|
Recommended VTA Scenario
Chairperson Glickman Gave a brief update on the VTA Scenario, and noted there is a great deal of active discussion about the source of revenue for those expenditures. He reminded PAC the task at hand is to assume the revenue is available when considering this scenario.
Mr. Lawson reported in 2000 Measure A was endorsed by the voters of Santa Clara County. It was an all transit measure with a ½ cent sales tax, building upon the success of prior measures. This measure was specifically presumed to address transportation issues and did not include highway expenditures. This measure achieved over 66.66 percent voter approval. Looking back on 2000 Measure A the major projects listed on the ballot initiative are: 1) BART, 2) Airport Connector, 3) Vehicles for disabled and seniors, 4) Light Rail throughout the County, 5) Expansion and electrification of Caltrain, and 6) Increase Caltrain service. Noting the VTA Scenario document, Mr. Lawson reminded PAC of the severe economic downturn and the negative impact on VTA, noting sales tax revenue totals had dropped from $183.5 million in 2001 to $145 million in 2005 reflecting a loss of 21% in sales tax revenues.
An Ad-Hoc Financial Stability was formed in partnership with community leaders to identify the most viable new or expanded revenue sources for VTA, and to meet the commitments of 2000 Measure A. The Committee agreed to work in partnership with the community leaders and stakeholders to help define the revenue sources and timing most acceptable to the community. The Expenditure Plan, now known as the VTA Scenario, was developed in VTA Board of Directors Workshops over the last two years. At the June 2, 2005 Board Meeting the Board of Directors reviewed four scenarios for consideration to raise the needed revenue to complete Measure A Projects. Additional scenarios were requested by the North Counties City Group, City of San Jose, and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group.
VTA employed the independent firm of Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy (CCSCE) to provide a neutral unbiased opinion of the sales tax growth over the next ten years, utilizing the midpoint between conservative and moderate in their estimates. The sole adjustments occur in 2008 through 2015, a window of eight years out of the 30-year run. The current years are projected at the budgeted amounts because of the slight increases was done to these projections impacts three different sources of revenue. Those sources of revenue are: 1) The existing VTA ½ cent sales tax, 2) The ¼ cent Transportation Demand Act monies, and 3) The 2000 Measure A ½ cent sales tax that will begin distribution April 1, 2006 as well as the potential ¼ sales tax that is proposed. The net result at the conclusion of the 30 years is a $2 billion increase.
Jack Collins, Chief Construction Officer, presented an overview of the VTA Scenario. Mr. Collins noted the Scenario presented to the Pac December 8, 2005 represented a financially restrained plan with projects divided into Initial and Completion Programs. He noted $1.3 million of projects remained in the Completion Program without revenue sources to fund. With the new projections all projects in the Initial Program and the Completion Program will be constructed and completed. There is no longer a need for a Completion Program. The ending balance of the last proposal for the Initial Program previously rest at $94 million. The ending balance is now a positive $537 million for the duration of the 30-years for all the projects. VTA continues to maintain reserves at the Board adopted policy of 15 percent.
Mr. Collins reported that BART had been advanced from 2018 to 2016 in the previous scenario. The Light Rail to Eastridge has been advanced by 6 years to 2012. Light Rail to Neiman has been advanced to 2017,and to Los Gatos by 2012 whereas previously that was projected to 2035. The Scenario accommodates single car Light Rail on Santa Clara/Alum Rock by 2021which previously was in the Completion Program. The VTA Scenario with these new projections accomplishes: 1) Restores prior 10 percent funding cut for Caltrain, 2) Completes Caltrain Electrification by 2018, 3) Provides for Caltrain service improvements, 4) Provides for 8.4 miles of Caltrain double tracking in the South County by 2010, 5) Completes Dumbarton Rail by 2011, 6) Provides for ACE upgrades between 2014 and 2025, 7) Completes the People Mover by 2018, 8) Initiates Bus Rapid Transit projects on Monterey Road, Stevens Creek, and Line 22 by 2011.
