Policy Advisory Committee
Thursday, May 12, 2005
4:00 PM
Conference Room B-104
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
3331 North First Street
San Jose, California
Minutes
|
1. |
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Kishimoto called the Regular Meeting of the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) to order at 4:05 p.m. in Building A, Auditorium, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California.
ROLL CALL
Members Present
Mark Brodsky
Dominic Caserta
Steve Glickman, Vice Chairperson
Dennis Kennedy
Breene Kerr
Yoriko Kishimoto, Chairperson
Norman Kline
Linda J. LeZotte
Victor Ojakian
Greg Perry
Al Pinheiro
Ron Swegles
Members Absent
Armando Gomez
Joseph D. Hernandez
King Lear
Dolores Sandoval
Greg Sellers
A quorum was present.
| | | |
|
3. |
| | | |
|
2. |
| | | |
|
4. |
Committee Staff Report
Carolyn Gonot, Chief Development Officer, reported that the Long-Term Transit Capital Investment Plan was discussed at the April 22, 2005 Board of Directors Workshop Meeting and comments from PAC as well as comment letters from the cities were presented.
Member Brodsky provided a spreadsheet analysis of the VTP 2030 riderhip numbers through the eastside gateway and questioned the accuracy of the VTP 2030 transit boarding numbers. He asked the following questions: 1. how is 84,000 daily BART boardings determined, 2. what percent of boardings are based upon new construction south/southwest of Alum Rock, 3. what percent of all employees of this new construction are projected to use BART, and 4. is there a BART/DTEV/Alum Rock ridership analysis. Ms. Gonot reported that staff would provide answers the questions raised and noted the numbers came from the BART Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
On order of Chairperson Kishimoto, there being no objection, the Committee Staff Report was received.
| | | |
|
5. |
Chairperson’s Report
Chairperson Kishimoto directed the Committee’s attention to Agenda Item #18., Committee Work Plan, and requested High Speed Rail, Regional Rail Study, and Hybrid Technology be added to the Committee Work Plan.
| | | |
|
6. |
There were no City Groupings Reports.
| | | |
CONSENT |
|
7. |
Minutes of April 14, 2005
M/S/C (Watson/Caserta) to approve the Minutes of April 14, 2005.
| | | |
|
8. |
(Removed from the CONSENT Agenda and placed under BUSINESS REFERRED TO COMMITTEE BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS/ GENERAL MANAGER)
Receive and file the Congestion Management Program Financial Audit, for
Fiscal Year 2004.
| | | |
|
9. |
Proactive CMP Reviewed and Approved Projects Quarterly Status Report – January through March 2005
M/S/C (Watson/Caserta)to receive and file the Proactive CMP Reviewed and Approved Projects Quarterly Status Report – January through March 2005.
| | | |
|
10. |
(Removed from the CONSENT Agenda and placed under BUSINESS REFERRED TO COMMITTEE BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS/ GENERAL MANAGER)
Review and recommend that the VTA Board of Directors approve VTA funding of Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) commuter rail service in the amount of
$23.705 million in FY 2006-07.
| | | |
|
11. |
Removed from the CONSENT Agenda and placed under BUSINESS REFERRED TO COMMITTEE BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS/ GENERAL MANAGER)
Review and recommend FY 05-06 Congestion Management Program Work Program and Budget was reviewed.
| | | |
|
12. |
FY 2006 Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Project Priorities
M/S/C (Watson/Caserta) to discuss the FY 2006 Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Project Priorities.
| | | |
BUSINESS REFERRED TO COMMITTEE BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS/ GENERAL MANAGER |
|
8. |
Congestion Management Program Financial Audit, Fiscal Year 2004
Member Swegles noted a typographical error in the report that listed the City of Sunnyvale as owing $2,160 which should have been listed under Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).
M/S/C (Swegles/Kline) to receive and file the Congestion Management Program Financial Audit, Fiscal Year 2004 was received and filed.
| | | |
|
10. |
Altamont Commuter Express (ACE), FY 2005-06 and FY 2006-07 Budget Allocations
Chairperson Kishimoto noted ACE’s recent problems with on-time performance and inquired regarding VTA’s role in overseeing ACE.
Frank Sharpless, State and Regional Government Affairs Manager, reported that a Cooperative Service Agreement is currently in effect with the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, VTA, and the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission. VTA is one of the funding partners for ACE but San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission owns the train and has trackage rights with Union Pacific Railroad to operate the trains and prepare the budgets. VTA regularly reviews and comments on San Joaquin’s draft baseline service plan for the upcoming fiscal years which identifies fares, service, and schedules. Mr. Sharpless reported that VTA manages the ACE Shuttles that operate out of Santa Clara County stations. He reported that VTA is notified when ACE experiences major delays or problems and set up bus bridges to assist customers. Mr. Sharpless acknowledged that ACE has experienced on-time schedule problems recently due in great part to the shared track usage with Union Pacific Railroad. He and noted that there has been great progress in resolving the problem and reported that the March 2005 on-time performance was approximately 80 percent and increasing steadily.
