CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 1:37   p.m. by Vice Chairperson Yoshino 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.

Introductory Remarks from General Manager, Michael T. Burns

Michael T. Burns, General Manager, provided background information on his 30 years of transportation experience in the public and private sectors.

Mr. Burns noted that he was very pleased with VTA in terms of the quality of the organization both from an infrastructure and staff standpoint.

Mr. Burns noted that he planned to focus on the following four major areas in the organization: 1) improve relationships amongst all of the stakeholders, 2) build ridership on the system, 3) continue to work with staff and all VTA Advisory Committees and Board of Directors to develop a strategy for financial stability on both the capital and operating sides, and 4) deliver on the capital program.

Mr. Burns noted he is learning the Board Committee structure, the Advisory Committees, Board Standing Committees, and other meetings of stakeholder groups.   He noted that one of his objectives, in terms of building relationships, is to try to improve the overall role of the committees in the organization and to get the most value out of the committee structure.   

Mr. Burns noted that he looks forward to a good working relationship with the TAC.

On order of Vice Chairperson Yoshino, there being no objection, the Committee received   introductory remarks from General Manager, Michael T. Burns.

Committee Staff Report

Kurt Evans, Government Affairs Manager, provided an update on SB 680 (Simitian) – Vehicle Registration Surcharge: VTA.   He noted that various members of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) had a role in working with the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG), the sponsors of the bill, in putting together a framework for a potential Expenditure Plan for a vehicle registration surcharge.   SB 680 was the measure that would have authorized VTA to implement a vehicle registration surcharge of up to $5 over an eight-year period.  It was one of four vehicle registration surcharge bills that made it through the Legislature and vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.  The reason the Governor vetoed the bills was because he felt that it was not really a fee, it was a tax, and should go to the voters for two-thirds approval.  

Mr. Evans thanked TAC for their collective efforts in working with VTA and SVLG in getting the bill through the process.

Mr. Evans referred to the memorandum addressed to TAC, co-written by himself and John Ristow, Programming and Project Development Deputy Director, regarding FY 2007 Federal Project Earmarks.   He noted that at a previous TAC Meeting, he talked about VTA’s interest in working with TAC in terms of coordinating the project earmark requests VTA put forward in Washington, D.C., in order to make sure efforts and requests were not being duplicated for the same project.  Mr. Evans noted that the memorandum outlined a process for using TAC as the venue for discussion in terms of coordination.  He noted that staff would be putting together a master list containing the jurisdictions’ thoughts for earmark requests for FY 2007 and the list will be presented to TAC for discussion at their November 10, 2005 Meeting.  He noted the earmark requests for FY 2007 should be submitted to staff by the close of business on Friday, October 14, 2005.

On order of Vice Chairperson Yoshino, 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

Minutes of September 8, 2005

M/S/C (Rowe/Armendariz) to approve   Minutes of September 8, 2005.

Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for July to September 2005

M/S/C (Rowe/Armendariz) to receive and file the Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for July to September 2005.

Recommended VTA Quarter-Cent Sales Tax Scenario

Carolyn M. Gonot, Chief Development Officer, reported that the three proposed Quarter-Cent Sales Tax Scenarios, Run 5: Current Plan – BART to Silicon Valley by 2015, Run 6: Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) Poll – 30-year tax with a Pavement Management Program and several other new projects, and Run 7: BART to Silicon Valley by 2018, were presented at the September 2005 TAC and Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Meetings.   She noted that TAC and PAC’s comments, particularly in regards to the importance of the Pavement Management Program, were forwarded to the Board of Directors at their September 16, 2005 Board of Directors’ Workshop Meeting.  She noted that based upon feedback from TAC, PAC, community stakeholders, and the Board of Directors, staff was directed to develop a recommended VTA Quarter-Cent Sales Tax Scenario that combined Runs 5 and 6, specifically, a 30-year tax with a Pavement Management Program.