Mr. Collins gave a brief overview of new projects included in the Scenario. The new projects are: 1) Provide $718 million for local streets and roads, county roads and bicycle and pedestrian path improvement program, 2) Provide $130 million for Bus Rapid Transit projects in Cupertino/Sunnyvale, 3) VTA service increase by 24 percent by 2020,
4) Provide new Senior and Disabled programs, and 5) Provide $2.7 billion in BART operating subsidy to 2038. Mr.Collins noted the Expenditure Plan was reviewed by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, VTA Advisory Committees, VTA Board of Directors, and VTA Board of Directors Workshops. Mr. Collins added that several cities in Santa Clara County requested VTA to provide a presentation on the Expenditure Plan.
Steven Levy representing CCSCE provided economic projections for VTA encompassing the next ten years. Mr. Levy indicated CCSCE has provided forecasting projections to VTA for the last four years. Mr. Levy reported that VTA has consistently selected a midpoint between the moderate and conservative forecast. The analysis represents a forecast projection of taxable sales. Factors considered in the projection are:
1) Job growth, 2) Population growth, 3) Wage and income growth, 4) retail spending as a share of personal income, and 5) Non-retail spending per job.
Mr. Levy noted the major changes from last year projections are slightly lower job growth, conservative wage growth assumptions, larger share of workers will live in Santa Clara County, the share of income spent on taxable items will rise slightly, and business-to-business spending per job will be slightly higher. Mr. Levy noted Santa Clara County in comparison to other regions in California spends approximately five percent less in retail sales as share of income.
Member Kennedy inquired if the drop in retail sales could be attributed to a rise with internet sales. Mr. Levy responded that internet sales would be a small factor but automobile sales, building materials and household furniture are areas that indicate a difference of spending between Santa Clara County and the remainder of California.
Chairperson Glickman introduced and welcomed the newly appointed PAC Members representing the City of Los Altos Mayor David Casas and council Member Kris Wang representing the City of Cupertino.
Member Casas queried as to the data source information used to justify
the: 1) Conservative wage growth assumption being raised, 2) Larger share of workers to live in the county, 3) Share of income spent on taxable items will rise slightly, and 4) Justification for business-to-business spending per jobs. Member Casas stated he is seeking data for collaboration. Mr. Levy reminded his function is to interpret past data and provide analysis for the future. Member Casas asked to obtain the data that was the source of the historical data used by CCSCE to formulate the forecast assumptions. Roger Contreras, Chief Financial Officer, said the support data and information was provided to the Board and is available to PAC. Member Casas queried as to definition of wage. Mr. Levy informed PAC the reference source for wage compilation data is average wage data published by United States Bureau of Labor and Statistics.
Member Kishimoto queried as to inflation assumptions. Mr. Levy advised the average inflation over the fourteen years used as a base in the data was indicated in the 2 to 2.5 percent range.
Member Spitileri asked if an assumption could be made that due to higher housing in Santa Clara County less of the income share is spent in retail sales.
Member Kline noted the Board reflected their agreement to a more conservative midpoint growth rate for taxable sales at 4.7 percent. Mr. Levy reflected that annual review process that allows for the normal mid-term corrections is crucial in forecasting assumptions.
Mr. Lawson noted that Mr. Levy’s contractual purpose is to provide figures that can be interpolated to assist in formulating a reasonable approach. The message relates that this is the precise methodology used in the past. Member Kline noted that Mr. Levy was not hired to justify the new numbers.
Mr. Contreras clarified when the Scenario was presented to the Board of Supervisors a misconception derived from Mr. Levy’s number of 5.8 percent for the years 2008 – 2015. Mr. Contreras noted for the next 30 years the average growth projected number reflected should be 5 percent.
Member Kennedy queried if VTA has historically chosen the midpoint projection.
Mr. Lawson indicated in the affirmative. Member Kennedy suggested a more conservative position is prudent. Mr. Contreras noted the midpoint projection was not utilized until 2002. Member Kennedy queried as to what projections were used prior to 2002. Mr. Contreras indicated in - house projections were utilized.
