Related Links

CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 1:35   p.m. by Chairperson Porter in Conference Room B-104, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California.

ROLL CALL

A quorum was present.

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

There were no Public Presentations.

Committee Staff Report

John Ristow, Program and Highway Administration Deputy Director, noted the following VTA kick-off events for Summer 2005: 1) Community Bus Service in Los Gatos, 2) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service along new Route 522 starting July 5, 2005, 3) Vasona Light Rail Service Grand Opening scheduled for August 12, 2005, and 4) Summer Blast Pass promotion wherein youths fares will be $75 for three months.

Mr. Ristow referred to VTA’s Long-Term Transit Capital Investment Program and noted that the VTA Board of Directors heard the item at their April 22, 2005 Workshop.   He indicated that there was really no strong countywide support for the ½ cents sales tax, noting there was some support for the ¼ cents sales tax.   The Silicon Valley Leadership Group poll on countywide sales tax was also discussed.  There was also some concern about the viability of federal and state funding.   He noted the continued support for BART, but not at the expense of all other 2000 Measure A Projects. 

Mr. Ristow distributed a memorandum dated May 10, 2005, entitled Additional Responses to VTA’s Long-Term Transit Capital Investment Program.

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

Chairperson’s Report

There was no Chairperson’s Report.

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

CONSENT AGENDA

Member Dey requested that the following item be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda:   Item #6. Review and recommend that the VTA Board of Directors approve VTA funding of Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) Commuter Rail Service in the amount of $3.6 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-06 and $3.705 million in FY 2006-07. 

M/S/C (Rowe/Tripousis) to approve the Consent Agenda, as amended.

Minutes of April 14, 2005

M/S/C (Rowe/Tripousis) to approve   Minutes of April 14, 2005.

(Removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda.)

Review and recommend that the VTA Board of Directors approve VTA funding of Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) commuter rail service in the amount of $3.6 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-06 and $3.705 million in FY 2006-07. 

FY 2005 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

M/S/C (Rowe/Tripousis) to receive and file the FY 2005 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report. 

Congestion Management Program Financial Audit, Fiscal Year 2004

M/S/C (Rowe/Tripousis) to receive and file the Congestion Management Program Financial Audit, Fiscal Year 2004. 

Altamont Commuter Express, FY 2005-06 and FY 2006-07 Budget Allocations

Frank Sharpless, Government Affairs Manager, State and Regional, reported that VTA is one of three funding partners of the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) Commuter Rail Service that runs three commute trains from San Joaquin County to Santa Clara County.   Every year the ACE managing agency, San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC), sends VTA a request for annual funding for the coming year.   The amount is based on a Cooperative Service Agreement among the three funding parties. It is also based on the current three-train service level and the net cost for each of the three Member Agencies coming off of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 budget contribution inflated by the CPI, unless SJRRC determines that there are other factors unexpectedly raising their need for operating subsidy.          

Mr. Sharpless noted that earlier this year, ACE had indicated their need of $3.6 million in FY 2005-2006 and $3.705 million in 2006-2007.   This is what VTA is recommending and what is contained in the VTA Recommended Biennial Budget for FY 2006 and 2007.

M/S/C (Tripousis/Lazarus) to review and recommend that the VTA Board of Directors approve VTA funding of Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) Commuter Rail Service in the amount of $3.6 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-06 and $3.705 million in FY 2006-07. 

Caltrain FY 2005-06 and FY 2006-07 Operating and Capital Budget Allocations

Mr. Sharpless reported that VTA is one of three funding partners to the Caltrain service that runs between San Francisco and Gilroy.   There are two components to the Caltrain budget and staff is bringing forward VTA’s draft Recommended Budget amounts for Caltrain’s Operating and Capital budgets for the coming two fiscal years.

