Related Links

CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 1:39   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.

Committee Staff Report

Jim Lawson, Governmental Affairs Manager, noted the Addendum to the Agenda, Item #3.X., Request for Proposals (RFP) – VTA Organizational & Financial Assessment.   He indicated that the organizational and financial assessment was required by VTA Board of Directors Chairperson Cindy Chavez as part of her “Full Participation, Full Information” initiative.   He indicated that the VTA Board of Directors requested that the Advisory Committees receive a presentation on the development of the RFP from the consultant, Robert Kuo, Principal of Robert Kuo Consulting, LLC. 

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

Request for Proposals – VTA Organizational & Financial Assessment

Mr. Kuo reported that the RFP Scope of Work is divided into four parts.    He referred to Part I of the Scope of Work, “Organizational Review and Assessment”, and noted that the consultant who is selected during the RFP process will review VTA’s goals and objectives and will assess how well VTA has performed in meeting those goals and objectives.   The consultant will take an independent look at VTA’s finances, how it is structured as an organization.  The consultant will then develop any recommendations for changes that can improve VTA’s performance.  The consultant will look at how communication works between VTA management and employees, the general public, and stakeholders.  The consultant will also review and assess the VTA Advisory Committee structure.  Mr. Kuo indicated that the Organizational Review and Assessment is the broadest and most qualitative section of the RFP.

Mr. Kuo referred to Part II of the Scope of Work, “Division-by-Division Review and Assessment”, and noted that for each of VTA’s five Divisions, the consultant will review and evaluate the Division’s goals and objectives, how well the Division has performed overtime in meeting those goals and objectives, what the Division staffing levels are like, and whether the staffing levels are appropriate.   The consultant will also review the policies and procedures as well as performance measures.

Mr. Kuo referred to Part III of the Scope of Work, “Financial Information and Financial Policies”, and noted that the consultant will review the financial documents prepared by VTA, such as the biennial operating capital budget, Short Range Transit Plan, and other financial documents that are provided to the Board of Directors, VTA Advisory Committees, and stakeholders.   The consultant will provide feedback on how VTA can improve the clarity and/or completeness of the financial documents.   In addition, the consultant will review VTA’s policies, which includes policies that have been adopted by the Board of Directors and policies that exist at the staff level.

Mr. Kuo referred to Part IV of the Scope of Work, “Program Specific Reviews”, and noted that the consultant will review VTA’s employee fringe benefit programs, workers’ compensation program, and management, funding and investment performance of the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Pension Fund.   He indicated that the consultant will review and will evaluate VTA’s paratransit program, contracted services, security program, use of consultants, procurement process, and information technology program.

Member Murdter took his seat at 1:45 p.m.

Mr. Kuo provided a reported on the procurement schedule, noting that the Board of Directors was briefed on the RFP and its scope on April 6, 2006, and, subsequently, the RFP was advertised on April 7, 2006, in the Wall Street Journal, San Jose Mercury News, and through the American Public Transportation Association’s (APTA’s) Passenger Transport Publication.   A pre-proposal conference will be held on April 28, 2006, and proposals are due on May 31, 2006.   Mr. Kuo indicated that VTA staff anticipates forwarding a recommendation for award to the Board of Directors on August 3, 2006.  He indicated that no single firm will likely have the capacity to handle the broad range of topics that have been included in the Scope of Work and noted that in all likelihood there will be a team of consultants selected.

Mr. Kuo noted the following three sets of deliverables coming out of the process: 1) a set of Technical Memoranda that addresses each of the scope topics, and the Technical Memoranda is due 60 days after the Notice to Proceed is issued; 2) a Draft Report of the Organizational and Financial Assessment is due 45 days after the Technical Memoranda; 3) a Final Report of the Organizational and Financial Assessment is due 60 days after the Draft Report.   He indicated that at each stage a status report on the Organizational and Financial Assessment would be presented to both the Board of Directors and Advisory Committees.

Member Kass queried about the estimated cost of the Organizational and Financial Assessment.   Mr. Kuo noted that there was not a specific cost estimate and indicated that it was determined that the best course of action was to let the proposers come to VTA with cost proposals.

Member Likens queried if there would be public involvement in the Organizational and Financial Assessment.    Mr. Kuo indicated that at this stage he does not know to what extent and noted, at a minimum, the consultant will be working with the VTA Committees. 

Ex-Officio Member Taubeneck took his seat at 1:48 p.m.

Member Witthaus indicated that the City of Sunnyvale routinely incorporates these kinds of audits and assessments organization wide, but does not evaluate the entire organization in one year; it is more programmatic.  He queried if VTA had thought about taking this approach.   Mr. Kuo indicated that he thinks one of the immediate tasks that VTA General Manager, Michael T. Burns, identified was to get a broad overview of what was going on in the organization and to get recommendations that will improve the organization’s overall performance.

Member Porter asked who would be managing the consultant.  Mr. Kuo indicated that Mr. Burns would be heavily involved in the assessment.  He indicated that he did not know if Mr. Burns would designate a staff person to be the point person.  Member Porter noted the importance of having an independent person managing the project and indicated that it seems like an assessment of VTA on such a broad base would be a difficult thing to do.

Mr. Lawson noted that additional feedback on the VTA Organizational & Financial Assessment is welcomed.                              

On order of Chairperson Yoshino, there being no objection, the Committee received a briefing on the Request for Proposal (RFP) for Organizational and Financial Assessment Consulting Services as requested by Chairperson Cindy Chavez at the January 5, 2006 Board of Directors Meeting. 

