Related Links

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

ROLL CALL

A quorum was present.

There were no Public Presentations.

Jim Lawson, Government Affairs Manager, reported that there will be a VTA Historic Trolley Dedication Ceremony in honor of Rosa Parks on February 15, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Library in downtown San Jose.

Mr. Lawson reported that the Recommended VTA Scenario will be presented to the Board of Directors for a decision at their March 2, 2006 Meeting.

Mr. Lawson reported that at the January 27, 2006 Board of Directors’ Workshop Meeting, the Board Members received presentations from staff on the organization of VTA, received an update on VTA’s Bond Infrastructure Committee, and discussed the Recommended VTA Scenario.

Mr. Lawson reported that the Litter Control and Landscape Maintenance Study for Freeways in Santa Clara County was forwarded to the January 19, 2006 Congestion Management Program & Planning Committee (CMPP).   The CMPP expressed great interest in the Study and referred the Study back to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), recommending that the TAC Subcommittee be reconstituted to come up with a more robust proposal regarding the Study. 

Member Likens took her seat at 1:37 p.m.

Kurt Evans, Government Affairs Manager, reported that several months ago, VTA staff initiated a process that involved working with TAC in terms of coordinating the project earmark requests for FY 2007.   He distributed the FY 2007 Federal Project Earmark Master List containing the jurisdiction’s thoughts for earmark requests for FY 2007 and noted that the Master List contained the following: 1) Project; 2) Sponsor; 3) Lead Congressional Member; 4) Federal Discretionary Program; 5) Federal Request; and 6) Whether project is included in VTP 2030.  Mr. Evans indicated that the Master List was in draft form, noting that a couple of items contained on the Master List were blank.  He noted that once the appropriate jurisdictions provide the needed information to VTA, he would update the Master List and redistribute it to TAC.

There was no Chairperson’s Report.

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

CONSENT AGENDA

M/S/C (Tripousis/Porter) to approve the Minutes of December 8, 2005.

M/S/C (Tripousis/Porter) to approve the Minutes of January 12, 2006.

M/S/C (Tripousis/Porter) to review the Proactive CMP Reviewed and Approved Projects Quarterly Status Report – October through December 2005.

REGULAR AGENDA

Mr. Lawson reported that the Orientation Presentation was provided to the Board of Directors at their January 27, 2006 Board of Directors’ Workshop Meeting. The Orientation Presentation provides information on VTA’s structure, roles, responsibilities, activities, and provides budget information on each of the major departments.   Also, the orientation presentation is an opportunity to introduce VTA’s Executive Staff heading the various divisions.   Mr. Lawson reported that the financial information provided is based upon the approved FY 2006-2007 Budget and for the majority of the departments it includes only the Operating Budget, noting that the Construction Department has a Capital Budget.

Mr. Lawson directed attention to the presentation distributed entitled, “Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Organizational Overview, January 27, 2006,” Page 2, What is VTA?   He noted that VTA is an amalgam of transit, construction, planning and funding, and was created by the citizens of Santa Clara County, recognizing that it was important to connect transit with planning and construction to come up with the best results for the citizens in the community.   Mr. Lawson directed attention to Page 3 and provided an overview on the organizational structure of VTA.   He directed attention to Pages 4 and 5 of the Organizational Overview and provided a report on VTA’s Major Budget Components.

Mr. Lawson directed attention to Page 6 of the presentation, Office of the General Manager, and provided a report, highlighting: 1) Responsibilities: a) Board Support, which includes a Copy and Document Control Center, b) Policy Development,   c) Strategic Planning, and d) Intergovernmental & Business Relations; and 2) Goals:    a) Increase Ridership, b) Financial Stability, c) Improve Relationships, d) Deliver Capital Programs.

Suzanne Gifford, General Counsel, directed attention to Page 7 of the presentation, Office of the General Counsel, and provided a report, highlighting: 1) Staffing; 2) Budget;    3) Responsibility of providing legal advice and counsel to all VTA divisions/departments as well as to the General Manager and the Board of Directors; and 4) Areas of expertise.

Carolyn M. Gonot, Chief Development Officer, directed attention to Page 14 of the presentation, Development & Congestion Management Division, and provided a report on the responsibilities of the following four major departments within the Development & Congestion Management Division: 1) Marketing and Public Affairs; 2) Programming & Project Development; 3) Transportation & Congestion Management Planning; and  4) Commercial Development Program.   Ms. Gonot also noted the Division’s goals.

Matthew O. Tucker, Chief Operating Officer, directed attention to Pages 8 and 9 of the presentation, Operations Division, and provided a report on the following Division’s functions and responsibilities, highlighting: 1) Maintenance; 2) Transportation; and  3) Support.   The Division’s primary function is the bus and light rail operations, which includes an active fleet of 423 buses and 100 light rail vehicles.  The Operations Division is the largest Division in VTA and the majority of the Division’s budget is attributable to primarily wages and benefits.  Mr. Tucker also noted the goals and challenges of the Division.