Mr. Sharpless noted that the Operating Budget contributions for the three partners are driven by how many people board Caltrain in the morning peak hours by county.  San Mateo County’s share of the operating subsidy is 44 percent, VTA share is 41 percent, and San Francisco’s share is 15 percent.  Caltrain has unveiled the draft Operating Budget at their May 5, 2005 Caltrain Joint Powers Board (JPB) Meeting.  Their draft budget does not have a recommended amount of funding from each of the Member Agencies, but presents three potential scenarios of how much the Member Agencies are to provide in the coming fiscal year.   One of the reasons this is a little bit lagging in time is because Caltrain, on April 22, 2005, approved a massive restructuring of their service.  Based on this, Caltrain brought the following three options for an Operating Budget to their Board in May 2005: A. Do not increase Member Agency contributions above the FY 2004-05 amounts and implement additional service reductions or take other actions to eliminate the $2 million shortfall, B. 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, and C. Acquire sufficient Member Agency contributions to offset the entire $2 million deficit.  Mr. Sharpless noted that the three percent increase is consistent with what VTA has been carrying in its draft Recommended Budget for months.  He noted that Option B is being focused upon, and VTA is working with Caltrain staff to pursue other areas of trying to find the other $1 million to plug half of the shortfall. 

Mr. Sharpless noted that Caltrain has not yet issued a draft Capital Budget.   A draft of the Capital Budget will be available on June 2, 2005.  The Member Agency local contributions would be about $2.2 million each. VTA’s draft Recommended 2005-06 Budget has VTA’s share at $2.6 million.  When looking at VTA’s budget for FY 06 and what it contains for Caltrain for Operating and Capital combined, it is enough to cover either the three percent increase for the Caltrain Operating subsidy or the five percent increase for the Operating subsidy.  Caltrain has not prepared any estimates for their Operating or Capital Budget for FY 07.  He referred to VTA’s Recommended Budget and noted if one adds what VTA estimates what Caltrain will need for FY 07, Operating and Capital combined, it is sufficient to cover what VTA anticipates Caltrain needing for FY 2007.

M/S/C (Kott/Tripousis) to review and recommend that the VTA Board of Directors approve $14,819,000 for Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-06 and $15,263,000 for FY 2006-07 to provide VTA’s share of Caltrain operating support; and $2.66 million for FY 2005-2006 and $2.18 million for FY 2006-07 as VTA’s share of the local matching funds required for Caltrain’s Capital Budgets for these two years. 

Recommended Biennial Budget for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007

Mr. Ristow introduced Roger Contreras, Chief Financial Officer, and Jim McCutchen, Budget Administration Manager.

Jim McCutchen, Budget Administration Manager, directed attention to the Recommended Biennial Budget for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007 PowerPoint document and provided a presentation, highlighting: 1) Introduction (A Success Story, What We Did, Challenges for Tomorrow), 2) Sources & Uses of Funds, and 3) Budget Assumptions, Key Assumptions. 

Member Batra referred to the reduction of $120 million in the Capital Program and queried if that was through reduction in the scope of the project or deferral of projects.   Mr. McCutchen indicated all of the above.

Member Kass referred to sales tax projections and queried about the increase over the next two years.   Mr. McCutchen noted that VTA uses the Center for Continuing Study to calculate time as the basis for VTA’s sales tax projections.  The Center for Continuing Study has given VTA a range of estimates and VTA has chosen a range between a conservative estimate and a moderate estimate.  They are calling for a 4.8 percent increase in both FY 2006 and 2007.

On order of Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Committee reviewed and provided comment to the Board of Directors on the Recommended FY 2006 and FY 2007 Budget. 

FY 2006 Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Project Priorities

John Sighamony, Transportation Planner II, reported that during this funding cycle, VTA had approximately $1.8 million to distribute for the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3.   He noted that 70 percent was guaranteed and the other 30 percent would go to projects on VTA’s Bicycle Expenditure Program ( BEP) list.

Mr. Sighamony directed attention to Attachment A – 2005/06 TDA Article 3 Requests by Jurisdiction, which listed all TDA Article 3 Projects.   He noted that a total of $1,274,044 in Guarantee Fund money was made available for TDA eligible projects for this cycle, and the amount claimed by agencies in this cycle was $1,150,611.  He noted that $541,093 was available for BEP Projects and noted the three BEP Projects requesting funding for this cycle.  The three projects totaled $410,000, leaving a balance of $131,093 for this funding cycle. 

Mr. Sighamony noted the following two cities that are requesting advances in this cycle to assist in funding their TDA Projects: Cities of Sunnyvale and Campbell.   He noted that the remaining funds from the TDA Article 3 Program would be moved to next year’s cycle.

On order of Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Committee discussed the project priorities for the FY 2006 Countywide Transportation Development Act (TDA Article 3) program. 

