. 

Mr. Burns introduced Dan Smith, Deputy Director for Operations for Planning, Training, and Accessible Services, he is responsible for Transportation Operations at VTA. Mr. Burns noted that he has a prior working relationship with Mr. Smith in Boston. Mr. Burns stated that Mr. Smith brings with him a wide range of experience from the operations standpoint in transportation services, rail, bus, fixed route services, and accessible services.  Mr. Smith has extensive experience working on special projects related to Accessible Services and Paratransit Services.  He will work extensively with the CTA Committee, Paratransit Services, and fixed route services.

Mr. Burns expressed appreciation and thanked the CTA Committee Members for their attendance and participation at the April 14, 2006 and April 28, 2006 VTA Facilities and Construction Project Tours.   Mr. Burns extended an invitation to schedule a future VTA Facilities and Construction Project Tour for the CTA Committee Members who are interested in participating but could not attend those in April. 

Mr. Burns commented that he met with the CTA Chairperson and First Vice Chairperson this morning to discuss CTA Committee issues and concerns.   Mr. Burns stated that the issues and concerns would be incorporated into a memorandum as a work program in an effort to work to address the issues and concerns with the CTA Committee.   The work program would be the mechanism to assist with accountability and to work to address the Committee’s issues and concerns.  Mr. Burns expressed appreciation and thanked the CTA Chairperson and First Vice Chairperson for the opportunity to work collaboratively with them and with the Committee.

Mr. Burns commented on the Community Bus Program and noted that VTA does not have any intention or plan to bring Paratransit in-house or have VTA operate the Paratransit Services.  Mr. Burns noted that VTA has a strong working relationship and partnership with OUTREACH Paratransit Services broker, who provides excellent and quality service.  Mr. Burns commented that the agreement that was forwarded to the VTA Board of Directors did not include the assumption of Paratransit Services.  Mr. Burns noted that when the contract with Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) was forwarded to the VTA Board of Directors several years ago it did contain a description of an effort to look at bringing Paratransit in-house as well as looking at all the issues and cost associated but everything was conducted openly in public.  Mr. Burns restated that VTA does not have any intention to bring Paratransit Services in-house.

Mr. Burns commented on the Organizational and Financial Performance Audit and noted that the Request for Proposal (RFP) has gone out and he expects to receive proposals at the end of the month.   Mr. Burns stated that an evaluation panel and selection process would review and evaluate the proposals to select the contractor to conduct the performance audit.  Mr. Burns noted that an invitation has been extended to all the VTA Advisory Committee Chairpersons to serve as the evaluation/selection panel to select the consultant who will conduct the performance audit.  Mr. Burns stated that the intent is to forward the recommendation to the VTA Board of Directors to award the contract to the consultant regarding the performance audit contract at the August 3, 2006 Board Meeting.

Mr. Burns commented on the 2000 Measure A Expenditure Plan and noted that VTA has been working on the plan over the last 18 months.  The Expenditure Plan prioritizes and organizes all the projects included in the 2000 Measure A Program and the process continues to be on going.  Mr. Burns commented that VTA Board of Director Chairperson Cindy Chavez established the Project Advisory Committee to review and prioritize the projects.  He informed the Committee that the next Project Advisory Committee Meeting is scheduled on Thursday, May 11, 2006, at 5:30 p.m. held at VTA River Oaks Campus, Building A – Auditorium, 3331 North First Street, San Jose.  The intent is to forward the Project Advisory Committee’s recommendations to the VTA Board of Directors at the June 15, 2006 Special Board Meeting, and that the Board will, at that meeting take action on the Expenditure Plan for the 2000 Measure A Program Projects.

Mr. Burns commented on VTA’s ridership levels, noting all ridership levels have increased.   Mr. Burns stated that Paratransit ridership increased 6 percent, bus ridership increased 6 percent, and light rail ridership increased 30 percent from last year, which continues to grow.  Mr. Burns noted that the gradual improvement in the economy and increasing fuel prices contribute to these increases.  