Margaret Okuzumi, expressed concern in the Scenario that $1 billion that was indicated in 2000 Measure A to build additional Light Rail lines has disappeared. Ms. Okuzumi suggested a scenario with no new tax be formulated. Ms. Okuzumi noted that 2000 Measure A was not specific concerning projects and not rigid in the infrastructure. Ms. Okuzumi noted many projects were unfinished.
Mr. Lawson noted that as Ms. Okuzumi provides informative data, an alternative to BART is not possible with 2000 Measure A funds. Mr. Lawson assured Ms. Okuzumi her recommendation will be forwarded to the Board for consideration. The Board will receive recommendations from PAC on the Expenditure Plan, following that they will decide on a sales tax measure and that measure may occur this year or next or may never occur. At that point we will again re-visit the Expenditure Plan.
Member Kishimoto recommended moving BART back to 2018 utilizing the excess revenues to advance addition county projects such as Sunnyvale/Cupertino BRT, and the Palo Alto Transit Center, noting earlier completion of these projects is cost effective. Member Kishimoto noted commitment to BART incurs elevated capital costs, high fixed bonding costs, and operating subsidies. Member Kishimoto expressed concern regarding the volatility of the revenues particularly if VTA builds BART. Noting the VTP 2030 Plan Member Kishimoto referenced the outcome of the Measure A Expenditures as related in the VTA model. Member Kishimoto noted by 2030 an increase of HOV trips by 130,000, single occupancy vehicles by 500,000, and transit increase by 100,000. Member Kishimoto expressed concern the current Expenditure Plan is not satisfactory to meet those transit needs, and noted the base projections in the VTA analysis of expected transit demand in all regions of Santa Clara County and gateways. Member Kishimoto emphasized prudence must be utilized with the $20 billion expenditure plan assuring significant funds are available for completion of all projects.
Member Kishimoto suggested staff and the VTA Board of Directors reconsider criteria in project selection, overall system design, fit with system demand, leveraging the investment with benefit assessment district, tax increments, joint development, so that San Jose can help pay for some of the big project costs; and to re-assess advantages of standard gauge rail for the East Bay connection.
Member Brodsky stated the Quarter Cent Sales Tax Scenario is an “albatross around everyone’s neck,” for the next 20 years incurring additional tax now and a risky funding plan, looking for additional tax in the future when we begin digging the tunnel under San Jose. Mr. Brodsky explained the Scenario is bad transit for the valley, like an old idea inappropriate to our job layout, liking it to Rip Van Winkle taking BART 30 years ago and waking up in San Jose now saying, “Let’s build a city here like in Oakland, building a subway here being totally oblivious to what happened in the Golden Triangle to all the commute patterns and what VTP 2030 says is where 80 percent of where the other commuters are going.
Mr. Brodsky noted that his commute everyday in Silicon Valley is tedious and frustrating and the backup on Highway 880/237 South is backed up to 280. Highway 85 is also backed up, as is 10 North. Member Brodsky stated traffic is currently very congested, and if the Expenditure Plan is approved and $20 billion we will have unmitigated traffic congestion for the key work areas. Mr. Brodsky expressed concern this plan is based on ridership into new buildings that do not exist, and, what will happen when those 70 million square feet of office with Research and Development are filled? Member Brodsky suggests the reason the tax measure dropped, because no one is occupying those buildings at the present time but when those buildings do become filled those commuters will be in areas not covered by BART? There will be far more transfers to the key groups in the County who make the money and pay taxes. Member Brodsky noted it is better to go back to the drawing board rather than sink the entire valley with something that is not good.
Member Caserta noted the passage of 2000 Measure A reflects the will of the voters and informed PAC the City of Santa Clara City Council unanimously to support the Quarter Cent Sales Tax Scenario. Member Caserta reported the City of Santa Clara has a vested interest and has purchased real estate to re-locate the Animal Control Center due to the location of the BART testing track. Member Caserta recommends supporting the Scenario noting the 30-year sunset and the Pavement Management Program.