Amendments to Countywide Bicycle Expenditure Program

Marcella Rensi, Transportation Planning Manager, noted that the following four Member Agencies have requested amendments to the Bicycle Expenditure Program outside of the normal three-year funding cycle: 1) City of Milpitas (Pedestrian/Bike Crossing of Union Pacific Railroad-near Great Mall Project, 2) City of Cupertino (Mary Avenue Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing Project), 3) City of Saratoga (Cox Avenue Railroad Crossing Project), and 4) Town of Los Altos Hills (El Monte/Moody Road Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Project).   Ms. Rensi noted that the Cities of Cupertino and Saratoga were requesting cost increases for their projects, the Town of Los Altos was requesting to add a project, and the City of Milpitas requested that their project be deleted.

Member Qualls, representing the City of Cupertino, provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Mary Avenue Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing Project.   The City of Cupertino is requesting an additional $1,560,000.  The design of the project will be completed by the end of Summer 2005 and construction should be completed by the end of 2006.

Henry Louie, newly appointed Director of Public Works, representing the Town of Los Altos Hills, distributed a map entitled Moody Road/Route 280/Interchange/El Monte Road Transportation Corridor Master Plan Draft January 2005.

Dave Ross, Mark Thomas and Company, referred to the map distributed and provided a presentation on the El Monte/Moody Road Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Project.

Ex-Officio Member Cowell referred to the issue of the striping that needs to be done and modifying how pedestrians would move through the intersection, and encouraged the Town of Los Altos Hills speak with Caltrans Traffic Operations.

Ms. Rensi noted that the BEP allocation for the Mary Avenue Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing Project would be increased by $1.6 million.   The BEP allocation for the Cox Avenue Railroad Crossing Project would be increased by $95,000.  The El Monte/Moody Road Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Project would be added to the BEP for $840,000.

Member Batra referred to the deletion of the City of Milpitas Pedestrian/Bike Crossing of Union Pacific Railroad (near Great Mall) and queried if their was a commitment to the City of Milpitas for any future project.   Member Armendariz noted that the City of Milpitas asked for $100,000 of the $4,445,600 to be reprogrammed to the Coyote Creek Trail Project.

Member Qualls noted that the City of Cupertino’s work with Caltrans has been very good, noting that Caltrans has been a big supporter of the Mary Avenue Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing Project.

M/S/C (Tripousis/Rose) to review and recommend that the VTA Board of Directors approve amendments to the Countywide Bicycle Expenditure Program project list. 

Amendment to the Technical Advisory Committee Bylaws Requested by the VTA Board of Directors

Stephen Flynn, Sr. Management Analyst, reported that several months ago the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) asked that the Board of Directors consider some changes to its by-laws.   When the Board of Directors considered those changes, they noticed and expressed concern with the existing voting provision, which provides for a majority of quorum vote.  The Board of Directors expressed that they would like all VTA Advisory Committees to have the same voting requirement as the Board of Directors, which is the affirmative vote of a majority of the total authorized membership.

M/S/C (Qualls/Tripousis) on a vote of 13 ayes to 1 noe to 0 abstentions to consider the amendment to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Bylaws requested by the VTA Board of Directors modifying the number of affirmative votes required to pass an item.   Member Kott opposed.

Litter Removal and Landscape Restoration Initial Study

Mr. Sighamony reiterated that TAC initiated the Litter Control and Landscape Maintenance Study for freeways in Santa Clara County.   He noted that an initial study was prepared and includes the following:  1) existing problems, 2) existing and historical resources, 3) challenges faced by Santa Clara County, and 4) key findings in comparison with other areas in California.

Mr. Sighamony introduced Dawn Cameron, Planning Consultant for T.Y. Lin International, and gave a special thanks to Bob Salazar and Raul Guerrera of Caltrans, District 4.

Ms. Cameron expressed appreciation to Bob Salazar and his colleagues as well as other Caltrans districts for their support with the Litter Control and Landscape Maintenance Study.