Jack J. Collins, Chief Construction Officer, directed attention to Pages 10 and 11 of the presentation, Construction Division, and noted that the Division manages construction of VTA’s rail, highway, and facilities projects. Mr. Collins provided a report on the Construction Division’s staffing and noted the following major accomplishments:    1) Vasona Light Rail Line; 2) Tasman East and Capitol Light Rail Line; 3) I-880 Widening Landscaping; 4) Route 152 Phase B1; and 5) Route 85 Noise Mitigation.   Mr. Collins also noted the goals of the Construction Division.

Ex-Officio Member Cowell took his seat at 2:08 p.m.

Roger Contreras, Chief Financial Officer, directed attention to Page 12 of the presentation, Fiscal Resources Division, and provided a report on the responsibilities of the following Departments within the Fiscal Resources Division: 1) Accounting & Compliance Review; 2) Contracts & Materials Management; 3) Treasury and Financial Planning; and 4) Disbursements and Revenue Service. Mr. Contreras also noted the Division’s accomplishments and goals.

George Barlow, Chief Technology Officer, directed attention to Page 13 of the presentation, Technology Division, and noted that the Division’s responsibility is to provide technology assistance to all VTA Divisions/Departments to ensure that they can become more cost efficient and effective through the use of technology.   Mr. Barlow provided a report on the responsibilities of the following areas within the Division:    1) Office of the Chief Technology Officer; 2) Infrastructure Department; 3) Applications Support Service Department; and 4) Communications Maintenance Department.    Mr. Barlow also provided a report on the Technology Division’s staffing, major programs, accomplishments, goals, and budget.

Mr. Lawson directed attention to Page 15 of the presentation, Administrative Services Division, and reported that the Chief Administrative Officer position is vacant and that VTA is currently recruiting for the position.   He noted that once the Chief Administrative Officer is hired, a report would be provided on the Division’s goals and objectives.     Mr. Lawson provided a report on the responsibilities of the following Departments within the Division: 1) Employee Services; 2) Risk Management; and 3) Employee Relations.

Mr. Lawson indicated that the item has been taken to all of the VTA Committees and the response has been positive.   He noted that TAC will be receiving an invitation to the upcoming VTA facilities tours.   Mr. Lawson reported that VTA’s Board of Directors Chairperson, Cindy Chavez, is concerned about “Full Participation, Full Information”, and is very interested in TAC’s feedback and input.

Chairperson Yoshino noted that the staff presentations were great and thanked staff for a job well done.

On order of Chairperson Yoshino, there being no objection, the Committee received the Orientation Presentation from VTA Executive Staff.

Mr. Lawson directed attention to the Memorandum from Board of Directors’ Chairperson Chavez and indicated that it is Chairperson Chavez’ desire to have Full Participation, Full Information, in order to improve how VTA conducts its business.   Mr. Lawson noted that Chairperson Chavez’ initiative is divided into the following three sections: 1) Financial and Organizational Assessment; 2) Advisory Committee and Board Relationships; and   3) Legislative Advocacy.

Mr. Lawson referred to the first initiative, Financial and Organizational Assessment, and indicated that Chairperson Chavez has asked that VTA go out into the marketplace and find consultants that can review VTA’s methods and forms of reporting, evaluate VTA’s business practices and staff levels, look at industry practices, and provide recommendations to VTA.    He noted that TAC will be asked to participate in the process and to provide input on how VTA can better serve its communities.

Mr. Lawson referred to the second initiative, Advisory Committee and Board Relationships, and noted the initiative is to increase the value of communication as it relates to Advisory Committee and Board relationships.   Mr. Lawson indicated that it is felt that TAC may not have been utilized to its full capacity, and there is a recognition that TAC is a valuable resource and very important to the Board’s decision-making process.    Staff is asking for TAC’s ideas/feedback on what does work and does not work  in terms of communication.

Mr. Lawson referred to the third initiative, Legislative Advocacy, in particular, the State Infrastructure Bond, and reported that there is much activity in Sacramento around the creation of a major financial instrument to improve the infrastructure of the State of California.  

Mr. Lawson reported that Chairperson Chavez appointed a Bond Infrastructure Committee consisting of three Board Members, three VTA staff members, and three members of the community to recommend some advocacy positions.   The Committee Members are as follows: Board Members Gage, Campos, and Kerr; VTA Staff Members Michael T. Burns, General Manager, Mr. Evans, and Ms. Gonot; Community Members Bob Brownstein, Working Partnerships U.S.A.; Bill Wagner, HMH Engineering; and Carl Guardino, Silicon Valley Leadership Group.   The Bond Infrastructure Committee has had two meetings and has been formalizing recommendations.  Mr. Lawson noted that an additional meeting will be held and the recommendations will be presented to the Board of Directors. 