Member Gomez reported the Milpitas City Council will take action on the Scenario next week, and anticipated that the Council will vote to support the VTA Scenario. Member Gomez advised that city residents strongly support the BART project and oppose any heavy rail project that would be proposed though the City. Member Gomez informed PAC that BART is the preferred transit mode in his region and the Scenario meets the needs of that region.
Member Hernandez expressed support for the proposed Expenditure Plan because it adequately accommodated the transportation needs in the region.
Member Kline expressed his appreciation to PAC members for their hard work over the past two years in helping to develop the proposed Expenditure Plan, noting PAC Members have labored extensively in meetings and workshops to provide suggestions and recommendations to the Board. Suggestions and recommendations originated in PAC have been reflected by the Board and incorporated into the Scenario. Member Kline reported 2000 Measure A reflected a half cent sales tax to connect BART to Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara, to build rail connection from San Jose Airport to BART, Caltrain, and light rail, purchase vehicles for disabled access, senior safety, clean air buses, provide light rail throughout Santa Clara County. Expand and electrify Caltrain, and increase rail, bus service. He noted the focus of 2000 Measure A was BART. Light Rail from downtown San Jose was fifth and sixth was Caltrain. Very little of 2000 Measure A focused on Caltrain. Mr. Kline noted he used Caltrain service for two years and it provides incredible value for the 280/101 Corridor, whereas BART pertains to the 880/680/280 Corridor. This issue involves bringing mass transit to sections of the community where it was not available before. Caltrain carries 34,000 riders a day, BART ridership numbers 345,000 a day. Using the best-case scenario it may be possible to double Caltrain ridership, whereas the BART Extension will increase BART ridership to over 800,000 riders. The Bart Extension represents a significant amount of mass transit dollars bringing riders to the system. The transit business focuses on riders and how many dollars are needed to bring a rider onboard. BART, by far is the most cost-effective method of doing that.
Mr. Kline advised the Scenario reflects the work of PAC and the will of the voters, and stated 2000 Measure A is law and cannot be thrown out and re-thought from scratch again. Member Kline noted if policy makers wish to change the law, funds must be raised and a new measure must be introduced to the voters. He expressed concern and cautioned over turning the will of the people. Mr. Kline re-affirmed his support to VTA Scenario aligning support with the will of the voters and transit needs of Santa Clara County.
Alternate Member Spitileri commented that the City of Sunnyvale anticipates BRT along Mathilda Avenue as the preferred mass transit mode. He requested the project be retained in the plan. He is in the process of obtaining direction from the Mayor of the City of Sunnyvale on the direction to vote on the proposed VTA Scenario.
Alternate Member Kennedy indicated the City of Morgan Hill City Council has not taken a formal position on the proposed Expenditure Plan; they have discussed the alternatives at length and met with VTA General Manager Michael Burns and his staff. Member Kennedy noted the importance for PAC to reach a unified, and meaningful decision to present to the Board.
The Cities of Morgan Hill, Gilroy and Milpitas have sent a letter to the Board concentrating on expanded Caltrain service, additional major arterial funding in South County, and restoring services and community busing. Member Kennedy noted his support of a qualified motion of the proposal, qualifying it conditionally with South County projects addressed in the motion. Member Kennedy encouraged PAC Members with reservations and concerns to consider a qualified motion.
Member Pinheiro noted the City of Gilroy meets January 28, 2006 to discuss the VTA Scenario. Member Pinheiro noted that he gave consideration to matters
Member Kline noted at the December 8, 2006 PAC. Noting those comments concerning each of us wants our “bacon,” adding the City of Gilroy strives to play a part in the regional approach, but South County’s transit needs are dissimilar than the transit needs of North County. Member Pinheiro advised PAC that South County needs should be recognized and given consideration. Member Pinheiro stated he cannot support the VTA Scenario, unless he receives that direction from the Gilroy City Council.
Member Pinheiro noted additional time is needed to consider the issues at hand and supports conservative rather than moderate financial projections.
Member Wang commented that the City of Cupertino meets January 30, 2006 to discuss the VTA Scenario. Member Wang recommends the City of Cupertino take a conservative approach to mass transit and noted BART will not benefit Cupertino transit needs. Member Wang stated she aggress with Member Kishimoto’s comments and urged the Scenario be sent back to the Board for consideration to allow more time to conduct a better benefit assessment of the proposed projects.
