Related Links

CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) was called to order at 4:05 p.m. by Chairperson Sandoval in Conference Room B-104, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California.

ROLL CALL

Members Present

Mark Brodsky
Dominic Caserta
Dean Chu
Dan Furtado
Steve Glickman
Dennis Kennedy
Breene Kerr
Yoriko Kishimoto, Vice Chairperson
Norman Kline
Victor Ojakian
Linda J. LeZotte
Greg Perry
Althea Polanski
Dolores Sandoval, Chairperson

Members Absent

Paul Correa
King Lear

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Public Presentation 

Rob Means, interested citizen, suggested a BART Light Option with a Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) extension consisting of small inexpensive lightweight vehicles that run on elevated guideways.

Member Kennedy asked if a PRT vehicle would handle a group of people or just one person.  Mr. Means explained that generally there would be one person in each vehicle, however each vehicle is capable of handling one person and a bicycle, or one person and a wheelchair, or up to three or four adults.           

Member LeZotte took her seat at 4:07 p.m.

Minutes of August 12, 2004

M/S/C (Kishimoto/Kline) to approve the Minutes of August 12, 2004.  

Member Glickman took his seat at 4:10 p.m.

Committee Staff Report

Joanne Benjamin, Policy and Program Manager, reported that a Board Workshop is scheduled for Friday, October 1, 2004, to discuss Transit Capital Scenarios and Expenditures.  She reported that a refined set of scenarios utilizing input from
Committees and Board Members at the August 13, 2000 Board Workshop would be distributed prior to the October 1, 2004 Board Workshop and be placed on the next PAC Agenda.

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

Chairperson’s Report

Chairperson Sandoval reported that she met with PAC Vice Chairperson Kishimoto, Ms. Benjamin, Board Chairperson Don Gage, and Board Vice Chairperson, Joe Pirzynski to discuss how PAC could provide productive policy input on issues that VTA will address in the next few years as well as how PAC can raise other points of view and perspectives for consideration.   She reported that it was noted at the meeting the Workplan created by the Committee at the beginning of the year was a sound step toward providing the Board of Directors with an idea of policy issues the Committee would like to address. Chairperson Sandoval noted that several issues such as Bus Rapid Transit, Downtown East Valley, Community Shuttle Service, the budget cycle and others have not historically been brought to the Committee on a regular basis for major input. 

Chairperson Sandoval noted the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Committee would be making a presentation to the Board of Directors in January 2005 and asked that the Committee receive the presentation prior to the Board to allow the Committee an opportunity to provide input on how the restructuring report is written and what suggestions would be brought forward.

Member Polanski took her seat at 4:15 p.m.

Chairperson Sandoval reported that it was suggested that Board Workshops would be the appropriate place for Committee discussion and input on items prior to those items being brought before the Board of Directors Regular Meetings.

Member LeZotte asked if the Committee would provide input at the Board Workshops through the Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, or by some other means.

Chairperson Sandoval stated that the method for providing Committee input at Board Workshops has not been developed.

Member Kerr took his seat at 4:17 p.m.
Member Brodsky took his seat at 4:17 p.m.

City Groupings Reports

Ms.   Benjamin reported that the West Valley Mayors and Managers did not meet in August 2004.

Member Kennedy reported that the Morgan Hill, Gilroy, and Milpitas (MGM) City Group met on Friday, August 13, 2004, and took the following actions: 1) discussed VTA’s long-range financial strategy and the four scenarios presented at the
August 13, 2004 VTA Board Workshop, 2) requested the MGM City Group Board of Directors representative request that the Board of Directors entertain a feasible no-tax scenario to show what would happen if there were no new source of revenue and no assumption that BART be entirely built in one phase, 3) the City of Morgan Hill supported the Grand Jury’s Report and recommendations, 4)  Morgan Hill and Gilroy would like to receive a presentation on Community Bus Service, 5)  discussed that fact that a large number of commuters travel south on Caltrain and expressed concern that there is no reverse commute from San Jose to Morgan Hill and Gilroy and  6) discussed Morgan Hill and Gilroy’s interest in having Highway 101 widened between Cochran Road to Monterey Road south of Gilroy .

Vice Chairperson Kishimoto reported that the North County City Group met on August 27, 2004, and took the following actions: 1) discussed VTA's Long-Range Financial 2030 Plan and noted that an expenditure plan is not included requested the North County City Group representative to work with the Board of Directors toward incorporating into the Long Range Capital Investment Plan a specific timeline that would break out all the Measure A Projects, 2) discussed Member Kerr's letter to the VTA Board of Directors dated August 27, 2004,   and noted that his letter was a variation of this Committee’s request for an alternative Scenario #1, 3) discussed the Grand Jury Report and agreed the PAC should provide input on the report, 4) nominated Margaret Okuzumi as their representative on VTA’s Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and explained that the CAC has a role in reviewing Measure A expenditures and 4)  discussed a 1992 agreement made between Sunnyvale, VTA, and VTA’s predecessors that indicated the City of Sunnyvale would be given next priority for light rail  after Mountain View Light Rail was completed.