Mr. Burns commented on VTA’s biennial budget and noted that VTA is currently in the first year of the two-year budget.   Mr. Burns noted that staff recently went to the VTA Board of Directors for a budget increase adjustment in the amount of $2.8 million, which was directly related to the increase in diesel fuel costs as well as interest rate expense.  Mr. Burns stated that the good news is that the budget increase was offset by increases in sales tax revenues so there is no impact to services or fares.  Mr. Burns commented that VTA is in a stable situation with no anticipated significant changes to VTA’s budget. 

Mr. Burns introduced Kurt Evans, Government Affairs Manager, to provide a brief overview on the Infrastructure Bonds and how it relates to transportation and VTA. 
Mr. Evans commented that the California State Legislature completed work on a compromise infrastructure bond package that will be placed before the voters of the
State on the November 2006 ballot.   Mr. Evans commented that the Legislature debated this issue for a year. 

Mr. Evans commented that the size of the infrastructure bond package totals about
$38 billion and is a one-time issuance going to the voters for approval.   The number is a little smaller than the figures considered before in the Governor’s Strategic Growth Plan that was presented to the Legislature back in January 2006.  The infrastructure bond package focuses on these four areas:  $20 billion for transportation; $10.5 billion for education for grades Kindergarten through 12; $4 billion for levees and flood control; and $3 billion for affordable housing.  Mr. Evans stated that these four areas would appear as separate bond measures on the November 2006 ballot.

Mr. Evans commented that the infrastructure bond package allocates $20 billion for transportation, which is slightly higher than the previous numbers considered by the Legislature.   The transportation bond proceeds would be used to fund a combination of new programs, such as goods movement, corridor mobility, public transit capital improvements, and public transit security as well as the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOP).

Mr. Evans stated that the transportation bond proceeds would be distributed to the following existing transportation programs, such as $2 billion to augment the STIP;
$750 million to augment the existing SHOP, which funds rehabilitation and safety projects on the state highway system; $1 billion for the State-Local Partnership Program these funds are for "Self-Help Counties," allowing these counties to use the local revenues generated through their voter-approved transportation sales tax programs to leverage state dollars; and $400 million for Intercity Rail Capital Improvements.

Mr. Evans stated that the transportation bond proceeds would be distributed to the following new transportation programs, such as $4.5 billion for Corridor Mobility Improvements, state highway projects of inter-regional and regional significance, focusing on those projects that are difficult to fit within a particular county's STIP share; $3.1 billion for Goods Movement used for improvements to key trade corridors in California and Air Quality Improvements at ports, and Port Security; $3.6 billion for Public Transit Capital Improvements and these funds would be allocated to public transit operators throughout California according to the existing State Transit Assistance Program (STA) formula where operators could use these flexible funds for any public transit capital purpose; and $1 billion for Transit System Safety, Security and Disaster Response. 

Mr. Evans commented that the four bond proposals regarding transportation, education, levees and flood control, and affordable housing are going on the November 2006 ballot and the voters have to approve the bond proposals by a majority vote in order for the funding to become available. 

Second Vice Chairperson Stahl queried about the transportation bond and if some funding will be allocated for Paratransit Services.   Mr. Evans responded, “no” but noted that there are opportunities for funding in the Public Transit Capital Improvements program.

Second Vice Chairperson Stahl queried if the funding for Paratransit Services should be noted in the ballot so that individuals are aware of the request before the ballot vote.   Second Vice Chairperson Stahl stressed the importance for the transportation bond to be more specific.

Ms. Applegate referenced a meeting with Mr. Burns and four members from the
non-profit community in March 2006.  Ms. Applegate expressed concern regarding the meeting and noted that staff did not take many of their concerns seriously.
Ms. Applegate noted that she conducted a review of the 2006 CTA Committee Meeting Minutes and noted a disregard for the issues and concerns of individuals with disabilities.

Mr. Bishop expressed concern regarding individuals with disabilities being stranded and noted the 800-telephone customer service number for customers to call to report non-operating lifts.

The Agenda was taken out of order.

Committee Staff Report

Mr. Lau commented that staff has extended an invitation to the CTA Chairperson and First Vice Chairperson to attend the monthly Transit Planning and Operations (TP&O) Committee to provide a verbal report on what happened at the previous CTA Committee Meeting.  This report would be a regular standing agenda item on the TP&O Committee Agenda to provide information to the Board of Directors regarding issues that the CTA Committee is concerned about.  Mr. Lau noted that the TP&O Committee has four Board Members on the Committee and the CTA Committee would have the opportunity to forward their issues and recommendations directly to the Board of Directors.