M/S/C (Kishimoto/Caserta) to recommend that the VTA Board of Directors approve VTA funding of Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) commuter rail service in the amount of $23.705 million in FY 2006-07.
| | | |
|
11. |
Recommended FY 05-06 Congestion Management Program Work Program and Budget
Member Watson noted that the projected Member Agency fee schedule is seven percent higher than last year. She noted that most cities are experiencing financial difficulty and stated her opposition to the proposal. Ms. Gonot reported that the Work Program and Budget was also discussed at the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) earlier in the day and that TAC supported the Work Program but with no increase to the Member Agency fees. Ms. Gonot noted concern that if there is no increase in fees, a deficit will be created in outer years.
Ms. Gonot noted that the Member Agency Fee Schedule is mailed to City Managers each year to notify cities of what to allow for in their budgets. Member Watson stated that it had not been included in her city’s budget this year.
Member Swegles stated that the City of Sunnyvale has budgeted for the dues but noted the city’s strong opposition to VTA’s proposal to move CMP employees into VTA. He reported that there is concern that this will give VTA access to the use of other Member Agency dues to pay for projects. Ms. Gonot reported that the current cost accounting charges CMP staff time to the transit or highway program and receive a reimbursement back into the program. She reported that the proposed new program will charge CMP staff time directly across a CMP fund source so that CMP will only be charged when there are CMP activities.
Member Glickman left the meeting at 4:35 p.m.
Member LeZotte took her seat at 4:36 p.m.
Member Brodsky requested concepts from the Community Design & Transportation (CDT) Manual be folded into the I-880/280 Corridor Studies.
M/S/F (Perry/Brodsky) on a vote of 6 ayes to 3 nays to 1 abstention to recommend the FY 05-06 Congestion Management Program Work Program and Budget for distribution to Member Agencies for review, amended to reflect a 6 percent rather than a 7 percent increase per year. Members Caserta, Kline, and Watson opposed. Member LeZotte abstained.
M/S/F (Watson/Caserta) on a vote of 6 ayes to 3 nays to 1 abstention to recommend the FY 05-06 Congestion Management Program Work Program and Budget for distribution to Member Agencies with no increase in the fees to Member Agencies. Members Perry, Brodsky, and Kerr opposed. Member LeZotte abstained.
| | | |
|
13. |
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Bylaws and VTA Administrative Code
Member Caserta requested clarification regarding how the requirement of “a majority of the total membership” to pass a motion came about. Suzanne Gifford, General Counsel, responded that in 2002 the Board of Directors approved a request from PAC to revise their bylaws changing the requirement from “a majority of the membership” to “a majority of those present.” PAC recently requested further changes to their Bylaws and upon consideration of the proposed revisions by the Board of Directors it was noted that PAC’s current requirement of “a majority of those present” to pass a motion is not consistent with the Board of Director’s requirement of “a majority of the membership.” The Board of Directors asked that the voting requirement for all of the advisory committees be consistent with the Board of Directors. Ms. Gifford reported that it was necessary for the Board of Directors to amend the Administrative Code to rescind prior approval of PAC’s request for a motion to be passed by “a majority of those present.”
Member Perry asked to see in writing the requirement for Board of Directors approval to amend/revise advisory committee bylaws. Ms. Gifford directed the committee’s attention to the VTA Administrative Code Section 4-1. Establishment; appointments, Section 4-2. Duties, and Section 4-3. Bylaws.
Upon query by Member Perry, Ms. Gonot responded that PAC’s original Bylaws required “a majority of the membership” to pass a motion.
Member LeZotte noted that the Bylaws were changed several years ago changing the voting requirement to “a majority of those present” due to poor attendance and the Committees desire to bring recommendations voted on by PAC to the Board of Directors. She surmised that the Board of Directors rescinded their decision due to PAC’s current improved attendance.
Member Kline noted that over a year ago he cautioned the Committee against returning PAC’s Bylaws to the Board of Directors as they could incorporate changes into the Bylaws that the Committee may not agree with. He reminded the Committee that the only significant issue at that time was PAC’s control over the Agenda and re-stated his belief that the Bylaws provided PAC with that authority as they were. He noted that PAC exists at the will of the Board of Directors and stated he did not think PAC or the Board of Directors are representative of the population of the Valley. Member Kline asked how and why PAC was created.