Member Casas stated that he could not support the VTA Scenario. Member Casas suggested the Scenario must include additional long–range planning to ensure the well- being of the services provided. The plan sends the wrong message to the broader community, which is “don’t live within your means” or “spend like you hope to have money, that is the path to bankruptcy.” He added the proposed plan is based on a revenue stream that is faulty in its assumptions and believes it is convenient in its revision.
Member Casas referenced the 2000 Measure A and drew the Committee’s attention to that alignment and noted the Initial Program expenditures are exactly aligned with 2000 Measure A. Member Casas advised he could not support something that is predicated on faulty thinking and added the plan continues the logic in the wrong direction.
Member Casas reported that City of Los Altos votes on the VTA Scenario
January 24, 2006. Member Casas noted the City of Los Altos is a conservative community from a fiscal, prudence standpoint. Many valley leaders reside in Los Altos and those residents expect VTA to provide a government service that is not only well thought out but measured with logic and reason.
Chairperson Glickman recommended supporting the Scenario, advising to approach the Scenario from a regional not city standpoint. Member Glickman noted in this case there is a convergence. The question is not“ Does this particular transit system serve Los Gatos directly.” The question continues to expand to, “does it create the jobs that employ the people who live in my town.” The question remains can Silicon Valley become more successful with or without the transportation options as outlined in the Scenario. Chairperson Glickman responded in the affirmative, and noted additional PAC Members spoke eloquently expressing the opinion the Scenario does not fulfill their regional transit needs. Chairperson Glickman noted to that extent he is cognizant, understanding, and appreciative of those concerns, and if those communities were not directly served by BART would they not benefit by BART. Chairperson Glickman advised the revenue projections are presented as assumptions and represent forecasts of revenue. He concluded his remarks stating the Scenario provides for the regional transit needs of Santa Clara County.
Noel Tebo, a concerned citizen, representing The Modern Transit Society strongly supports BART and light rail to the South Bay. Mr. Tebo expressed concern regarding BART’s proposed route to San Jose. Mr. Tebo suggests alternate modes of transit and realignment of routes be considered.
Member Brodsky noted the financing of this plan is tenuous, and described the sales tax as dangerous. Member Brodsky noted the 300 thousand daily BART riders mentioned by Member Kline reflect 150 thousand riders through the trans-bay tube. Member Brodsky advised PAC the financing of the Scenario is based on the San Jose portion being three quarters the carrying capacity of the trans bay tube line, and noting that particular line has no freeways nearby except the San Francisco Bay Bridge with a bridge toll of $3.00. Member Brodsky expressed concern VTA is attempting to transport three quarters the amount of people through that Fremont Corridor with twelve available freeways lanes, boulevard lanes and no toll roads. Mr. Brodsky said it seems absurd to project the amount of dollars received in farebox recovery using that type of projection.
Member Brodsky noted the Scenario does not keep faith with the will of the voters. There has been a great of discussion about 2000 Measure A, but referencing the 1982 Measure A passed by 82.9 percent of the voters, noting a balance mix of projects stated in Jane Kennedy’s ballot argument. Member Brodsky noted the recovery of high fixed capital and bonding costs is dependent upon a volatile sales tax base, and noted operating subsidies will rise as tax base drops endangering basic VTA services, and a 1 percent difference in sales tax projection results in swings of billions of dollars.
Member Brodsky noted he read that BART had to spend millions of dollars for a rail grinder custom made in Germany due to the specialized rail width. Member Brodsky indicated in Hong Kong the train at the airport is the same gauge as the subway train and regional rail.
Member Brodsky opposes the project selection criteria stating a 5 percent weighting for funding and thus biased project selection. Mr. Brodsky noted, “Don’t worry about money, BART will be fine, and added we have also gone into such a political mode you can’t talk about phasing with BART; you can’t talk about alternatives with BART.” Member Brodsky suggested the Scenario focuses 80 percent of funding into a single line that will only one of the four commute patterns.