Mr. Evans reported that in terms of process, staff has been working diligently, as a result of the September 16, 2005 Board of Directors’ Workshop Meeting, in putting together a recommended VTA Scenario for the 2000 Measure A Program, which includes a new quarter-cent sales tax for a 30-year period with a potential ballot measure in November 2006. The recommended VTA Scenario is being presented at all the October 2005 VTA Advisory Committee Meetings and comments received from the Advisory Committees will be forwarded to the Board of Directors.  It is staff’s intent to take a recommendation to the Board of Directors for their consideration and action at the November 3, 2005 Board of Directors’ Meeting. As part of the preparation for the November 3, 2005 discussion, all the comments from the Advisory Committees would be included in the material provided to the Board of Directors.  

Mr. Evans referred to the Board of Directors’ direction given to staff at the September 16, 2005 Workshop Meeting to return to the Board of Directors with one scenario.  Mr. Evans noted that this was not the first time VTA had been in a situation where the voters approved a local ballot measure program and shortly thereafter the economy took a downturn.  He indicated that it happened in 1984 with the Measure A Program implemented by the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority and with the 1996 Measure B Transportation Improvement Program, which VTA is currently implementing in partnership with the County of Santa Clara.  In both cases, the implementing bodies decided to develop a concept of an Initial and Completion Program.  The Initial Program would be projects that could be done given current projections of revenue and expenditures.  The Completion Program are projects that could continue to be worked on to get in a state of readiness and look for opportunities to move those projects into the Initial Program.  Mr. Evans noted that this strategy worked very well for the Traffic Authority and the County of Santa Clara and VTA with the implementation of the 1996 Measure B Transportation Improvement Program.  He noted that VTA developed the concept of an Initial Program and a Completion Program for the 2000 Measure A Program. The Program is a 30-year Program and a lot could happen over 30 years, revenues and expenditures will change and new opportunities will present themselves. 

Mr. Evans noted that VTA is dealing with a very dynamic Program and intends to update the Expenditure Plan on an annual basis by going through the process with the Advisory Committees and the Board of Directors.

Mr. Collins directed attention to Attachment #1, VTA 2000 Measure A Transit Program, VTA Scenario – October 2005, and provided an overview of the Initial Program and Completion Program concept.   He noted that overall with a new quarter-cent sales tax, the projected amount of revenue with the existing 2000 Measure A half-cent cent sales tax and funding from other sources is estimated to be $19.58 billion over a 30-year timeline. He directed attention to the new Line Item #30 – Pavement Management, County Expressways & Bike/Pedestrian and noted that in today’s dollars the distribution amount would be $10 million a year for local streets and roads, $3.3 million for county expressways, and $1.4 a year for bike/pedestrian path programs for a total of $14.7 million a year over a 30-year program, escalating to $717 million over the life of the program.  Ms. Gonot indicated that the Board of Directors queried about the distribution of funds to the local streets and roads.  She noted the distribution formula issue would go to TAC for discussion.      

Member Dey referred to discussions at the Capital Improvement Program Sub-Committee in regards to combining the county expressway system with the principal arterials system and queried about getting additional funding into Line Item #30 to cover the principal arterials.    Ms. Gonot noted that currently it would be based on the need of the cities and County of Santa Clara.

Member Dey referred to the $3.3 million allocated for the County Expressways Program and expressed concern that the funding allocated for the program would fall short if the combination of expressways and principal arterials are included.   He noted that it is better to raise the question now and get a little bit more money into the program to satisfy long-term needs.

Member Armendariz queried about the basis VTA used to arrive at the $10 million a year allocated for local streets and roads.   He noted that $10 million seems to be a small amount and that a lot of the cities are way behind with their Pavement Management Programs.   He noted that the City of Milpitas had a shortfall of about $4 million per year.  Ms. Gonot noted at the time the old Measure B Program was negotiated with the then Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group (now called Silicon Valley Leadership Group), and at present, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group put out the same number again, but asked that the $10 million be escalated.

Alternate Member Witthaus referred to the Bike/Pedestrian Program and queried if the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) was allocating a tremendous amount of money in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for Bike/Pedestrian Programs.   He also asked how this compares to the cities’ needs.   Ms. Gonot noted that MTC allocated $200 million over the life of their plan, which is 25 years.  The funds would then be allocated to the counties, which would be about $50 million for the County of Santa over a 25-year period.

Mr. Collins referred to Attachment #1 and noted that VTA ended up with a positive balance of $386 million on the Initial Program.

Mr. Collins directed attention to revised Attachment #2, Revenue Sources For Measure A Program, and provided an overview. 

