Related Links

CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) was called to order at 5:08 p.m. by Chairperson Risch in Conference Room B-104, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California.

ROLL CALL

Members Present
Mark Brodsky
Emily Cheng
Patricia Dixon
Dan Furtado
Yoriko Kishimoto
King Lear
Linda J. LeZotte
Greg Perry
Joe Pirzynski
Tim Risch, Chairperson
Dolores Sandoval, Vice Chairperson
Ann Waltonsmith

Members Absent
Dominic Caserta
Craig Gartman
Dennis Kennedy
Liz Kniss

A quorum was not present and a Committee of the Whole was declared.

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

There were no Public Presentations.

Minutes of April 10, 2003

On order of Chairperson Risch, there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole deferred the Minutes of April 10, 2003, pending arrival of a quorum.

Committee Staff Report

Michael P. Evanhoe, Chief Development Officer and Staff Liaison, reported that VTA Board of Directors elected to not hold a July 2003 Board Meeting. He noted the following two Board Meetings would he held in June 2003: 1) June 5, 2003, at 6:00 p.m., wherein the VTA Budget would be adopted and 2) June 19, 2003. Mr. Evanhoe noted that there would be no Committee Meetings held in June 2003.

Mr. Evanhoe reported that there would be a ribbon cutting ceremony on May 19, 2003, at 12:00 p.m., for the Highway 101 Project between South San Jose and Morgan Hill. He noted that the Governor would be in attendance.

Mr. Evanhoe reported that there would be another ribbon cutting ceremony on June 23, 2003, at 12:00 p.m., for the opening of the Route 85/87 ramps, southbound 87 to northbound 85 and southbound 85 to northbound 87.

Mr. Evanhoe reported that there would be a joint meeting between the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors and VTA Board of Directors on June 6, 2003, to adopt the annual 1996 Measure B Program. 

Upon query of Member LeZotte, Mr. Evanhoe noted the parking procedures to attend the ribbon cutting ceremonies.

On order of Chairperson Risch, there being no objection, the Committee Staff Report was received.

Minutes of April 10, 2003

M/S/C (Dixon/Brodsky) on a vote of 8 ayes to 0 noes to 2 abstentions to approve the Minutes of April 10, 2003, as submitted. Members Cheng and Waltonsmith abstained.

Chairperson´s Report

Chairperson Risch reported that he attended the April 25, 2003 Board of Directors Workshop regarding the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Financial Stability Committee and VTA Budget.

Mr. Evanhoe noted that there was another Ad Hoc Financial Stability Committee Meeting held Wednesday, May 7, 2003.

Legislative Report

Kurt Evans, Government Affairs Manager, reported that there is still a major pre-occupation in Sacramento with the State's Budget difficulties, noting that the estimate of the budget deficit is approximately $35 billion. He provided a report on the Governor´s "May Revise", which is expected to come out Monday, May 12, 2003.

Mr. Evans reported that last week, the Legislature passed a $3.6 billion package of budget cuts and loans, which the Governor subsequently signed into law. He reported that transportation was not part of the package, but noted that transportation is obviously an important discussion item within the Legislature.

Mr. Evans reported that the Governor would like to suspend Proposition 42 and retain all the sales tax on gas money in the General Fund rather than have those dollars flow to the Traffic Congestion Relief Plan projects and other kinds of transportation purposes. He noted that the Proposition 42 transfer is worth approximately $1.2 billion. Mr. Evans reported that there has been some movement afoot within the Assembly within recent days to try to save some of the money for transportation rather than having all of the money go to the General Fund to help with the deficit.

Mr. Evans reported that Congress, within the past week, approved the FY 04 Budget Resolution. He noted that the document provides a framework for the subsequent Appropriations Bills that Congress would adopt and provides a framework for the discussions involving Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) Reauthorization.

On order of Chairperson Risch, there being no objection, the Legislative Report was received.

Amendment of Policy Advisory Committee Bylaws

Chairperson Risch noted the following two issues raised by Committee Members: 1) number of Committee Members required to put an item on a subsequent agenda and 2) whether an item, if it was put on the agenda, would have to go on the next agenda or could be deferred to a subsequent agenda in order to give staff time to prepare if necessary.

Suzanne Gifford, General Counsel, referred to VTA´s Administrative Code, Section 4-26, and noted that it states the following: "It is the duty of the Committee to advise the Board of Directors on policy issues referred to the Committee by either the Board or the General Manager in consultation with the Chairperson." She noted that in January 1995, this is how the Advisory Committee structure was decided.

Ms. Gifford discussed her recommendation regarding whether an item, if it was put on the agenda, would have to go on the next agenda or could be deferred to a subsequent agenda in order to give staff time to prepare if necessary. She noted that this is an attempt to accommodate the restrictions of the Administrative Code and the availability of staff to effectively respond to the Committee. Ms. Gifford urged the Committee to leave the verbiage "to a subsequent agenda".