Member Brodsky reported the Antioch eBART connection to standard gauge rail connection was chosen for Contra County BART, CalTrain Metro East option utilizes standard parts, costs less with greater utility, better commute patterns, and the standard gauge solution for East/South Bay funds more projects in
Valley Transportation Plan 2030 (VTP 2030) and increases ridership.
Member Kishimoto noted she does not agree with all the whereas’ in the motion per se, and appreciated the comments of Mr. Tebo. Member Kishimoto added she is more inclined to believe a compromise from this group might suggest a review and
re-examination of BART along the Caltrain East Metro alignment by the Board of Directors. Member Kishimoto expressed her inclination support BART if it came along a more direct line to San Jose, and with the intent to re-open the discussion without rejecting any project but to improve the overall performance of the system.
Member Kennedy added that after weighing the pros and cons of heavy rail, as an alternative to Bart his conclusion is that BART is the best solution.
M/S/F (Brodsky/Casas) on a vote of 5 Ayes to 6 Noes, to 1 Abstention
Aye: Kishimoto Brodsky Wang, Pinheiro, and Casas
Opposed: Caserta, Gomez, Hernandez, Kennedy, Kline, and Glickman
Abstention: Spitileri
Whereas financing of this scenario is tenuous because:
- Recovery of high fixed capital and bonding costs is dependent upon an inherently volatile sales tax base.
- Operating subsidies will go up just as tax base drops, endangering a basic VTA services.
- A one percent difference in sales tax projections results in swings of billions of dollars.
- The forecast farebox recovery is dependent upon new Santa Clara segments carrying 75% of Oakland to San Francisco Transbay volume once completed.
Whereas the scenario does not keep faith with the “will of the voters” because:
- 82 % of voters approved Measure A in 2000 for valley wide transit improvement.
- Jane Kennedy’s ballot argument is for “ balanced mix of projects”.
- This scenario focuses 80% of funding onto a single line that will service only one of the four commute patterns, and much of the funds are for a San Jose Subway Tunnel.
Whereas transit advocates and BART expansion itself suggest a better rail plan:
- Antioch eBART connection to standard gage rail extension was chosen for Contra Costa County BART.
- Caltrain Metro East-uses standard parts, costs less, with greater utility, and no new tax and better services commute patterns.
- Standard gauge solution for East/South Bay funds more projects in VTP2030 and brings in more riders for VTA using continuously evolving transit technology.
Whereas analysis of VTA Scenarios has been flawed because:
- Project selection criteria used 5% weighting for funding and thus biased project selection.
Be it resolved that the PAC rejects the current scenario and recommends the Board reopen the Measure A project selection process using a new and financial realistic criteria appropriate for a volatile sales tax revenue base,
Member Kline noted the voters in 2000 overwhelmingly supported
Measure A specifically identifying the extension of BART to Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara, as the major transit project. Member Kline expressed that the primary responsibility of elected officials is to endeavor to the best of their ability to fulfill the voters expressed desires. Member Kline advised that the reduction in projected sales tax revenues has resulted in VTA staff and policy makers struggling for over two years to assure that projects and programs keep faith with the intent of the voters. Member Kline reminded PAC the VTA Scenario assumes a 30-year quarter cent sales tax, and without that tax or equivalent revenue the plan would need to be reviewed and modified. He noted the VTA Scenario is consistent with the Measure A ballot language and arguments that the voters overwhelmingly supported in 2000. Member Kline advised PAC all polls to date show continued support for projects in Measure A therefore the PAC recommends the VTA Scenario for Board approval.
Member Kline proposed the following motion that was seconded by Caserta.
Member Kline advised he would modify the motion to obtain a majority vote.