Ms. Cameron directed attention to the Litter Control and Landscape Maintenance Study for Freeways in Santa Clara County Draft Report and provided a report on key findings.   She noted that in assessing current conditions in Santa Clara County and the perceptions related to landscaping, maintenance, and litter control, there is a lot of anecdotal information about the freeways not being well maintained.   Ms. Cameron noted that Caltrans conducts semi-annual Level of Service (LOS) evaluations related to all of their infrastructure and maintenance activities, which provides a far more objective look at how we are doing on Santa Clara County freeways in District 4, as well as in Southern California. Comparisons were done with the following four Caltrans Districts: 1) District 4 (Bay Area, including Santa Clara County, 2) District 7 (Los Angeles and Ventura areas), 3) District 11 (San Diego area), 4) District 12 (Orange County area).  Districts 11 and 12 were the districts that most people thought the conditions of the freeways in terms of litter control and landscaping was superior. 

Ms. Cameron indicated that there are several LOS elements that Caltrans reviews, noting that she reviewed the roadside element.   She noted that District 4 ranked 12^th out of the 12 Caltrans districts in its LOS score and District 7 ranked 10^th.  Districts 11 and 12 ranked 2^nd and 4^th in the State.  Ms. Cameron referred to the landscaping element and noted that District 4 ranked 7^th out of 12.   She referred to the South Bay Region, which is Santa Clara County within District 4, and noted that Santa Clara County received lower scores than District 4 overall.

Ms. Cameron referred to resources allocated and maintenance budgets and noted that a lot of information was provided that confirmed that the maintenance budgets that District 4 has been receiving from the State has been on a decline for the last few years.   She referred to the South Bay Region Staffing Levels and provided a report.   Ms. Cameron noted that compared to District 11, the South Bay Region expends more dollars and person years on litter and related work per centerline mile and roughly equivalent dollars and person years on landscaping maintenance per acre.  District 12 expends much more resources on litter control and landscaping maintenance than the South Bay Region.

Ms. Cameron referred to the South Bay Region and noted that Caltrans has recently revamped the whole Adopt-A-Highway Program.   Due to the revamping, Caltrans has gotten a tremendous amount more mileage adopted.    Most of Caltrans’ Adopt-A-Highway agreements require once a month clean-up.  In Districts 11 and 12 the clean-up is twice a month and in some of the higher urban areas, it is once a week.   Ms. Cameron noted that another major workforce that Caltrans makes use of to do litter and landscaping work is probationers.  District 11’s use of probationers is probably equivalent to District 4 (South Bay Region).  District 12 uses six times the number of probationers on an average weekday.

Ms. Cameron referred to District 3 and noted that the District is pursuing maintenance agreements for gateway treatments in terms of landscaping and litter control.

Ms. Cameron noted that landscape maintenance is very much affected by the types of landscaping installed and the length of maintenance agreements.   Litter control, however, is very much out of everybody’s control in terms of how much litter is going to accumulate, because that depends on the behavior of the public.

Ms. Cameron noted that the Study contains discussion regarding public education and looking at a couple of other states in terms of what they have done on litter control and landscaping maintenance.

Mr. Sighamony referred to the next steps and noted that staff would like to see a subcommittee formed to look at the study more in depth, to look at the litter and landscaping standards set in more detail, and to look for a funding source.  Upon query of Mr. Sighamony, Members Kass, Curtis, Tripousis, and Ex-Officio Member Cowell volunteered to serve on the subcommittee.

Ex-Officio Member Cowell referred to the Study’s next steps and recommended that enforcement be looked at in terms of is there more that could be done from the enforcement side with the waste management as well as efforts towards public education.    He noted that when the discussion goes forward in terms of Level of Service, he hopes what would also go forward are some of the other points that are brought forward in the document pertaining to the older nature of the infrastructure, and the fact that we are all struggling, Caltrans in particular, with not having enough dollars for the type of rehabilitation needed to be done to the system.

Mr. Sighamony noted that he would be contacting the Members who volunteered to serve on the subcommittee via e-mail.

On order of Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Litter Removal and Landscape Restoration Initial Study was received and filed. 

Member Curtis left the meeting at 2:56 p.m.

Recommended FY 05-06 Congestion Management Program Work Program and Budget

Mr. Flynn directed attention to Page 2 of 4 of the Board Memorandum and noted the minor modifications to the Recommended FY 05-06 Congestion Management Program (CMP) Work Program.

