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
Ron Swegles
Jane Kennedy
Steve Glickman
Yoriko Kishimoto, Vice Chairperson
Norman Kline
King Lear
Victor Ojakian
Greg Perry
Dolores Sandoval, Chairperson

Members Absent
Paul Correa
Dennis Kennedy
Breene Kerr
Linda J. LeZotte
Althea Polanski

A quorum was present. 

Orders of the Day

There were no Orders of the Day.

Public Presentation 

There were no Public Presentations.

Minutes of September 9, 2004

M/S/C (Yoriko/Ojakian) on a vote of 8 ayes to 0 noes to 1 abstention to approve the Minutes of September 9, 2004. Alternate Member Jane P. Kennedy abstained. 

Member Perry took his seat at 4:15 p.m.
Member Swegles took his seat at 4:16 p.m.

Committee Staff Report

Dolly Sandoval reported that at the September PAC Meeting the Committee decided to take a look at their by-laws to clean up language and determine how items are placed on the Agenda.   She reminded the Committee that an item was placed on the September Board of Directors Agenda in relationship to PAC and PAC By-laws, which was deferred to the October Board of Directors meeting.  She informed the Committee that at the October Board of Directors Meeting she requested the item be deferred until PAC had an opportunity to discuss and review their by-laws.  She reported that the Board of Directors will take the item up in December.   

• Committee Bylaws

Suzanne Gifford, Legal Counsel, provided an overview of recommended revisions to the PAC Bylaws.

Member Perry referred to Section 6.3, Agenda Preparation, and suggested striking “…The Secretary may withhold placement on the agenda of any matter which is not timely received, lacks sufficient information or is in need of staff review an report prior to Committee consideration.”   Member Kishimoto noted that her city leaves the item on the agenda even if it is deferred but with a notation.  Ms. Gifford suggested the notation read as follows to keep members of the public informed: (recommended for deferral/no report)

Member Kline reiterated his statement from last month that the current by-laws already give PAC control over their own agenda and they should leave the by-laws as they stand. 

Member Kishimoto referred to Section 2.2, Limitations on Authority, and asked if a 2-hour or 4-hour rule could be considered in regard to the following, …shall have no independent duties and no authority to take actions that bind VTA or the Board of Directors or that require expenditure of staff time or VTA resources…     Ms. Gifford noted that it is difficult to judge how much time or expense will be necessary to prepare a requested report.

Member Lear referred to Section 5.2, Special Meetings, and stated that he has a problem with the ability to have a special meeting, he feels PAC should have the power to do so and frankly does not care if staff is available.  He stated that PAC should be able to have the power not to be trumped by the General Manager to have a special meeting, perhaps the special meeting may have something to do with the General Manager.

Chairperson Sandoval clarified that Member Lear is asking to strike the language “…with the approval of the General Manager….”

Member Lear stated he would like to define PAC’s right to have a meeting properly Brown Act noticed in this room without staff present if PAC so chooses.   He stated PAC is a policy advisory group, it can meet, and take its own minutes if needed.  He expressed his desire for PAC to be less constrained. 

The Committee discussed possible legal repercussions relative to consensus building to call a special meeting.

Member Perry referred to Section 2.2-Limitations on Authority,   and stated that one of the reasons he feels it is important to strike the phrase “…that require expenditure of staff time or VTA resources…” is because in April the Committee requested by vote the original ridership forecasts and actual ridership of light rail lines.  He stated that he recently put in a Freedom of Information Act request and his second request will be copied in the papers.  He noted that a phrase that states PAC cannot ask for information is crippling and it is very important that it is stricken. 

Chairperson Sandoval noted that she did not like the phrase because each member on the VTA Board of Directors is allocated some limited amount of staff time and a majority of the Board of Directors must vote to allocate staff resources.   She noted that if PAC is going to be an independent advisory body with representation from every city and the County, the ability to utilize staff resources is crucial.   She agrees that portions of the sentence should be deleted before moving the by-law revisions forward.   She suggested a process should be flushed out regarding how to ask staff for information and for staff to determine whether it is a high priority, if it fits within their priorities, and how much time it would take to gather the information. 

Member Kline suggested the following language be included “…but may ask and receive from staff pertinent information an agenda issue…”

M/S/C (Ojakian/Caserta) to accept the revised PAC Bylaws with the following changes: 1) Section1.3.d, Definitions, change 100701 to 10007, 2) Section 2.2, Limitations on Authority, strike the following: “…or that require expenditure of staff time or VTA resources…” or add “…but may ask and receive from staff pertinent information an agenda issue…”   3)   Section 2.2, Special Meeting, add “A special meeting may be called by the chairperson or by a majority of the legislative body in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act…” 4) Section 6.3, Agenda Preparation, strike the following: “…The secretary may withhold placement on the agenda of any matter which is not timely received, lacks sufficient information or is in need of staff review and report prior to Committee consideration…”and, 5) Section 5.2, Special Meetings strike the language “…with the approval of the General Manager.”