Member Correa took his seat at 4:25 p.m.

Member Kerr commented on his letter to the VTA Board of Directors dated August 27, 2004, and explained that it was an attempt to clarify the Committee’s views regarding the request of a credible No-New Sales Tax Scenario #1.   He noted his belief that a solution could be found that would include BART in a no new taxes scenario and that the request should not be viewed as pro-or anti-BART.  The Committee is asking the Board to review what would happen and what would be the logical way to handle things if there were no new sales tax forthcoming.  He reported that the North County City Group noted that the plans presented at the August 13, 2004 Board of Directors Workshop were not expenditure plans.  He noted that a number of Board Members have shown interest in Scenario #3 which may become a basis for a sales tax ballot measure with emphasis on a credible expenditure plan that will show the voters that all of the projects will be completed. 

Chairperson Sandoval noted for the record that she received e-mail from Eugene Bradley Founder of the Santa Clara VTA Riders Union stating that he agrees with the Grand Jury Report.  She advised that copies of the e-mail correspondence would be available upon request.

On order of Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the City Groupings Reports were received.

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

Fiscal Year 2005/2006 Operations Division Major Projects and Programs

Matthew O. Tucker, Chief Operating Officer, provided an overview of Market Segmentation Analysis and noted that it involves the development of transit service options based on an analysis of the attitudes and preferences of a community.   Market Segmentation Analysis is a proven tool used in the private sector to determine the market.  Mr. Tucker reported that Market Segmentation Analysis will allow staff to identify various transit markets, identify strategies to increase market share, and help to identify priorities for deployment of services and placing resources to receive the biggest return for VTA and for our customers. 

Mr. Tucker provided an overview of Community Bus Service and noted that to make the service a success it is important to utilize Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Technologies.   The Community Bus Service would utilize smaller vehicles customized to fit the specific needs of a community.  He noted that this would be a community process where the community will decide what the service should look like and how it is designed.

Mr. Tucker provided a brief overview of the Bus Rapid Transit concept and noted that it   is a rapid transit mode that would combine stations, vehicles, services routes, and ITS elements into an integrated system. Mr. Tucker stated he commonly refers to BRT as light rail on rubber.

Member Kerr asked if instead of creating special lanes for BRT could the existing diamond lane network be used.   Mr. Tucker responded that in certain areas BRT could be given diamond lane priority and other segments of the alignment may need a sole dedicated right-of-way lane for BRT. 

Member Brodsky noted the importance of station amenities to provide customers with a place to eat or have a cup of coffee and get out of the weather while waiting for the bus.

Upon query by Chairperson Sandoval regarding the timeline Mr. Tucker responded that Community Bus operation is scheduled to begin in January 2006.

On order of Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the Fiscal Year 2005/2006 Operations Division Major Projects and Programs was received.

OTHER

VTA Transit Capital Scenarios and Expenditures

Ms. Benjamin reported that the Transit Capital Scenarios and Expenditures presented at the August 13, 2004 Board Workshop are being refined to include input, questions, and comments received.   She reported that the refined scenarios would be presented at the October 1, 2004 Board Workshop scheduled for 8:30 a.m. at the San Jose Hyatt. Ms. Benjamin advised the Committee that they would receive the full Workshop Packet prior to the Workshop and invited the Committee to attend and participate. Ms. Benjamin asked if the Committee had any comments from their cities to forward to staff.

Vice Chairperson Kishimoto reiterated that the City of Palo Alto requested a Measure A Expenditure Plan for Scenario #3.   She also noted the city’s request for an alternative Scenario #2 which would look at what could be done with a quarter percent sales tax if the voters did not approve a one-half cent sales tax. 

Member Kline noted that the Board should be looking at worst-case scenarios and planning for them.

Member Perry expressed concern that between Scenario #3 and Scenario #4 there is no conversion of same year dollars. 

Member Brodsky reported that Monte Sereno is interested in how much of the 2000 Measure A projects could be accomplished if BART were done in phases.

On order of Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the VTA Transit Capital Scenarios and Expenditures was considered.

Policy Advisory Committee Bylaws

Chairperson Sandoval noted that any changes in the Policy Advisory Committee Bylaws are subject to Board of Directors approval. 

Ms. Benjamin advised the Committee that Suzanne Gifford, General Counsel was present to answer any questions pertaining to the Bylaws.

Member Kline reported that a review of the Policy Advisory Committee Bylaws by City of Saratoga’s attorney found nothing to prevent the Committee from setting its own agenda and referred to Page 3, Article IV- Officers, Section 4.1, “The chairperson, in consultation with the Committee staff Liaison, may identify items of interest for future agendas that are relevant to the Committee’s duties and responsibilities.”