Member Perry noted that he does not quite understand why the motion that was made and carried to change the phrasing to "subsequent" to "next" could be overruled. He noted that Ms. Gifford gave a very eloquent explanation of her belief that "subsequent" be preferable wording. Member Perry noted that given that the Committee voted on whether to change the bylaws from the word "subsequent" to the word "next", when the Committee votes to change the bylaws, how is it that the vote has no standing?

Ms. Gifford noted that "the subsequent" and "a subsequent" are two different things. "A subsequent" is any meeting in the future and "the subsequent" is the next meeting. She noted that the motion conflicted with the Administrative Code, which says, "the Committee's duty is to advise the Board on policy issues referred to the Committee by either the Board or the General Manager in consultation with the Chairperson". Ms. Gifford noted that is actually the way that items get on the agenda. She noted it conflicted with Section 4-26(b) of the Administrative Code and that the Administrative Code takes precedence.

Member Perry queried as to why the explanation being given now is different than the explanation given a month ago. He noted the reason given a month ago was that requiring two people instead of one was too restrictive. He expressed concern about receiving legal opinions, which are shifting, but with the same goal.

Ms. Gifford reported that the Board of Directors has to approve the amendments to the bylaws. She noted that she would not recommend to the Board that the bylaws be changed to "the subsequent meeting". Ms. Gifford noted that she thinks it should remain "a subsequent meeting". She noted that her opinion today is restricted solely to try to have a consistency between Section 4-26(b) and not so restrictive that it precludes people from discussing things that they think are really relevant.

Chairperson Risch asked Ms. Gifford if she believed that the bylaws in front of the Committee tonight are consistent with the Administrative Code and would be recommended to the Board if carried forward by the Committee. Ms. Gifford stated, "yes".

Member Kishimoto referred to the City of Palo Alto and discussed the roles of the City´s committees. She noted that the City has a committee wherein it specifically has the right to raise its own issues. She referred to the VTA Policy Advisory Committee and queried, since this is the only place that all 16 agencies all sit around the table, and is this a place where using our eyes and ears we can help raise some issues, which might be important to our constituents and raise them to the Board, rather than just receive items which come down to us from the Board.

Chairperson Risch clarified that there is now a method that the Committee can refer items and the items can be brought back to the Committee. He noted it was an attempt to come up with that ability, but at the same time, trying to follow the spirit of the Administrative Code.

Member LeZotte expressed concern about restrictions created by the bylaws and the inability of the Committee to put an item on the agenda.

Ms. Gifford clarified Section 5.8 and stated that the Committee can by motion, direct staff to place an item of business for discussion or action on a subsequent agenda.

Member Furtado expressed concern about the time the Committee was spending on technicalities of the bylaws. He noted this type of discussion detracts from the Committee´s main responsibility and stated the Committee can best serve by learning about issues, taking them back to our cities, advising the Board and doing a variety of things.

Member Brodsky expressed concern about the time constraints and inability to move items to the next agenda. He agreed with Member Perry´s desire to change the bylaw verbiage from "a subsequent agenda" to "the next agenda".

Vice Chairperson Sandoval noted her support of General Counsel´s recommendation and called for the question as presented.

Member Pirzynski stated he felt the issue was very clear and noted General Counsel´s recommendation was that the Committee is perfectly free to bring up issues as a sole entity. He noted that there has to be some level of agreement among Committee Members and called for the question as presented.

M/S/C (Furtado/Dixon) on a vote of 10 ayes to 2 noes to 0 abstentions to approve amending the Policy Advisory Committee Bylaws. Members Perry and Brodsky opposed.

Status of the Downtown East Valley Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor Project

Chairperson Risch noted that Mr. Evanhoe requested that the Status of the Downtown East Valley Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor Project be deferred to the next regularly scheduled meeting.

Vice Chairperson Sandoval suggested that staff not provide the Committee with another copy of the Downtown East Valley Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor Information Packet and Key Issue Study Guides. Chairperson Risch requested the Committee Members to retain their Information Packet and Key Issue Study Guides.

On order of Chairperson Risch, there being no objection, the Status of the Downtown East Valley Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor Project was deferred to the next regularly scheduled meeting.

Update of Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines

Mr. Evanhoe noted that the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) approved the Update of Traffic Level of Service (LOS) Analysis Guidelines this afternoon.

Casey Emoto, Senior Transportation Engineer, provided background information on the Traffic LOS Analysis Guidelines. He reported that the statewide Congestion Management Agency (CMA) legislation requires that a uniform method be used to evaluate traffic level of service for the following elements: urban arterials, freeways, and rural highways.