The Committee requested Legal Counsel to prepare a revised version of the Draft PAC By-laws to present to PAC at the next meeting.

Chairperson’s Report

• Committee Work Plan

There was no Committee discussion regarding the Work Plan.

• Consider Meeting Re-schedule

Chairperson Sandoval asked the Committee to consider rescheduling the
November 11, 2004 Policy Advisory Committee Meeting due to the Veteran's Day Holiday.

M/S/C (Caserta/Swegles) to cancel the November 11, 2004 Policy Advisory Committee Meeting due to the Veteran’s Day Holiday.

City Groupings Reports

Member Glickman reported that the West Valley Mayors City Group met and discussed the following: 1) Community Shuttle Service, 2) Bus Rapid Transit Plan, 3) Mountain View’s letter to the Grand Jury, 4) Cupertino’s citizens initiative concerning transportation oriented development, 5) Cupertino’s safe riders program, 6) City of Saratoga’s inquiry regarding funding for bus shelters, and 7) the October 1, 2004 Board of Directors Workshop to include operating and capital scenarios.

Vice Chairperson Kishimoto reported that the North County City Group met and discussed the following: 1) Bus Rapid Transit for El Camino, and, 2) San Mateo’s
El Camino as a grand boulevard initiative proposing to pull together the visions of all cities along El Camino in San Mateo.  She suggested that perhaps Santa Clara County might want to pursue a similar initiative.  Vice Chairperson Kishimoto distributed a mode-share comparison of work trips across the nine counties.  She noted that the comparison points out that Santa Clara County is the single worst drive alone county.  She reported that at the next North County City Group Meeting there would be a presentation regarding bicycling and walking to school.

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

Operating and Capital Scenarios considered by the VTA Board of Director’s at a Workshop on October 1, 2004

Chairperson Sandoval requested that this be placed as an item on the next PAC Agenda.  

Roger Contreras, Chief Financial Officer, reported that based on the recommendation from the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee, VTA pursued another revenue source.

Mr. Contreras reported that the following four financial scenarios were presented to the Board of Directors in August 2004 for consideration: 1) Scenario #1, No new revenue, 2) Scenario #2, New quarter cents sales tax, 3) Scenarios #3 and #4, New permanent half cents sales tax.   Of the scenarios provided to the Board of Directors, only the new permanent half cents sales tax provided the necessary resources to build and upgrade the key signature projects of Measure A, without negatively impacting VTA operations or the completion of other 2000 Measure A Projects. 

Mr. Contreras reported that at the October 1, 2004 Board of Directors’ Workshop, staff returned with both further refinements to Scenarios #1 and #3.   He directed attention to Exhibit B-1, Scenario #1, No New Tax to VTA, VTA 2000 Measure A Revenue and Expenditure Profile/2003 – 2036, and Exhibit C-1, Scenario #1, No New Sales Tax/Maintain Current Service Levels, and noted with no new revenue VTA has the financial capacity to fund its local capital program, however, VTA does not have the financial capacity to build and operate the following: 1) the BART and Downtown East Valley (DTEV) Projects nor 2) the financial capacity to implement service increases or maintain a 15 percent operating reserve level until FY 2013.

Members Caserta and Swegles left the meeting at 5:05 p.m.

Mr. Contreras directed attention to Exhibit B-2, Scenario #3, Optimum Schedule and a New 3/8-Cent Sales Tax to VTA, and Exhibit C-2, Scenario #3, New 3/8-Cent Sales Tax to VTA, and noted that Scenario #3 provides VTA the financial capacity to fund a local capital program, project and operating costs associated with BART and DTEV Projects, service increases, a 15 percent operating reserve starting FY 2008, provides additional funding and support of the 2000 Measure A Project, and the half cents sales tax also provides the cities and counties with approximately $35 million per year, in current year dollars, for pavement management or other transportation related purposes.

Mr. Contreras reported that staff will be returning to the Board of Directors on November 5, 2004, with further revisions based on input during the October 1, 2004 Board of Directors’ Workshop.   He noted that VTA’s original goal was to have an expenditure plan to the Board of Directors for adoption in December 2004, however, to allow additional time for the public, the Board of Directors   and its Committees to provide input, VTA has extended the process to Spring 2005.

Upon query by Member Brodsky, Ms. Gonot explained that the System-wide Performance Records will be provided prior to the November 5, 2004 Board Workshop.

Member Kishimoto suggested:1) priorities be data based in the VTP 2030, 2) include an analysis of cost effectiveness, 3) include more detail regarding Federal Transit Administration funding for BART in the footnotes, and 4) consider an Alternative Scenario #2, in search of other ways to finance the projects and suggested partnerships. 