Chairperson’s Report

Chairperson Morrow commented that he has received several requests from
Member Tamez regarding taking action on the CTA Agenda.  Chairperson Morrow stated that a revised agenda was distributed to the CTA Committee and from now on the CTA Agenda will include a statement that reads: “Members may take action on any item on this agenda.”

Chairperson Morrow commented on the clarification of CTA Agenda language definitions and terms, noting the decision to remove the definitions and terms at the end of the CTA Agenda. 

Board of Directors Report

Adam Byrnes, staff aide representing Cindy Chavez (Ex-Officio Board Liaison) reported that at the May 4, 2006 Board of Directors Regular Meeting, the Board adopted a proposed policy to require all mobility device users, such as wheelchair and scooter users, to ride with their devices secured on VTA buses.   Mr. Byrnes stated that the policy would have an effective date of January 1, 2007.  Mr. Byrnes noted that VTA Board of Director Chairperson Cindy Chavez requested that the CTA Committee Minutes from various meetings be distributed to the Board of Directors for review.   

Member Grant queried about the policy effective date.  Mr. Byrnes responded that the Board of Directors adopted the policy, which has an effective date of January 1, 2007.

Chairperson Morrow referenced the 9700 coaches and expressed concern to address the issue with the flap for the Q’Straint System.   Chairperson Morrow stressed the importance to figure out a way to make the flap accessible for the operators and requested to forward the issue to the Securement Task Force Subcommittee to work to address. 

Mr. Byrnes noted that the VTA Board of Directors adopted the proposed policy to require all mobility device users, such as wheelchair and scooter users, to ride with their devices secured on VTA buses; however, VTA Board of Director Perry opposed.

Minutes of April 12, 2006               

Member Tamez expressed appreciation and thanked the Office of the Board Secretary for their diligent work on the CTA Committee Meeting Minutes.

Mr. Bishop referenced the letter by Board of Supervisor Beall forwarded to Mr. Burns related to development of an amusement park roller coaster vehicle restraint system and requested that the item be agendized on the June 7, 2006 CTA Committee Agenda.   Chairperson Morrow suggested that they speak off line and offered to forward the item to the Securement Task Force Subcommittee then forward to the CTA Committee.

Mr. Bishop noted that the item is time sensitive and needs to be agendized on the
June 7, 2006 CTA Committee Agenda.   Chairperson Morrow responded that the
June 7, 2006 CTA Committee Agenda is completely packed and offered to have the item agendized on the July 12, 2006 CTA Committee Agenda. 

Mr. Bishop requested that the item  be heard and the CTA Committee considers the item under Agenda Item # 11., Operator Training.  Chairperson Morrow responded that staff was directed by the VTA Board of Directors at the May 4, 2006 VTA Board of Directors Regular Meeting to write a letter to Mr. Bishop regarding their action on the proposed Mobility Device Securement Policy.

Member Grant referenced his request for information on the Secret Shopper Program to see how individuals with disabilities are treated on VTA’s transportation system.  Member Grant requested that the Secret Shopper Program be agendized on a future CTA Committee Meeting.  Chairperson Morrow responded that this item is currently being reviewed and will be placed on a future CTA Committee Agenda.

Member Tamez suggested that the Secret Shopper Program item could be discussed at the June 7, 2006 CTA Committee Meeting under the Calling of Stops.

Second Vice Chairperson Stahl queried if CTA Committee Members would be allowed to participate in the driver sensitivity training.   Mr. Lau responded that CTA Committee Members will be invited to participate in the driver sensitivity training and more detailed information will be provided to the Committee as it is developed.

M/S/C (Gouveia/Marcillet) to approve the Minutes of April 12, 2006. 