Mr. Emoto provided a report on the proposed updates for VTA's Traffic LOS Analysis Guidelines. He referred to the intersection analysis and noted that VTA would be purchasing the upgrade to TRAFFIX 7.6, the latest version of the software.

Upon query of Member Brodsky, Mr. Emoto noted the cost of the software upgrade and hardware and noted that workstations would not have to be upgraded.

Upon query of Member LeZotte, Mr. Emoto noted the difference between average control delay and average stop delay.

Upon query of Member Perry, Mr. Emoto noted training would be an additional cost.

Member Brodsky queried about the Traffic LOS Conformance Exemptions contained in the Traffic LOS Analysis Guidelines. Mr. Emoto noted that all exemptions are allowed through the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) legislation and that staff would not be making any changes to the Guidelines pertaining to exemptions.

Upon query of Member Kishimoto, Mr. Emoto clarified the meaning of exemption for inter-regional trips.

M/S/C (Waltonsmith/Dixon) to recommend the Board of Directors approve update of Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines.

FY 2003/04 Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Project Priorities

John Sighamony, Transportation Planner I, reported that this year the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) allotted Santa Clara County $1.4 million in Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds. He noted that 70 percent of the funds were a guaranteed amount given to all the cities within the County of Santa Clara and 30 percent was allotted to all the Tier 1 Bicycle Projects within the County of Santa Clara.

Mr. Sighamony reported that TDA Article 3 allocations expire after two fiscal years, plus the year in which they are programmed. If funds have not been used during the time period, a Member Agency has the option to rescind the project and reallocate the funds to another project.

Mr. Sighamony directed attention to Attachment A - 2003/04 TDA Article 3 Requests by Jurisdiction, and Attachment B - 2003/04 TDA Article 3 Rescind/Reallocate Requests, and provided a brief overview.

Mr. Sighamony reported that last year the cities of Palo Alto and Sunnyvale were both advanced $200,000 in TDA funds and noted that the cities would not be taking their guaranteed amount until the $200,000 is paid back. The cities could rescind/reallocate projects and apply for the Tier 1 funds if they have a project on the list. He noted the only agency that would be applying for Tier 1 money would be the City of Palo Alto for their Homer Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing Project.

Mr. Sighamony reported that the City of Palo Alto requested $293,000 in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) money from the California Transportation Commission (CTC), but noted that due to the state´s financial crisis, all of the projects were placed on a list and Palo Alto was low on the list.

Mr. Sighamony noted that staff recommends $293,000 in TDA funds from the Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) Tier 1 to Palo Alto for the Homer Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing Project. Mr. Sighamony directed attention to Attachment B, City of Sunnyvale and noted that there is approximately $80,000 of funds that are not being reallocated to any project. He noted the funds would be placed back into the TDA Article 3 cycle for next year.

M/S/C (LeZotte/Dixon) to recommend the Board of Directors approve project priorities for the 2003/04 Countywide Transportation Development Act (TDA Article 3) Program.

Fare Modifications for FY 2003-2004

David Sausjord, Revenue Services Manager, distributed a chart entitled "Northern California Transit Operator Fare Comparison - May 2003".

Mr. Sausjord reported there was an initial staff recommendation for a fare change that went to the Board Committees in March 2003 and was, subsequently, discussed at the March 21, 2003 Board of Directors Workshop Meeting. He noted that the Board of Directors felt that staff was being too aggressive in terms of the pricing for the Senior/Disabled monthly pass and suggested that staff analyze an alternative that would have a lower monthly pass price. The Board of Directors specified a monthly pass price of $17.50 and a reduced day pass price as well for the seniors and disabled. The Board of Directors also suggested increases to express fares.

Mr. Sausjord reported that staff analyzed the alternative and presented the alternative along with the initial staff alternative to eight public meetings held in April 2003 and to the advisory committees. At that time staff included a third alternative, which was a revised staff alternative that provided the reduced senior fares as suggested by the Board of Directors.

Mr. Sausjord reported that through the public review process and from the advisory committees, staff heard a clear message, which was the concern for the proposed fares for the seniors and disabled. He noted that comments were received from the students of San Jose State University regarding the proposed increased in the ECO Pass Program.

Mr. Sausjord reported that an additional discussion was held at the April 2003 Administration and Finance Committee, discussion in general at the Ad Hoc Financial Stability Committee Meetings, and again, at the May 1, 2003 Board of Directors Meeting.

Mr. Sausjord reported that staff has responded to the input received and prepared a new report for the Board of Directors with a revised staff recommendation, which basically maintains all of the changes suggested from the Board of Directors Workshop Meeting. He noted the current alternative includes slightly higher youth fares for the cash riders.