Ms. Gonot reported that originally the Congestion Management Program (CMP) Board was structured with 12 members and the Policy Advisory Committee was formed to give each city a voice. She reported that the role of the PAC related to transportation funding programming and land use decisions created by the cities and the impact on the transportation investments directly linked to the cities land use decisions. She reported that CMP’s advisory Committees’ were transferred into the current VTA Board Structure and noted that in 1996 the cities were still very much geared to Congestion Management Agency (CMA) issues rather than transit issues.
Member Kline noted the regional city groupings are more effective in advising the Board of Directors than PAC. He stated that each PAC representative should communicate their cities opinions to their City Grouping representative who should attend the City Groupings meetings to convince the other cites representatives to get behind him and vote the way his city wants to vote. He noted that currently PAC does not do that and stated that PAC meetings are more of an information-sharing forum and not effective at the Board level.
Upon query by Member Perry, Ms. Gifford reported that a representative city could not secede from the Board of Directors as the Enabling Act prescribes the number of Board Members and how they are selected. She noted that the advisory committees are an important voice having been charged by the legislature with the duty of looking at transit regionally. The function of the individual cities is to talk to their City Grouping representative and return to their city councils to be sure they are informed.
Member Perry asked how the cities could gain control of their TDA funds if they feel the Board of Directors is not appropriately using them and asked if that would be a legislative or an administrative process at the state level. Ms. Gifford reported that it was a complicated process with planning and programming involved through the Congestion Management process and that projects must meet Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) requirements to receive the funding distributed by MTC. Mr. Perry asked if a grouping of cities applied to the Federal Transportation Commission (FTC) to act as recipient of the funds, who would have the authority approve that application. Ms. Gifford reported that approximately three years ago she developed several pages of notes on the process regarding a designated recipient and the selection process. At that time Santa Clara County was united in the opinion that Santa Clara County did not have enough impact with MTC in relationship to other counties in the nine county Bay Area and wanted greater representation on MTC.
Member Perry requested a copy of Ms. Gifford’s notes regarding authority of TDA funds distribution.
Chairperson Kishimoto referred to Chapter 4, Article 1, Section 100060 of the Enabling Act, specifically Paragraph 3… Five city council members selected from among the city councils of all of the cities in the County, other than the City of San Jose, as provided by agreements among those cities. The agreements may provide for the appointment of alternates, who shall be city council members, for those city representatives… and asked if there could be more discretion regarding appointments to city groupings. Chairperson Kishimoto referred to a question Member Kennedy previously raised regarding whether or not if two out of three City Grouping representatives want to vote a certain way, is the third representative obliged to vote with the majority of the group.
Member Kline stated that if Morgan Hill and Gilroy wanted to replace their representative in the rotation they could according to the Enabling Act language, Ms. Gifford concurred, Ms. Gonot stated she was unsure if there was a process in place and Member Kline surmised that the cities would need to negotiate an agreement.
Member Ojakian voiced his opposition to the new voting requirements for PAC noting that Diane McKenna made it clear at the October 9, 2003 PAC Meeting meeting that PAC was kept in place to act as a body to provide policy direction to the Board of Directors and noted a contradiction in creating a body to have a voice and then placing that body in a position where one or two votes could defeat a measure.
Member LeZotte asked what process was followed when the City of Campbell wanted to to stay in the rotation because Campbell’s representative was the Board of Directors Vice Chairperson scheduled to be Chairperson. Member LeZotte acknowledged there was an agreement among the cities in the City Grouping but did not think the Board of Directors had voted on it.
Ms. Gifford noted that if a motion passes or not is reflected in the minutes which lets the Board know PAC’s opinions.
Member Caserta asked if staff could provide the committee with ideas or options to allow PAC a stronger voice.
Member Swegles expressed frustration that PAC Members take time out of their schedules to attend the meetings, go through the literature, and give opinions that are continually ignored. He questioned PAC’s actual value.
Member LeZotte noted that the Board of Directors vote to approve amendments to the PAC bylaw was 7 ayes to 5 nays and that 2 members representing cities other than San Jose voted against PAC’s wishes. She stated that the City Groupings representatives are not communicating or are disagreeing with PAC and that is a problem with the City Grouping.