BUSINESS REFERRED TO COMMITTEE BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS/GENERAL MANAGER

Fiscal Year 2006 – 2007 Section 5310 Funding Cycle Local Review Committee (LRC) Recommended Project Review Scores

David Ledwitz, Accessible Services Management Analyst, provided a brief overview of the Fiscal Year 2006 – 2007 Section 5310 Funding Cycle Local Review Committee (LRC) Recommended Project Review Scores.   Mr. Ledwitz commented that in the
San Francisco Bay Area, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the Regional Transportation Planning Agency and administers the Section 5310 Program for the nine Bay Area counties.  MTC requires that the region’s Paratransit Coordinating Councils (PCC’s) appoint LRC to evaluate and rank Section 5310 applications submitted within their respective counties.  As the PCC for Santa Clara County, the CTA Committee appointed a two member LRC at the January 11, 2006 CTA Committee Meeting. 

Mr. Ledwitz stated that the LRC met on March 3, 6, and 7, 2006, to review and score
21 project proposals submitted by five Santa Clara County non-profit social service agencies.  The LRC recommended scores for the 21 projects and the total cost of the 21 projects being requested is $1,199,500.  Mr. Ledwitz noted that a local match totaling $239,900 or 20 percent must be provided by the agencies receiving grants. 

Mr. Ledwitz commented that the LRC’s recommended scores were forwarded by the General Manager to MTC on March 10, 2006 for inclusion in the region’s list of Section 5310 projects in accordance with VTA procedure governing the Section 5310 Program as adopted by the VTA Board of Directors at their March 1999 Meeting.

Mr. Ledwitz stated that once the region’s rankings are finalized, the list of projects would be submitted to Caltrans for inclusion into a statewide list of applications.  Caltrans then refers applications likely to receive funding to its State Section 5310 Review Committee (SRC) for final scoring.  After the SRC makes final scoring adjustments, Caltrans forwards the SRC’s recommended Program of Projects to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for approval.  Mr. Ledwitz noted that the final State list of Fiscal Year 2005-06 Section 5310 projects would be approved by the CTC in September 2006.  Mr. Ledwitz stated that staff would report back to the CTA Committee once the final Fiscal Year 2006-07 scores are approved by the CTC.

Chairperson Morrow expressed appreciation and thanked Mr. Ledwitz for his diligent work and effort with the Section 5310 Funding Cycle.   Chairperson Morrow stated that it has been a great pleasure working collaboratively with Mr. Ledwitz over the years.

Ex-Officio Member Heatley stated that OUTREACH has extensive experience with the application process and extended an invitation to assist the Committee Members with the grant application process.

Mr. Bishop referenced the mobility device securement policy and expressed concern regarding additional expenses related to workers compensation claims due to bus operator injuries as well as damage to wheelchairs.   Chairperson Morrow requested point of order and clarified that the mobility device securement policy does not relate to the Fiscal Year 2006 – 2007 Section 5310 Funding Cycle Local Review Committee (LRC) Recommended Project Review Scores.

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

Chronology of Events Leading to Small-Capacity Vehicle Agreement with the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU)

Bob Escobar, Employee Relations Manager, provided a brief overview of the Chronology of Events Leading to Small-Capacity Vehicle Agreement with the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU).   Mr. Escobar commented that he will review of the chronology that lead to the VTA Board of Directors approval of the Addendum of the Agreement with ATU and VTA for the implementation of the Community Bus Program.  Mr. Escobar stated that the CTA Committee has the information included in the CTA Committee packet. 

Mr. Escobar commented that in 2002 - 2003 timeframe the VTA Board of Directors established a Business Review Team (BRT) to evaluate VTA’s expenditures due to the financial decline in the economy.   The BRT recommended to the VTA Board of Directors to review expenditures, especially expenditures related to labor costs.  Staff proceeded to have discussions with VTA’s labor groups: Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 265; Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 715; and Transportation Authority Engineers and Architects (TAEA) to try to evaluate a reduction in expenditures. 

Mr. Escobar noted that during that time VTA and ATU had agreed to salary, wages, and other issues related to costs.   However, due to the financial decline in the economy it was necessary for VTA to approach ATU and ask them if they would be willing to reopen their contract agreement to discuss the costs related to the implementation of the labor agreement.  ATU agreed to reopen their contract agreement and discussions focused primarily and heavily on the wage costs and costs of other significant areas, such as medical benefits.  In the context of the discussions VTA and ATU were able to reach a new agreement, which was approved by the Board at their January 8, 2004 VTA Board of Directors Regular Meeting.  The terms and conditions reached at that time covered a number of areas but they were deferred for later discussion since the primary focus was to try to defer the costs related to the wages that had already been guaranteed to ATU under its previous contract agreement. 