Member Kass queried about the increase in Member Agency fees.   Mr. Flynn noted, as approved by the Board of Directors, it is seven percent.  He noted that this was part of the phased implementation of the previously approved increase.

Member Batra expressed concern regarding the Member Agency fees, noting that due to the City of Santa Clara’s budget situation, the fees would be an issue.

Carolyn Gonot, Chief Development Officer, noted that VTA sent letters with the fee schedule to the respective City Managers in January 2005 and VTA did not receive back any opposing comments.   Upon query of Member Rowe, Ms. Gonot noted that TAC would receive the letter as well in the future.

Member Collen directed attention to Page 2 of 4 of the Board Memorandum, third paragraph, following statement: “For FY 2005-06, it is proposed that, as a component of a major reorganization of the Development & Congestion Management Division, the 27 staff positions currently in CMP be pooled with existing VTA planning staff.”   He queried if staff sees this as a way of controlling costs for the CMP or are there concerns with control issues that could be raised and who is charging the program.  Ms. Gonot noted that VTA would have to make sure that people are accurately charging what they are working on.  At present, there are certain staff that fully charge the CMP.  The CMP would be more of a fund source and staff would be charging directly against CMP.  Next year there would be a better accounting system. 

Member Rose noted that there are VTA responsibilities as an Agency in the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) that should not be charged against the CMA. The perspective from the outside is that it was a much more accountable system to have them truly separate.   He noted that from the outside it looks a lot cleaner to not have people pooled and to be able to clearly delineate CMA staff from VTA staff.   Mr. Flynn noted that CMP and VTA transit still remain separate entities.  This is primarily an accounting change based on VTA’s accounting system and it makes it much easier and cleaner to track costs if the people are pooled together and then they charge to the CMP.

Jerry Grace, Interested Citizen, referred to a building and queried if unused land would be given back to the City of San Jose.   Ms. Gonot noted that staff would speak with Mr. Grace after the meeting.

Member Kass and Rose expressed concern regarding the Member Agency fees, noting that their respective cities are cutting back.

M/S/C (Lazarus/Batra) to review and recommend that the VTA Board of Directors approve the Recommended FY 05-06 Congestion Management Program Work Program and with no increase in Member Agency fees.

Comments Regarding VTA’s Draft Long-Term Transit Capital Investment Program

Kat Mereigh, Management Analyst, referred to the additional comments received on VTA’s Long-Term Transit Capital Investment Program that were distributed during     Item #3. Committee Staff Report.  She thanked the Committee for helping VTA staff in coordinating the presentation with their respective city councils on the Draft Long-Term Transit Capital Investment Program.  Ms. Mereigh also thanked the Committee for getting comments back in a timely manner to the VTA Board of Directors.

Ms. Gonot noted that staff informed the Board of Directors at their April 22, 2005 Workshop Meeting that VTA did not receive a lot of support for the ½ cents sales tax scenario.   She noted that staff also presented a new, permanent ¼ cents sales tax scenario and a no new sales tax scenario.   Ms. Gonot noted that staff would be looking at additional 2000 Measure A Revenue and Expenditure scenarios and would be going back to the Board of Directors in June or August 2005.

On order of Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Comments Regarding VTA’s Draft Long-Term Transit Capital Investment Program was discussed. 

Proactive CMP Reviewed and Approved Projects Quarterly Status Report – January through March 2005

Member Kass suggested that the Proactive CMP Reviewed and Approved Projects Quarterly Status Report – January through March 2005 be placed on the Consent Agenda.

Upon query of Ms. Gonot, the Committee Members noted that they were pleased with having a Consent Agenda.

On order of Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Proactive CMP Reviewed and Approved Projects Quarterly Status Report – January through March 2005 was received and filed. 

Announcements

Ms. Gonot announced the new Deputy Director of Marketing and Public Affairs, Bernice Alaniz. She noted the following VTA promotional activities for Summer 2005: 1) $75.00 Summer Blast Youth Pass and 2) August 12, 2005 Vasona Light Rail Project Opening.  Ms. Gonot also noted that VTA is considering the possibility of allowing senior and disabled persons to ride free on the fixed route transit system during non-peak hours.

ADJOURNMENT

On order of Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Meeting was adjourned at 3:34 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Tracene Y. Crenshaw, Board Assistant
VTA Board of Directors

NOTE:    M/S/C MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.