Whereas the voters in 2000 overwhelmingly supported Measure A that specifically funded the extension of Bart to Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara,
and included additional transportation project which are also important and should be completed, and
Whereas, elected officials primary responsibility is to try, to the best of their ability, to fulfill the voters expressed desires, and
Whereas, reduction in sales tax projected revenues has meant staff and policy makers have spent over tow years struggling to make sure that the program keeps faith with the intent of the voters, and
Whereas, we understand that the program will need to continue to be adjusted based on changes in costs and revenues
Whereas, we understand that the plan we are viewing today assumes a 30 year additional quarter cent sales tax and without that tax, or equivalent revenues,
Whereas, the plan under discussion in general and most details is consistent with the Measure A ballot language and arguments that the voters overwhelming supported in 2000, and
Whereas, all polls to date shows continued support for projects in Measure A.
Therefore, the VTA PAC endorses and recommends this plan to the VTA Board for approval.
Member Kennedy requested an amendment to the motion under the fourth whereas adding: “in some cases programmatic changes address issues that are raised by different city groupings.”
Member Kline and Caserta agreed to Member Kennedy’s requested amendment to the motion.
Member Kishimoto requested an amendment to add to the motion that the Board be given direction to: “ move BART back to 2018 to move other projects forward in the next ten years including the BRT to Sunnyvale/Cupertino and the Palo Alto Transit Center; and recommend that the Board seriously review the Caltrain East metro alignment for the BART Project.
Members Kline and Caserta agreed to Members Kisihimoto’s proposed amendment.
Membr Casas noted he does not assume the quarter cent sales tax will prevail. The previous opposition to 2000 Measure A was light in nature, whereas organized activity currently in progress is robust with various city council’s taking positions in opposition a to the sales tax. Member Casas indicated that his decision must consist of prudent, financial decision making and this isn’t it.
Mr. Lawson stated that, the voters passed 2000 Measure A, and at the present VTA does not possess an approved Expenditure Plan. The goal is to obtain an approved plan at the February 2006 Board of Directors Meeting. One of the assumptions of the plan assumes certain revenue sources and that is what PAC is asked to comment on.
Member Kline noted the importance of providing to the Board input on the VTA Scenario as was requested. Member Kline implored PAC to come together to obtain a majority of votes of agreement to present to the Board and willingly agreed to compromise and amend the motion.
Member Casas suggested if a majority vote is not received then each member will have the opportunity to individually present their opinions to the Board. Member Casas advised that the premise is not to “ cobble together something for the Board.”
Chairperson Glickman reminded the Committee that the Board is seeking a consensus opinion from PAC regarding the VTA Scenario.
Mr. Lawson noted that comments from PAC would be forwarded to the Board of Directors. Member Brodsky closed with a quote from Ivana Trump, “I vant a better deal.”
M/S/F (Kline/Caserta) on a vote of 7 Ayes to 4 Noes, to 1 Abstention
Aye: Caserta, Glickman, Gomez,Hernandez, Kennedy, Kishimoto, Kline
Opposed: Brodsky, Casas, Pinheiro, Wang
Abstention: Spitileri
Whereas the voters in 2000 overwhelmingly supported Measure A that specifically funded the extension of Bart to Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara, and included additional transportation project which are also important and should be completed, and
Whereas, elected officials primary responsibility is to try, to the best of their ability, to fulfill the voters expressed desires, and
Whereas, reduction in sales tax projected revenues has meant staff and policy makers have spent over tow years struggling to make sure that the program keeps faith with the intent of the voters, and
Whereas, we understand that the program will need to continue to be adjusted based on changes in costs and revenues and in some cases programmatic changes suggested by city groupings.
Whereas, we understand that the plan we are viewing today assumes a 30 year additional quarter cent sales tax and without that tax, or equivalent revenue, the plan would need to be reviewed and modified, and
Whereas, the plan under discussion in general and most details is consistent with the Measure A ballot language and arguments that the voters overwhelming supported in 2000, and
Whereas, all polls to date shows continued support for projects in Measure A.
Therefore, the VTA PAC endorses and recommends this plan to the VTA for approval; with further direction that BART be moved back to 2018 so other projects can move forward in the next ten years including the BRT to Sunnyvale/Cupertino and the Palo Alto Transit Center; and recommend that the Board seriously review the Caltrain Metro East alignment for the BART Project.
| 
Rider's Links 