Mr. Escobar commented that VTA and ATU reached a tentative four-year contract agreement on December 19, 2003.   ATU forwarded the contract agreement to its membership, which was ratified on January 7, 2004; the Board approved the Collective Bargaining Agreement between VTA and ATU at the January 8, 2004 VTA Board of Directors Regular Meeting. 

Mr. Escobar directed attention to Attachment B – Agenda Item # 4.X. and
Attachment C – Side Letter of Agreement Small Capacity Vehicle Operations. 
Mr. Escobar commented that VTA and ATU agreed to have a discussion to explore the feasibility to bring the paratransit service in-house but only without any adverse cost effects.  VTA and ATU agreed to continue with the discussion later in the year and not at that time since the collective bargaining contract agreement was reached in December 2003.

Mr. Escobar stated that the tentative agreement included a side letter agreement entitled “Small-Capacity Vehicle Operations” that has a signatory date of December 19, 2003.  Staff forwarded the recommendation to the Board outlining the major changes in the collective bargaining agreement, which specifically states, “VTA and ATU will explore the feasibility of using employees represented by ATU to operate small-capacity vehicles on regular bus routes and to provide paratransit service.  The decision to operate either service will be based on the ability to improve service and meet economic criteria resulting in a cost-effective program.”  Mr. Escobar commented that it was determined not feasible to bring paratransit in-house so there was no further entertaining of the concept.

Mr. Escobar commented that the Community Bus Program recently approved by the Board has no intention of displacing or replacing Paratransit Services, and is also reaffirmed in the contract agreement with OURTEACH Paratransit Services until 2011. 

Member Tamez stated that his understanding is that the ADA regulations require that when any program is going to be changed, altered, discussed, or improved that it must be presented to a disability group committee.  Member Tamez expressed concern that many of the discussions were taking place without informing the CTA Committee.

Member Tamez stressed the importance to ensure that the CTA Committee is aware and informed of matters that concern VTA and the services provided. 

Mr. Escobar commented that the State of California as well as federal law requires the process of the collective bargaining negotiations between management and labor.   Mr. Escobar stated that from a practical standpoint it would not be beneficial to either side nor to the public to have negotiation issues presented in the public since the entire process is to reach and implement a contract agreement. 

Member Tamez noted that the CTA Committee is not interested in employee wages, benefits, or work rules but is interested in VTA’s intent on trying to change the service, improve the service, or remove the service without informing CTA.   Member Tamez stated that the CTA Committee has an obligation to the Board of Directors and the County of Santa Clara to ensure that the Committee is kept abreast of all changes, improvements, or removal of programs and services within the organization. 

Member Tamez expressed concern that the CTA Committee is kept out of the loop and stressed the importance to bring all information to the Committees’ attention since they act in an advisory capacity to the Board of Directors. 

Member Tamez suggested that the Committee make a motion to the Board of Directors that they require VTA to bring all service changes, program changes, or improvements to the CTA before they move forward.

Member Eljas stressed the importance to keep CTA in the loop and aware of issues related to programs and services in the organization; otherwise, VTA will not receive the CTA Committee approval.  

M/S/C (Tamez/Morrow) to make a motion to the Board of Directors that they require VTA to bring all service changes, program changes, or improvements to the CTA Committee before they move forward.

Mr. Escobar clarified that VTA did not intend to change the service and added that ATU initiated the paratransit in-house proposal as an ATU operated service not VTA.

First Vice Chairperson Rhodes expressed concern that VTA would spend large amounts of money on a contract with Booz Allen to research the Community Bus Program service.   First Vice Chairperson Rhodes stressed the importance for VTA to present information to the CTA Committee regarding program and service issues within the organization. 

First Vice Chairperson Rhodes expressed concern and noted that the Community Bus Program does not provide good service to the community and added that the service is unacceptable.   First Vice Chairperson Rhodes stated that CTA would have never known about the Community Bus Program service if members from the community did not come forth to present their comments and concerns related to the service.

First Vice Chairperson Rhodes stated that even if the Community Bus Program was conducted in an open forum it was in fact conducted behind closed doors since the program was never presented to the CTA Committee for input. 

