|
Draft Long-Term Transit Capital Investment Program (TCIP) Public Review
Chairperson Kishimoto distributed copies of notes from the April 1, 2005 PAC Workshop and provided an overview of PAC’s draft recommendations to the Board of Directors.
Member Kline requested that cities not represented at the April 1, 2005 PAC Workshop complete a TCIP Projects Ranking Survey for inclusion in the cites project ranking spreadsheet to be presented to the Board of Directors at the April 22, 2005 Board Workshop Meeting.
Member Brodsky commended Chairperson Kishimoto for suggesting the PAC Workshop and noted that the Workshop provided an opportunity to conduct fruitful discussion and exchange of varying points of view. Regarding tying tax to assessment districts Member Brodsky brought the Committee’s attention to an article in the Milpitas Post Newspaper that quoted a developer saying he expects that the property values in the area could jump 1,500 percent around BART stations and noted that this would indicate an increase in developer fees. Member Brodsky noted that the article indicated that Alum Rock in San Jose would be an ideal natural gathering point and is beneficial to developers for downtown and to the transit system if BART were routed there. Member Brodsky noted that if BART were to end at Alum Rock in San Jose with the juncture of Light Rail and High Occupancy Vehicle Bus Rapid Transit on Santa Clara Street it would become the gateway to east side San Jose and the anchor to illustrate San Jose’s commitment to development. He noted Santa Clara Street could become a great development to support that area which is being looked at as very speculative.
Vice Chairperson Glickman noted that developer impact fees are a local issue addressed by each city and town and expressed concern regarding tying projects on a regional basis to a regional sales tax.
Member Kerr noted his desire to have discussion regarding the concept of tying one revenue measure to another. He noted that ¼-cent tax proposal is more likely than
½-cent tax proposal and stated he would like to see something that all cities in the county would not necessarily enthusiastically support but would feel comfortable with signing off on in the way of a ballot measure. He noted that he has been looking at the concept of having a sales tax plus a supplemental income stream from the areas most closely benefiting from BART. He noted that might take the form of developer fees along the corridor or a special tax in the City of San Jose to supplement the ¼-cent countywide sales tax increase. He noted that he believed Mountain View had provided supplemental funding when Light Rail came through that area.
Upon query by Member Kerr regarding the nature of the contribution Ms. Gonot advised that Mountain View provided $15 million to the Tasman West Project for Light Rail going into Mountain View. She noted that there was a decision at the time that the light rail could potentially go to Sunnyvale or Mountain View but there was a cost difference and Mountain View paid the cost difference. Member Kerr noted that there is some precedent within VTA expenditures over the years for cities that are benefiting from large projects to participate in the funding. He stated that though the City of San Jose or developers along BART could not add $2 billion perhaps if somewhat more than a token payment was made or some type of additional revenue stream was introduced from the area that is most directly benefiting he would feel more comfortable recommending the proposed tax measure.
Alternate Member Kennedy directed the Committee’s attention to a letter transmitting the position of the City of Morgan Hill regarding the proposed VTA Long-Term Transit Capital Investment Program and read it into the record:
April 11, 2005
Carolyn Gonot, Chief Development Officer
Valley Transportation Authority
Re: VTA Long-Term Capital Investment Program
Dear Ms. Gonot,
I would like to thank you and your staff for attending our March 23, 2005 meeting to present the proposed VTA Long-Term Transit Capital Investment Program. Your presentation was very informative and triggered an engaging debate among the Council members on the merits of the plan. With letter, I would like to transmit the position our City is taking on the proposed Program.
Expenditure Priorities
The proposed Program relies on the premise that revenues from a new permanent ½-cent sales tax would become available in April of 2007, thus delivering all projects in the 2000 Measure A Program. Under this scenario, the BART expansion through San Jose to Santa Clara is a top priority and will be completed in 2015. Other projects in the Measure A program that benefit the more rural portions of the County, such as the Caltrain Service Upgrades, Caltrain South County Service Upgrades, Caltrain Electrification, and Zero Emission Buses, won’t occur until the latter half of the 30-year expenditure program. As you know, the recent public opinion survey on transportation issues (and a ¼-cent sales tax increase) revealed that south county voters value Caltrain equally to BART.
While the City of Morgan Hill supports the goal of bringing BART into Santa Clara, it does not want to see the BART extension constructed at the expense of other transit projects in the Transit Capital Expenditure Plan; or projects in VTP 2030 for that matter.