She stated that when examining property tax allocations she noted that while San Jose represents 52 percent of the population in Santa Clara County San Jose only pays 35 to 38 percent of property taxes.  She also noted that regarding the projects; the most important goal is frequency of improvements to Caltrain.

Member Kline questioned the inclusion of a 25 percent road improvement item on the budget.   He asked when VTA started funding the city’s roads and if it is to be expected that VTA will sponsor a measure every 10-years. Member Kline noted that if the measure goes through he would hope that the 25 percent would not include San Jose.  Ms. Gonot responded that VTA is talking to the county and city managers and would not go forward unless all are in support. 

On order of Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the Operating and Capital Scenarios considered by the VTA Board of Director’s at a Workshop on October 1, 2004 was received and commented on.

Capital Program Expenditure Sequencing considered by the VTA Board of Directors at a Board of Directors' Workshop on October 1, 2004

Jack J. Collins, Chief Construction Officer, directed attention to Exhibit D, Scenario #3, Optimum Schedule, and a new 3/8-Cent Sales Tax to VTA, 2000 Measure A Revenue and Expenditure Project Profile/2003 – 2036, and Exhibit F, VTA Operations, Capital Investment Program.   He reported that VTA is trying to develop a 30-year long-term Capital Investment Program.   The two major elements of a 30-year Capital Investment Program for VTA are the 2000 Measure A Transit Projects, which are shown on       Exhibit D and the VTA Operations Capital Projects, which are shown on Exhibit F.  Exhibit F contains other projects the VTA is involved in that support VTA’s operation of buses, light rail, paratransit, etc.

Mr. Collins directed attention to Exhibit D, Revenues category, and provided an overview.

Chairperson Sandoval reminded the Committee that this will be discussed at the November 4, 2004 Board of Directors’ Workshop and encouraged members to attend and provide comments.

OTHER

Grand Jury Report and Respective Cities Response (Continued from the September 9, 2004 PAC Meeting)

Member Ojakian noted that the City’s whose responses are absent in the Agenda Packet are the City of Gilroy, Los Altos Hills, and Saratoga.

Member Brodsky directed the Committee’s attention to the Grand Jury Report, Page 1, Background, which points out that the original “…integrated plan was based on local buses as feeders to congregation points for express transport to more distant destinations (either via light rail or buses), which would then also connect to regional high-speed lines such as BART and commuter rail…” and, Page 8, first Paragraph, “…in the past, the political structure of the board of VTA’s predecessor agency was potentially responsible for the construction of a light rail system that deviated from the original plan.   He noted the present light rail system is mainly a linear route, passes through downtown and does not connect with the airport as do the rail transit systems in a number of other cities.  Member Brodsky stated that choice of route seriously compromised the speed of the light rail system, one of the prime reasons justifying this much more expensive transportation mode over buses.  Member Brodsky stated, a linear route rather than a network or grid tends to limit the ridership to those whose starting and ending points are both near the linear route. (The original 1950’s plan envisioned a light rail network, connected to the airport as well, and used buses on local loops as feeders to the light rail stations.)  VTA is adding more spokes to the linear system, but without even more interconnecting lines, travel times between arbitrary locations will still limit it from being a popular transportation choice…”  Member Brodsky stated this encapsulates the heart of the issue we are dealing with and for political reasons it was decided that San Jose would be the focus of all transit development.  He noted that the originally planned high-speed system became a low-speed system that by-passed the airport and radial systems where created that do not relate at all to the Valley network.  Member Brodsky suggested a motion be made to say the Grand Jury has recognized the problem, that the transit system design has been misdirected over the years by local politics, and a transit system such as the Community Bus and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) network should be the focus of where VTA can give the service, not to the arbitrary locations but to the logical locations where there are true jobsites.  

Member Kline stated that he was going to make a very high level general comment about his read on this because even thought the Board of Directors might not approve of going out for a sales tax they might just do that.   He stated that VTA is going to have a huge image problem given the Board of Directors’ response to the Grand Jury Report.  Member Kline continued his comments noting that VTA’s response to the Grand Jury negatively impacts the residents of Santa Clara County and moves the focus from where it should be. 

Member Perry stated that he is very impressed with the Grand Jury Report, as they got a good grasp of the numbers and in some he is ashamed their command of the numbers/data and everything behind this exceed those of our Board.  He noted that as he reads through the details of the report he found some of the cities responses baffling unless viewed in a political context rather than an oversight context.  He noted that some cities deferred response or put it off. 

M/S/C (Kline/Perry) on a vote of 5 ayes to 4 nays and 0 abstentions to support the Grand Jury Report and Recommendations.  Members Ojakian, J. Kennedy, Glickman and Sandoval opposed.

Announcements

There were no Announcements.

Adjournment

On order of Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Barbara R. Box, Board Assistant
VTA Board of Directors