Member Lasich expressed concern that VTA utilized $25,000 in funds for the installation of a restroom facility at the West Valley College that can only accommodate one person.   Mr. Escobar responded that he is unable to respond to this matter but will forward the concern to the appropriate staff.  Chairperson Morrow stated that Member Lasich’s concerns would be forwarded to the appropriate staff for response.

Chairperson Morrow expressed concern and stressed the importance to stop this type of backroom, closed door dealings.   Chairperson Morrow referenced the meeting with Mr. Burns who expressed his commitment to keep communications and dealings open, clean, and clear within VTA.  Chairperson Morrow stressed the importance to take these experiences and chalk it up to a valuable lesson learned.

First Vice Chairperson Rhodes stated that OUTREACH should have been given the opportunity to be involved and participate in the paratransit in-house concept discussions since it impacts their future.   First Vice Chairperson Rhodes expressed concern and noted that closed door discussions must stop.  First Vice Chairperson Rhodes stressed the importance to have an open government, which allows all members in the community to participate and provide input.  First Vice Chairperson Rhodes stated that the Community Bus Program in Palo Alto provides terrible service. 

First Vice Chairperson Rhodes queried if the collective bargaining agreement could include the repercussions if personnel is not doing their jobs correctly.   Mr. Escobar responded that repercussions are included in the collective bargaining agreement that addresses these issues.  First Vice Chairperson Rhodes asked if the Committee could receive a copy of the provisions.

Member Grant expressed appreciation and thanked Mr. Escobar for the Community Bus Program presentation.   Member Grant asked if the Community Bus drivers are hired at a different pay level then the traditional fixed route drivers.  Mr. Escobar responded that the Community Bus Program drivers would be hired at a lower rate.

Member Grant expressed concern that the Community Bus Program could be become cost competitive with OUTREACH if the costs were lower than OUTREACH then VTA could change vendors for paratransit services.

Member Michels referenced a newspaper article in March 2006 regarding taxpayers paying close to $2 billion a year to the County government.   Member Michels stated that she is interested in knowing employee wages and benefits.

Member Tamez emphasized that the CTA Committee is interested in discussions related to service changes, program changes, and anything that would impact individuals with disabilities in the County.   Member Tamez stated that once ATU and VTA began discussions to bring Paratransit in-house then the information should have been forwarded to the Committee.  Member Tamez stressed the importance for the CTA Committee to be treated with respect and noted that CTA serves as an advisory committee to provide input on ideas and concepts regarding programs within VTA. 

First Vice Chairperson Rhodes stated that she specifically asked several times if VTA intended to bring paratransit in-house and the CTA Committee was assured that it was not being considered.

Ms. Applegate referenced a conversation with Tom Fink, Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local #265, in 2002 when VTA first proposed the paratransit in-house service changes.   Ms. Applegate commented that Mr. Fink stated that ATU was not interested in this type of discussion since it did not concern ATU drivers.  Ms. Applegate commented that she believes that the paratransit in-house service changes were initiated by VTA and not ATU. 

Ms. Applegate referenced VTA Committee Meeting Minutes and expressed concern that the CTA Committee was never informed and kept out of the loop regarding the paratransit in-house service concept.   Ms. Applegate expressed concern that VTA hired Booz Allen in the amount of $80,000 to perform a study on the paratransit in-house service concept, which states the delivery of paratransit trips by in-house staff with VTA staff performing the current broker duties, customer service, reservations, vehicle scheduling, dispatching, and quality assurance functions beginning July 1, 2006. 

Ms. Applegate expressed concern that the CTA Committee was not aware of the entire concept and stated that the Board of Directors need to look into the matter to ensure that staff is held accountable related to this matter. 

Mr. Bishop suggested that the CTA make a motion to have a CTA Member be involved in negotiation dealings related to the budget.  Mr. Bishop stressed the importance for a member of CTA to act as liaison to the Board of Directors.

Member Gouveia stressed the importance for all information to be open and public to avoid the appearance of improprieties.