Cities Receiving Enhanced, Higher-Cost Benefits from BART Providing Financial Contribution
As you know, the portion of BART from Alum Rock to Santa Clara is planned to run underground. To the extent that this is not the most cost-effective approach (e.g. overhead or at grade may be less expensive than underground), then the city or cities advocating and benefiting from the enhanced configuration should develop a local funding mechanism to pay for the gap between the most cost-effective approach and the selected approach. This principle should be applied for any situations where the selected approach is not the most cost-effective. In other words, the remainder of the cities and county should not forego transportation improvements that would benefit their residents, at the expense of providing a higher-cost benefit to residents of another city.
The REVENUES portion of the Expenditure Plan should include contributions from cities that elect configurations or approaches for the BART extension that are not the most cost-effective. The contribution amounts should be based on the gap between the most cost-effective approach and the selected approach.
Backup Plan if Sales Tax Increase Does Not Materialize
Should the new sales not come to fruition due to lack of sufficient voter support, the Expenditure Plan will be facing a significant financial challenge. What will the backup plan be if this occurs? The spending priorities mentioned above will become the primary issue to be debated.
VTA should have under consideration a backup plan in the event that the permanent ½-cent sales tax fails. Another key benefit of developing a backup plan is that the choice becomes more clear to the voters, who would essentially be voting on either “Plan A” or “Plan B” – which represents a choice of “buying” either the “A” or “B” packages of improvements,. Reflecting whether the sales tax measure passes or not. In this way, the public is aware of the consequences of failing to pass the sales tax increase.
Reverse Commute Service to South County Shall be a High Priority for Caltrain Service Upgrades
Reverse commute Caltrain service, whereby trains run southbound in the morning and northbound in the afternoon/evening, are vital to the economic development in the South County area. One of the largest industrial parks in Santa Clara County is located in Morgan Hill and the reverse commute service will provide a healthy employment pool to support the growth of that industrial park. In addition, it is recognized that the City of Gilroy’s retail outlets will also gain from the reverse commute service. While some South County double tracking is currently being pursued, it is important to achieve double tracking through Morgan Hill as soon as possible.
The Expenditure Plan should emphasize the need or double tracking to accommodate reverse commute service as part of the South County Caltrain Service Upgrades. The VTA should continue to work with Union Pacific Railroad on double tracking and reverse commute strategies, and the timing of the double tracking through the city of Morgan Hill should be moved up in the overall schedule to reflect the need for reverse commute service sooner, rather than later.
We than you again for the opportunity to provide feedback to the proposed VTA Long-Term Transit Capital Expenditure Plan.
Sincerely,
Dennis Kennedy, Mayor
City of Morgan Hill
C: Morgan Hill City Council
Ed Tewes, City Manager
Kathleen Molloy-Previsich, Community Development Director
Ms. Gonot advised the Committee that all letters received from the cities will be compiled and distributed at the April 22, 2005 Board Workshop Meeting along with PAC’s recommendations.
Member LeZotte addressed Member Kerr’s comments stating that the tunnel through Berryessa under Highway 101 is a necessity.
Member Kerr stated that he did not believe that was the tunnel that was being discussed.
Member LeZotte asked if he was referring to downtown San Jose and noted that there are sections of downtown San Jose that will not accommodate light rail because of narrow roads and therefore would not be able to accommodate BART.
Member LeZotte stated that light rail is too big because of the width of the road by the hospital she noted that currently there is a debate in progress in the Downtown East Valley PAB regarding the addition of a single-track trolley or express bus. Standard light rail is no longer an option as it will not fit.
Member LeZotte noted that it is a false assumption that going below ground on that section is a choice. Member Kerr stated that he thought that light rail could be run over the top and suggested a monorail such as in Chicago. Member LeZotte reminded Member Kerr that the area is the heart of neighborhoods.
There was interest in developing both Measure A and non-Measure A projects that would serve countywide transportation needs while still delivering the BART project. Another suggested strategy for balancing countywide needs was to phase the completion of the BART.
Member Perry requested recommendations regarding developer impact fees or benefits assessed from districts to help fund BART be placed on a future agenda.