On order of Chairperson Kishimoto, there being no objection, the Committee discussed the PAC Bylaws and VTA Administrative Code.
| | | |
|
14. |
Caltrain FY 2005-06 and 2006-07
Mr. Sharpless provided an overview of the recommendation to the Board of Directors to approve $14,819,000 for Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-06 $15,263,000 for FY 2006-07 to provide VTA’s share of operating support, and $2.66 million for FY 2006-07 as VTA’s share of the local matching funds required for Caltrain’s Capital Budgets for these two years. Regarding the Operations Budget Mr. Sharpless reported the Draft 2006 Caltrain Operating Budget identifies a $2 million deficit. The Joint Powers Board has identified three alternatives for consideration to eliminate the shortfall: Alternative 1 - Do not increase Member Agency contributions above the FY 2004-05 amounts and implement additional service reductions or take other actions to eliminate the shortfall, Alternative 2 - Acquire a three percent increase in Member Agency contributions, resulting in a remaining $1 million shortfall and implement other actions to eliminate the remaining shortfall, or Alternative 3 - Acquire sufficient Member Agency contributions to offset the entire $2 million deficit.
Mr. Sharpless reported that VTA’s budget contains $14,819,000 as VTA’s share of Caltrain’s FY 2005-06 Operating Budget, which would address the three percent in the Alternative 2. He reported that to accommodate the Alternative 3 a 5.6 percent increase would be required. Mr. Sharpless reported that VTA’s Capital Budget includes $2.6 million as its Member Agency commitment. He reported that combining VTA’s FY 2006 Operating budget allocation with the Capital Budget allocation the 5.6 percent necessary to accommodate the third alternative could be met.
Margaret Okuzumi, Interested Citizen, asked PAC to encourage the Board of Directors to support the 5.6 percent required in Alternative 3 if necessary.
M/S/C (Perry/Kerr) to recommend that the Board of Directors support the 5.6 percent required for Alternative 3.
| | | |
|
15. |
Recommended Biennial Budget for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007
The Committee expressed concern that VTA’s wage scale and benefits are high and may impact VTA’s ability to provide quality service.
Member Kishimoto noted that the good news is VTA’s Recommended Budget includes enough funds to continue operations over the next two years without an additional sales tax.
Member Brodsky stressed the importance of looking at how service is being implemented countywide. He stressed the importance of generating new ridership and noted that marketing technology could be used to find out on a poll-based system where customers are willing to gather to be picked up.
Member Ojakian noted that staffing is being reduced but not at the management level.
On order of Chairperson Kishimoto, there being no objection, the Recommended Biennial Budget for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007 was received and filed.
| | | |
|
16. |
FY 005 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report
Member Brodsky noted that boardings per hour are down. He suggested that last mile collector locations could be established and noted as an example that there are 64 Starbucks in the area with where people gather before and after work and that perhaps 15 of those locations could be serviced with VTA buses.
Jim Unites, Operations Planning and Programming Manager, reported that rail ridership continues to climb and bus ridership is down eight percent compared to last year. He agreed that service must be focused to the markets that can be improved.
Member Kline left the meeting at 5:46 p.m.
Member LeZotte left the meeting at 5:50 p.m.
On order of Chairperson Kishimoto, there being no objection, the FY 005 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report was received and filed.
| | | |
|
17. |
Service Management Plan, Fiscal Years 2006/2007
Bill Capps, Service Planning Manager, reported that the Service Management Plan for Fiscal Years 2006/2007 represents an analysis of ridership information collected by VTA and an analysis of how VTA service operates and varies compared to other agencies.
Mr. Grace noted he is not familiar with the ACE schedule but is familiar with Caltrain.
Member Brodsky stressed the importance of developing safe hubs where people are willing to gather for transport to high-speed transit.
Chairperson Kishimoto noted the importance of using a Global Positioning System (GPS).
On order of Chairperson Kishimoto, there being no objection, the Service Management Plan, Fiscal Years 2006/2007 was received and filed.
| | | |
|
18. |
Committee Work Plan
Chairperson Kishimoto read the following into the record at Member Swegles request:
“I don’t see anything on the Litter Study that is going to the TAC. This should be added to the PAC work program. I am surprised that the Long-Term Transit Capital Investment Program is not on every month’s agenda, perhaps it should be considered as a standing item until the issue is resolved. Also, Transportation Fund For Clean Air (TFCA) eligibility criteria is a simmering issue that may need policy consideration. You may want to ask VTA staff whether they think the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD’s) reconsideration of TFCA eligibility criteria is something that the PAC should be involved in. The eligibility criteria may be changed to make it more difficult for cities to proposed air quality improvement projects, by limiting the types of eligible projects to a list that is outside of the typical realm of local responsibility. “
On order of Chairperson Kishimoto, there being no objection, the Committee Work Plan was reviewed.
| | | |
OTHER |
|
19. |
Announcements
There were no Announcements.
| | | |
|
20. |
Adjournment
On order of Chairperson Kishimoto, there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara R. Box, Board Assistant
VTA Board of Directors
| | | |
|
|
Rider's Links 