Alternate Member Witthaus queried if it made sense to do a new Rail Corridor Study.  Ms. Gonot indicated that the Board of Directors recently approved the consultant for the new Corridor Study, noting that it is no longer called the Rail Corridor Study.   VTA would be looking at the seven corridors that were listed in the 2000 Measure A Program and looking at what types of service should be running over the 25 years. 

Alternate Member Tripousis queried about the $736 million allocated for the Mineta San Jose Airport People Mover, noting that the amount is significantly greater than previous evaluations.   Mr. Collins noted the projects are competing for bond money, so the Airport People Mover was pushed out.   When pushing the Airport People Mover out at an escalated of 3.5 percent per year, it became a more expensive project.  Ms. Gonot noted that the original program was $400 million and was escalated.

Alternate Member Tripousis noted the $400 million was for a connection from Caltrain to the Mineta San Jose Airport to North First Street, not just $400 million to the airport.   He noted that the numbers the City of San Jose had essentially had the direct BART connection, which was evaluated close to $700 million for a direct airport connection.   The City of San Jose’s Airport Ordinance clearly identifies the Airport People Mover as a direct rail connection to the airport.  Alternate Member Tripousis noted that the City of San Jose Council has asked their Department of Transportation (DOT) staff to evaluate the proposed scenarios and to come back to them with an analysis and recommendation for full Council debate on October 25, 2005.

Alternate Member Witthaus referred to the SVLG poll and queried if VTA should conduct its own poll.   Mr. Evans noted that additional polling would be done, but not by VTA. 

Upon query of Vice Chairperson Yoshino, Sandra Weymouth, VTA Board Secretary, provided a report on the feedback from the Committee for Transit Accessibility, Citizens Advisory Committee, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. 

On order of Vice Chairperson Yoshino, there being no objection, the Committee reviewed and forwarded recommendations to the Board of Directors regarding the recommended VTA Quarter-Cent Sales Tax Scenario. 

2005 Congestion Management Program

Chris Augenstein, Principal Transportation Planning Manager, reported that VTA is required by the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) statutes to update the Congestion Management Program (CMP) every two years. 

Mr. Augenstein directed attention to the draft 2005 Santa Clara County CMP and noted the changes contained in Chapter 2 – Traffic Level of Service Element, Chapter 5 – Transportation Model and Database Element, and Chapter 7 – Capital Improvement Program Element.   He referred to the Board Memorandum and noted areas that VTA will address in the 2007 CMP.

Member Kass left the meeting at 2:47 p.m.

M/S/C (Tripousis/Witthaus) to recommend that the VTA Board of Directors approve the 2005 Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program (CMP). 

Committee Referral – Opposition to the Elimination of the Pavement TechnicalAssistance Program (PTAP)

Ms. Gonot reported that the Congestion Management Agencies Association sent a letter to MTC in support of PTAP.   The question, at present, is “where are the funds going to come from?” 

John Sighamony, Transportation Planner II, reported that there has been discussion at the Local Streets and Roads Commission at MTC, and it has been suggested that $800,000 be taken off the top of the Third Cycle State Transportation Program (STP) to fund PTAP.

Alternate Member Tripousis noted the issue that came out of MTC’s Local Streets and Roads Commission was trying to ensure that there is a level of equity when regional services like PTAP get funded.    He noted if PTAP is going to be funded by the Local Streets and Roads, then other programs have to figure out a way to fund themselves as well or at least make that commitment.

Upon query of Ms. Gonot, Alternate Member Tripousis recommended that the VTA Board Chairperson send a letter in support of PTAP to MTC.   He noted the need to keep PTAP as a valuable asset and that it continue to be funded.

Upon query of Jerry Grace, Interested Citizen, Ms. Gonot noted that PTAP would help VTA identify shortfalls on the roadway system for pavement management.

M/S/C (Tripousis/Collen) to approve a position in support of continuation of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC’s) Pavement Technical Assistance Program (PTAP) and authorize the TAC Chair to send a letter to MTC and further, recommended that the VTA Board Chairperson also send a letter in support of PTAP to MTC.

Announcements

There were no Announcements.

ADJOURNMENT

On order of Vice Chairperson Yoshino, there being no objection, the Meeting was adjourned at 3:00 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.