Ms. Gifford noted a conflict comparing Page 3, Article IV, Section 4.1, of the bylaws to Page 1, Article II – Duties and Authorities, Section 2.1,   which reads “advise the Board of Directors on policy issues referred to the Committee by either the Board or the General Manager.” 

Member Brodsky stated that he would like to see the bylaws enable elected officials to bring their respective City’s concerns forward for discussion.

Member Kennedy suggested that Page 1, Article II – Duties and Authorities, Section 2.1, be amended to include at the end of the first sentence “by either the Board or the General Manager or by a majority vote of the Committee.”

Chairperson Sandoval noted her decision not to put the Grand Jury Report on the Committee’s last agenda.   She clarified that her decision was based on the desire to have a staff report for discussion rather than having a general discussion and asked if it was the Committee’s desire to place items on the agenda by vote rather than having items placed on the agenda at the discretion of the Chairperson. 

Member Ojakian requested clarification of the position of the Committee in relationship to the Board.

Member Kline reiterated that there is nothing in the Bylaws to prevent the Committee from placing items on the agenda.   Ms. Benjamin suggested that a workplan for the year would be helpful in bringing the Committees issues forward.  Member Kline agreed a Workplan is a great idea but feels that the Committee is restricted from generating new ideas. 

Member Glickman suggested that Page 5, Article 5 - Meetings, Section 5.8, be amended to include “By directing staff to place an item of business for discussion or action on a subsequent agenda,” by a vote of the majority of the Committee present.

Member Kennedy requested that General Counsel review the bylaws, namely sections 2.1, 5.8 (d) and 4.1, and come back to the committee with recommendations for consistency and a process to allow the committee to put items on the agenda.

The Committee noted that they prefer the Board of Directors defer the October 7, 2004 Agenda Item #33.A – Policy Advisory Committee referral by Board Chairperson Gage to review and reaffirm if necessary, the role and responsibility of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee until the Committee can come back with a revised set of by bylaws.

Vice Chairperson Kishimoto suggested that the Board could formally designate one to three key documents such as the budget, VTP 2030, and the long-term financial plan for the Committee to review prior to them being presented to the Board.  These items could then be presented to the Board with official Committee recommendations.  She asked that this be this be incorporated into the Bylaws.

Member LeZotte requested a definition of a policy issue.

Member Kennedy suggested that Page 7, Article VII – Miscellaneous, Section 7.2, be amended to reflect the following “All rules of order not herein provided for shall be determined in accordance with,” Standard Parliamentary Procedures.

On order of Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the Policy Advisory Committee Bylaws were considered.

Grand Jury Report and Response

Member Perry placed a motion on the floor for the Policy Advisory Committee to endorse the findings of Grand Jury Report in general.  Member Brodsky seconded the motion.

Member Polanski reported that Milpitas City Council accepted VTA’s response to the Grand Jury and therefore would not be voting in favor of the motion.

Member Glickman reported that the City of Los Gatos has agendized the Grand Jury Report for discussion and noted that until he had direction from his city council he would vote in opposition of the motion.

Member LeZotte noted that the San Jose city council had not yet weighed in on the Grand Jury Report. 

Member Brodsky reported that the Monte Sereno City Council unanimously voted to support the Grand Jury Report findings and found that the Response to the Grand Jury Report used the wrong comparison of future cost versus past cost.

Member Kishimoto reported that the City of Palo Alto has prepared a draft letter for city council action on Monday, September 13, 2004.   She stated she could support the motion on the Grand Jury Response findings and urged the Board to proactively reach out to the public and cities and invite feedback and discussion before acting on Grand Jury Report findings.

Member Furtado said the Grand Jury Report often misses the mark on a variety of topics and that this report was no exception.

Member Kline stated he took exception to Member Furtado’s comment about the Grand Jury often missing the mark.  He stated he felt, based on personal experience, the Grand Jury was competent and able to make recommendations that are well thought out and constructive.

Member Kerr noted that it would behoove the Committee to dissect the report to see if there is anything of value for further study and recommendation.

Following Committee discussion, Member Perry withdrew the motion to have Policy Advisory Committee to endorse the findings of Grand Jury Report in general, and requested it be agendized for the October 14, 2004 Meeting.

The Committee suggested the item be agendized for the October 14, 2004 PAC Meeting and that the Committee bring their cities’ responses for discussion and to make recommendations to the Board of Directors.  The Committee also agreed to send their cities’ response to the Board Secretary’s Office for distribution to the Committee.

On order of Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, Grand Jury Report and Response was considered.

Announcements

There were no Announcements.

Adjournment

On order of Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara R. Box, Board Assistant
VTA Board of Directors