Mr. Evans referred to the days of the old Congestion Management Agency (CMA) and noted that TAC was used as a problem-solving entity.   There were discussions about reinvigorating the TAC to play that kind of a role where the Board of Directors would be looking to TAC’s technical expertise to come up with some solutions to the problems.      Mr. Evans indicated that under the old CMA days, TAC would solve the problems, deal with the issues, make recommendations, forward them to the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), and then to the Board of Directors.

Alternate Member Tripousis recommended changing the semantics of TAC’s agenda.     He noted that for a long time, TAC has been presented with many “Receive and file” and “Review and comment” items.  He noted that TAC makes recommendations to their respective Councils and to the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors constantly, and he thinks TAC is pretty confident and capable of making a recommendation to the VTA Policy bodies.  Alternate Member Tripousis noted that if there is any structural piece that TAC can change, TAC should more forcefully, in a more committed fashion, make recommendations on policy issues to the Board. 

Member Jenkins referred to the CMA in the past and noted that TAC used to work together and work through issues; it was a process and it was ongoing, and then TAC would make its recommendation.  What has evolved in the last several years is that TAC  has become a “rubber stamp” committee.  She noted that TAC sees items the same day that PAC receives items and has absolutely no opportunity to analyze or give input.  She indicated that the difference is enormous and in some cases TAC never sees an item at all; it just goes straight to the Board.  She indicated if TAC had the opportunity to work on things during the process, TAC would be much more valuable.

Member Armendariz expressed concern in regards to TAC receiving items the same day as PAC and having inadequate time to review the items.  He recommended that the meeting schedules be reviewed, noting that TAC meetings should be held at least two weeks prior to PAC.   Member Armendariz also felt that TAC was a “rubber stamper” committee.

Chairperson Yoshino stated that TAC would like to be more engaged in discussions early on issues.

Alternate Member Collen referred to the State Infrastructure Bond and queried if the report containing the findings and recommendations would be forwarded to TAC.     Mr. Evans noted that the Board of Directors requested a report in March 2006.     Mr. Lawson indicated that staff could provide TAC with the Bond Infrastructure Committee Meeting Minutes and draft recommendations.

Alternate Member Collen encouraged the local cities to carefully look at the bond proposal and noted that for local cities and counties there is actually very little that nets out of the huge bond proposal.   Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger plans to do a payment of past suspension of Proposition 42 in 2007, but there is nothing planned for 2008. 

Alternate Member Tripousis indicated that the City of San Jose is putting together a recommendation on the bond proposal, and it will reflect the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC’s) recommendations on the bond proposal.   He noted that whatever package goes forward, it should reflect the initial structure of SB 1024 (Perata) – Infrastructure Bond Measure that had categorical segments contained in the bill as opposed to an earmark sort of program that identified just project lists for funding, and that the dollar amount of the bond be done in such a way that it is closer to the Governor’s numbers than the original $10 billion identified in the Perata bond.

Mr. Evans referred to the Infrastructure Bond Measure and indicated based upon the staff analysis and recommendations from the Bond Infrastructure Committee, VTA is more in line in terms of where Senator Perata is with SB 1024.    Senator Perata is proposing to put as much general obligation bond capacity into existing programs as possible using existing allocation methodologies. Senator Perata has taken a look at existing transportation programs, such as the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), State Local Partnership Program, and Grade Separation Program, and said that the programs work well, but they do not have enough money, and maybe general obligation bond money should be used to reinvigorate and infuse the programs.   Mr. Evans noted that VTA agrees with this concept as opposed to creating new programs that tend to be more State-driven.  He indicated that Senator Perata is recognizing that there should be a significant role for local regional agencies in terms of project selection. 

Mr. Evans noted that one of the lacking pieces in the Governor’s Strategic Road Plan is transit capital.   He indicated that he has been having discussions with members of the Legislature about including a transit capital piece in the bond package.  

Mr. Evans noted that VTA has been grappling with a handful of projects that are of a statewide and regional significance, but are so huge that the projects absorb the County share under the STIP process.   The Highway 152 Project and 101 Widening Project are some of the projects in question.   To deal with the mammoth projects that absorb the STIP County share, the Governor is proposing to set aside some of the bond capacity for a regional priorities type of program.

On order of Chairperson Yoshino, there being no objection, the Committee received an overview of VTA Chairperson Cindy Chavez’ 2006 Initiative, “Full Participation, Full Information”, and discussed strategies to increase effectiveness of the Technical Advisory Committee.

OTHER

Alternate Member Tripousis announced that the Local Streets and Roads Working Group at MTC is putting together a strategic plan for pavement maintenance for local streets and roads.   He noted that the Local Streets and Roads Working Group will be holding a seminar at MTC on Monday, March 6, 2006, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. regarding the strategic plan.

On order of Chairperson   Yoshino, there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 2:53 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

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