Mr. Sausjord directed attention to the chart distributed, Northern California Transit Operator Fare Comparison - May 2003, and provided an overview. He noted that the chart was prepared in response to suggestions received from the Board of Directors.

Mr. Sausjord reported that the proposed Fare Modifications for FY 2003-2004 would be forwarded to the Standing Committees in May 2003 and then to the Board of Directors in June 2003.

Member Waltonsmith directed attention to the chart entitled Northern California Transit Operator Fare Comparison, Average Fare Per Boarding column, Revised Staff Recommendation of $0.77, and queried if VTA is still lower than other comparable operators. Mr. Sausjord referred to the Revised Staff Recommendation of $.077 and noted that the other agencies are going through a similar process as VTA to raise their fares.

Member Brodsky referred to the free passes given to members who use transit at San Jose Airport and queried if the free passes were to be taken away and the members had to pay full fare for transit, would the average fare per boarding (listed on chart) change. Mr. Sausjord noted that the passes purchased by all the companies in the Airport environment/complex is part of VTA´s ECO Pass Program. He noted the concerns of companies in the ECO Pass Program due to VTA´s proposed increase of the ECO Pass Program. If VTA did not offer the ECO Pass Program, VTA would be selling a certain amount of monthly passes. VTA is trying to design the Program in way that VTA would not be losing or gaining.

Member Dixon noted the reason VTA is proposing an average fare per boarding of $.077. She noted the discussions/concerns held at the Board of Directors Workshop Meetings regarding the proposed fare changes and the pressure coming from the disabled, in particular. Member Dixon noted the proposed Eco Pass Program increase and the impacts to the City of Milpitas and San Jose State University.

Member Perry asked roughly what would this do to the measures of the farebox recovery or cost per boarding. Mr. Sausjord noted cost per boarding does not relate to fares, but the cost is approximately $6. He referred to the farebox recovery and noted if VTA is getting $.063 per boarding, VTA would be slightly over 10 percent.

Upon query of Member Perry, Mr. Sausjord noted that overall subsidy per boarding would be approximately 90 percent, which is approximately $5.50 per boarding.

Member LeZotte reported that when looking at all of the changes that have been made from the initial staff report and hearing from the community, most of the changes in what is proposed and what has been proposed are still on the seniors and disabled and now the youth. She expressed concern that the Adult fare has only increased a dime and that the scenario has never changed. Member LeZotte noted that she still does not understand the philosophy behind not raising fares on the people who could afford the increases.

Vice Chairperson Sandoval queried if the proposal was presented to the Committee for Accessibility (CTA) and what was CTA´s reaction. Mr. Sausjord reported that the proposal was discussed with the CTA on May 7, 2003, and noted there was not a lot of comment received. The CTA was more concerned with the changes to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit in terms of the door-to-door service.

Member LeZotte queried about the item being forwarded to the Committee as a discussion item instead of an action item.

Member LeZotte requested that the Single Adult Fare be increased to $1.60.

The Committee discussed the philosophy of using less change rather than more change and the preservation of the paratransit door-to-door service.

Vice Chairperson Sandoval requested the proposed dime increase in the Single Adult Fare go towards the preservation of the paratransit door-to-door service.

Member Brodsky expressed concern regarding the Committee's request to increase the Single Adult Fare from $1.50 to $1.60.

M/S/C (LeZotte/Dixon) on a vote of 8 ayes to 2 noes to 0 abstentions to recommend to the Board of Directors that the proposed Adult Cash Fare be raised from the current $1.40 to $1.60, endorsing the remainder of the proposed fare structure; and further, that the ten cents difference between the staff proposed $1.50 and $1.60 Adult Cash Fare be used to preserve the paratransit door-to-door service to the fullest extent possible. Members Brodsky and Perry opposed.

Recommended Budget for Fiscal Years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005

Jerry Rosenquist, Fiscal Resources Deputy Director, distributed a document entitled "VTA FY 2003/04 & 2004/05 Budget Information" and provided an overview, highlighting: 1) the impact to VTA due to the decline in local sales tax revenue for seven consecutive quarters, 2) VTA reserves in terms of the structural deficit, and 3) major assumptions contained in biennial budget.

Member Brodsky expressed concern regarding the debt for the right-of-way of BART. Mr. Rosenquist noted funds would be borrowed against 2000 Measure A funds in 2006. Mr. Rosenquist noted the debt is not part of VTA's net operating expenses. On order of Vice Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received a presentation on the Recommended Budget for Fiscal Years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. Member Lear left the meeting at 6:59 p.m.

Proactive CMP Reviewed and Approved Projects Monthly Status Report

On order of Vice Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received the Proactive CMP Reviewed and Approved Projects Monthly Status Report.

Announcements

There were no Announcements.

Adjournment

On order of Vice Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.

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