Operator Training

Mr. Lau introduced Steve Johnston, Operations Senior Management Analyst; and
Ron Young, Bus Technical Trainer; who provided a brief overview of the Operator Training.   Mr. Johnstone commented that at the August 10, 2005 CTA Meeting the Committee approved the recommendation to the VTA Board of Directors to adopt a mandatory securement policy.  Mr. Johnstone noted that CTA’s endorsement included that the Securement Task Force remain in effect for one year after the effective date of implementation of the policy to ensure that the policy was being enforced appropriately and that any modifications could be made to the program to ensure that it was effectively implemented.  The second part of the endorsement was that required VTA to properly train operators in securement. 

Mr. Johnstone commented that in September 2005 the Committee requested that staff present an overview of VTA’s operator-training program to the CTA.  Mr. Johnstone commented that at the October 12, 2005 CTA Meeting staff presented an overview of VTA’s operator-training program to the Committee in a memorandum.  Mr. Johnstone stated that the memorandum included the following statement:  “Federal Regulation 37.173 requires VTA to ensure that personnel are trained to proficiency as appropriate to their duties.”  Mr. Johnstone noted that this is VTA’s mandate and is a federal mandate so VTA is required to train to proficiency.  Mr. Johnstone stated that VTA’s goal within the organization is to train personnel to proficiency.

VTA offers several levels of training, such as new operator training, which is an eight week training program, Verification of Transit Training (VTT) program an annual training of every operator, and training regarding programs that come up periodically for every operator regarding a new process, procedure, or new mandate.  All VTA drivers must attend VTT one day (eight hours)per year as required by the California Department of Motor Vehicles and must carry a valid VTT card to operate a VTA bus. 

Mr. Johnstone noted that once the CTA Committee endorsed the mobility device securement policy,  staff began the process to train operators on how to use the securement equipment on the vehicles.  Training staff also goes out to the divisions to train operators on issues related to new policy procedures in the Coach Operator’s Rulebook and Operator Log Books.  VTA offers training to support staff, field staff, and Operator Control Center (OCC) staff to ensure that they are properly trained in the process and procedures to work to address issues in the field.

Mr. Johnstone stated that the existing training curriculum is based on industry best practices, which includes technical driver training skills required to obtain and maintain a Class B Driver License with passenger endorsement.   Mr. Johnstone stated that the following training skills are part of VTA’s training program: technical, safety, defensive driving skills, passenger safety, emergency response and evacuation procedures, customer relations and customer service skills, service standards, fare collection practices, resolving customer complaints and issues, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) rules, sensitivity training, and securement training. 

Mr. Johnstone stated that the training program and curriculum change is based upon changing business needs, legal or policy mandates, and or equipment changes, such as the installation of the new securement equipment.  The CTA Committee has expressed particular interest in VTA Operator Training programs and whether they effectively address ADA requirements, including sensitivity and awareness training.  Mr. Johnstone noted that VTA has hired a consultant to evaluate VTA’s Operator Training program.

Mr. Young stated that part of the reason for the evaluation of VTA’s Training Program is related to the older equipment on the transportation vehicles, which made it difficult for the operators to secure the mobility devices in the vehicles.  Mr. Young noted that VTA participated in the Abilities Expo in 2005 where many types of securement devices were reviewed.  Mr. Young commented that through the purchase and installation of the new securement equipment on VTA’s vehicles operators were able to secure every passenger that wanted their mobility device secured.

Mr. Young stated that due to the changes in policy procedures and the new securement equipment operators required new training procedures.   Mr. Young stated that VTA has a new Coach Operator’s Rulebook and noted that Chapter 12 addresses: customer service, sensitivity and awareness, proper ways to use the securement equipment, federal regulations, and VTA policies.  VTA operators have to have the Coach Operator’s Rulebook in their possession at all times.  Coach Operator’s Rulebooks are consistent with providing the information to the operators that govern their behavior and actions while they are providing good customer service to the riders.  Mr. Young commented that all VTA drivers must attend the VTT training program, which is a very intensive training and includes sensitivity training.  The securement training provides training on how to secure three different types of mobility devices, such as power wheelchair, scooter, and manual wheelchair.   

Member Grant queried about the sensitivity training curriculum.   Member Grant requested written training information and a demonstration of the sensitivity training curriculum.  Mr. Young responded that VTA has hired a consultant who will review, evaluate, and make recommendations regarding VTA’s training curriculum.  Mr. Young noted that the VTT program has drivers trained by being in a wheelchair and/or blindfolded to understand how individuals with disabilities utilize the system. 