Member Kerr clarified that he was not attempting to enter into discussion regarding how BART should be done but rather for PAC to work to find a consensus regarding revenue streams that would actually buy the projects in question. He stated that a proposed countywide sales tax might be brought in at a ¼-cent if supported by all cities and that clearly would not be enough to fund BART and other projects. He noted that the cities do not want to see the budget crowd out all other projects and stated it would be productive to try and reach consensus on a revenue stream that will fund Measure A projects including BART. Member Kerr suggested that one suggestion would be a modest contribution by areas most favorably affected by the projects.
Chairperson Kishimoto requested that the Caltrain PAB be reconvened Ms. Gonot advised that a Caltrain Technical Advisory Committee will be developed and that the Caltrain PAB can be reconvened.
Alternate Member Kennedy requested the addition of “or other revenue sources” to Member Perry’s request for recommendations regarding developer impact fees or benefits assessed from districts to help fund BART be placed on a future agenda.
Vice Chairperson Glickman stated that he was unsure of the duties, responsibilities, or scope of the Caltrain PAB and requested background information before he could be comfortable asking the Board of Directors to reconvene the PAB.
Alternate Member Kennedy stated that the Caltrain PAB was established to focus on improvements and upgrades to Caltrain, its mission was to form policy plans for Caltrain.
Vice Chairperson Glickman requested background information on the Caltrain PAB and that it be placed on the May 12, 2005 Agenda.
Alternate Member Kennedy restated his request for information about the original Caltrain PAB its mission and objective.
Member Perry suggested a subcommittee be established to provide a basket of projects that will fit within the $4 billion in funding currently available in the event a new BART tax does not pass. He suggested that might include Caltrain service upgrades, Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) improvements, commuter rail, or high frequency heavy rail going to Fremont and possibly beyond South County.
Ms. Gonot advised the Committee that staff will go to the April 22, 2005 Board Workshop Meeting with what a ¼-cent sales tax can and cannot do and what VTA’s position will be with no new tax and request Board direction.
Member Kerr asked if staff would also present to the Board what a shorter BART would cost. Ms. Gonot noted that will be included in the New Starts report to the FTA. She reported that staff would like to return to the Board in May with a recommendation on what staff would like to review.
Alternate Member Kennedy suggested the Committee recommend to the Board of Directors that PAC be included in the process.
Member Perry stated that when there has been a grant proposed for what happens if there is no new tax the spreadsheets show we spend a lot of money on BART and stop in 2009 because we exceed bonding capacity. He noted that to date the Board has not considered a package of projects with no new tax. He stated that for purposes of discussion it is necessary to know what actually can be accomplished with the current $4 billion in funding. He noted that he does not think the Board is interested but that he is sure the City of Mountain View is.
Alternate Member Kennedy requested the Board to authorize PAC to be a part of the process to develop an alternative plan for the ¼-cent and no new sales tax alternative scenario.
Chairperson Kishimoto noted this relates to the discussion that began at the PAC Workshop regarding review of all the projects and putting the projects on a timeline as well as looking at the dollars.
Alternate Member Ojakian noted that to date scenarios have been presented to PAC as a finished project.
Member LeZotte asked then if PAC were going to take the TCIP Project Ranking Chart developed by PAC at their Workshop on April 1, 2005, and use it as a basis to send a missive to staff to then send it to the Board to develop something.
Alternate Member Kennedy suggested that staff begin the process to present to PAC first and that PAC then discuss and create their own proposed report for presentation to the Board.
Alternate Member Kline noted that PAC already has an active role. He stated that the April 1, 2005 PAC Workshop was a great step forward. He noted that the TCIP Project Ranking Chart started at the PAC Workshop should be completed and presented to the Board at the April 22, 2005 Workshop as PAC’s priorities. He advised however that a subcommittee comprised of three PAC representatives will provide a different set of projects that will not necessarily convey PAC’s recommendations as a whole.
Vice Chairperson Glickman noted his concerns that if you use those as the priority list, I feel that as Member Perry said what would we do with this amount of money and that is where I believe then this list changes. If you start at the top and run out of money on the first one, do you prioritize based on the amount of money that you already have? He stated that he is not sure that the PAC ranking is what he wants to go with, not necessarily because of any particular project but how far can that money go.
M/S/C (Glickman/Kennedy) to recommend that VTA Board of Directors authorize PAC to be a part of the process to develop an alternative plan for the ¼-cent and no new sales tax alternative scenario; to review the staff report, discuss, incorporate comments, and prepare a recommendation for Board consideration.
Member Kline left the meeting at 5:59 p.m.
| 
Rider's Links 