Member Grant expressed concern and stressed the importance to utilize the CTA Committee to attend and participate in VTA’s operator training.   Member Grant noted the benefit to utilize the Committee’s experiences and expertise to assist with the development of VTA’s operator training program.  Mr. Johnstone responded that the Securement Task Force has been in effect since January 2005 and both Chairperson Morrow and Member Julian have been active participants in the meetings.  Mr. Johnstone noted that the meetings are held on a bi-weekly basis and staff has invited the Committee to attend the meetings several times. 

Second Vice Chairperson Stahl expressed concern that VTA hired a consultant regarding the training program and stressed the importance to utilize the experiences and expertise from individuals with disabilities within the community to be objective. 

Member Jensen requested written sensitivity training curriculum information be provided to the Committee.  Member Jensen stated that the Committee was unaware that they would be involved in the sensitivity training program.   Mr. Johnstone responded that the original goal of the Securement Task Force was regarding the securement policy but now the focus on the Securement Task Force has moved towards the securement and sensitivity training of the operators.  Mr. Johnstone commented that the Committee is invited to attend the Securement Task Force meetings and noted that staff could add CTA Members to the meeting distribution list.  Mr. Johnstone stated that the CTA Committee is welcomed to attend any of the VTT training classes as well.

Chairperson Morrow expressed concern and noted that he and Member Julian have fought for the individuals who are unable to attend the Securement Task Force meetings.  Chairperson Morrow stated that he and Member Julian as well as staff have invited the Committee on several occasions to attend and participate within the Securement Task Force meetings.  Chairperson Morrow noted that the Securement Task Force is waiting to meet with the consultant regarding the review and evaluation of the training program.

Ex-Officio Member Heatley suggested that the CTA Committee have workshops instead of meetings to work collaboratively with the consultant regarding the review, evaluation, and to provide input on VTA’s training program.   Ex-Officio Member Heatley suggested that the sensitivity training should be scheduled as a broad topic on the CTA Committee Agenda.  Mr. Lau responded that VTA’s operator training program would be a regular agenda item on the Committee’s Agenda.  Mr. Lau suggested that Mr. Young provide to the Committee an abbreviated training program over the next couple of months, which would include the sensitivity training and ADA rules and regulations to get a sense of the training program.  Mr. Lau stated that the consultant is scheduled to provide information regarding the review, evaluation, and the recommendations to the Committee over a period of time to keep the Committee aware of the information.        

Adam Byrnes, staff aide representing Cindy Chavez (Ex-Officio Board Liaison),
left the meeting at 3:00 p.m.

Member Tamez stressed the importance of the sensitivity training but queried about the real world day-to-day experiences.  Member Tamez requested that the Committee receive information on how the sensitivity training is working on a day-to-day basis.

Member Marcillet stressed the importance for VTA to hire individuals who have positive attitudes and provide good customer service to the customers.

Member Jensen left the meeting at 3:04 p.m.

M/S/C (Morrow/Tamez) to recommend to extend the Committee Meeting. 

Second Vice Chairperson Stahl and Chairperson Morrow left the meeting at 3:05 p.m. and the quorum was lost and a Committee of the Whole was declared.

Ms. Applegate commented that sensitivity training has not been conducted for several years with the drivers participating by being in a wheelchair and/or blindfolded to understand how individuals with disabilities utilize the system. 

Members Gouveia, Marcillet, and Michels left the meeting at 3:06 p.m.

Ms. Applegate expressed support for the CTA Committee to attend and participate in VTA’s operator training.   Mr. Young responded that since October 2005 there has been an emphasis in operator sensitivity training, which is part of the VTT training program.

Mr. Bishop referenced a lawsuit under ADA equal access to coincide with mandatory securement of all passengers on transportation vehicles and expressed concern related to the expensive costs associated with this matter.   Mr. Bishop expressed appreciation and support to CTA Members Julian, Rhodes, and Tamez for their diligent work related to the senior and disabled community.    

OTHER

CTA Transit System Ridership Report

The CTA Transit System Ridership Report was deferred.  

CTA Workplan

The CTA Workplan was deferred.

There were no Announcements.

The Committee of the Whole adjourned the meeting at 3:08 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,