Committee Staff Report (continued)

Mr. Lawson reported that the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) that was established by the Board of Directors at their March 2, 2006 Meeting has held two meetings thus far.   The first meeting was held on March 23, 2006 at VTA and the second meeting was held on April 3, 2006 at the City of Gilroy.   During the meetings PAC established Guiding Principles and a Work Plan for the Committee to follow and will present a recommendation on the VTA Scenario to the Board of Directors at their June 2006 Meeting.   The next PAC Meeting is scheduled for April 27, 2006 at the City of Milpitas, and the subject of discussion will be the BART Project.  Additional PAC Meetings have been scheduled for May 25, 2006 and June 8, 2006.

Mr. Lawson reported that Senator Alfred E. Alquist passed away on March 27, 2006, and noted that Senator Alquist was one of the founders of public transit in Santa Clara County.  He indicated that the Board of Directors invited Manny Valerio, a long-time Council Member from the City of Sunnyvale, former Chairperson of the VTA Board of Directors, and a long-time Aide to Senator Alquist to the April 6, 2006 Board Meeting to provide a few remarks about Senator Alquist.  At the May 4, 2006 Board Meeting, a Resolution of Commendation will be adopted by the Board of Directors honoring Senator Alquist.  His wife, State Senator Elaine Alquist, will be in attendance to receive the Resolution of Commendation.

Mr. Lawson reported that on Saturday, April 8, 2006, Mr. Burns, several members of the Board of Directors and he attended the San Jose/Silicon Valley National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) 54^th Anniversary Banquet where VTA was awarded the Freedom and Friendship “Circle of Friends” Award in recognition for demonstrating continued responsibility towards increasing awareness about diversity in Silicon Valley.

Mr. Lawson reported that on March 30, 2006, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) hosted an event at Hewlett-Packard celebrating the completion of the 1996 Measure B Program.   Board Member Forrest Williams spoke on behalf of VTA and informed the audience about VTA’s success over the years.   Mr. Lawson noted that over the past six years, VTA successfully delivered over $900 million in rail program improvements and managed over $500 million in highway improvements, and VTA actively sought additional grant funding to supplement the 1996 Measure B tax revenue.  VTA’s original agreement with the County was to seek $77 million over the life of the 1996 Measure B Program and VTA was more than successful as we secured over a $170 million in federal, state, and local grants for highway and over $228 million in federal, state, and local grants for the rail program.  Mr. Lawson indicated that  Carl Guardino, Chief Executive Officer, SVLG, expressed his appreciation for the great cooperation between the County and VTA to deliver the projects.

Mr. Lawson reported that Route 87 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) and Coleman I-880 Interchange improvements are making good progress and are close to completion.   Both projects will be featured at the upcoming VTA Facilities Tours for Board and Committee Members scheduled for April 14, 2006 and April 28, 2006.

Mr. Lawson reported that VTA’s Senior Fare Promotion ran January 2006 through       March 2006.   During the first month, approximately 195,000 pre-boardings were given to Seniors and individuals with disabilities.  In February 2006, the number increased to 224,000.  VTA will inform TAC of the final results once they are calculated.

Mr. Lawson reported that the Capitol Corridor celebrated their 10,000,000^th rider on March 23, 2006.

On order of 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

CONSENT AGENDA

Minutes of March 9, 2006

M/S/C (Dey/Porter) to approve the Minutes of March 9, 2006.

Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for January to March 2006

M/S/C (Dey/Porter) to review the Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for January to March 2006.

REGULAR AGENDA

Bill Hough, Transportation Planner III, reported that the Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) is generated by a $4.00 vehicle registration fee.   The funds are forwarded to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and BAAQMD returns  40 percent of the funds to the county of origin. 

Mr. Hough reported that previous Board of Directors action designated half of the TFCA 40 percent allocation to the Countywide Bicycle Expenditure Plan (BEP) and half to the competitive program.  In 2005, the Board of Directors approved a fund exchange between VTA and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) wherein VTA would send the TFCA funds from the BEP to MTC to fund the Vehicle Buy Back Program.  In return, MTC would send an equivalent amount of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to be programmed to BEP projects.

Mr. Hough directed attention to the chart entitled Attachment A – Santa Clara County  FY 2006-07 TFCA 40% Program and provided a brief overview.  He noted that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Scoring Subcommittee of TAC developed the FY 2007 project funding recommendations.  He indicated that VTA received nine eligible projects from the Member Agencies requesting a grant total of $1.7 million.    In order to fund the eligible projects, staff is recommending borrowing approximately $540,000 from the BEP TFCA 40 percent funds.

Vice Chairperson Dey referred to the $1.2 million designated for the competitive program in the 2007 cycle and expressed concern regarding the $1.7 million funds being allocated to eligible projects.   He queried if VTA had the authority to do this and why the project funding was not cut-off at the $1.2 million designated for the competitive program.  Marcella Rensi, Principal Transportation Planner, noted that the Board of Directors has the authority to divide the funds as it deems appropriate and TAC has the authority to make the recommendation that it deems appropriate.  For streamlining sake, VTA has combined this into one recommendation to borrow and to fund the entire list.  If the recommendation were to be split up, VTA would have timing issues, since the entire list needs to go to BAAQMD by the end of April 2006.

Vice Chairperson Dey queried about the ramifications in borrowing money from future allocations.   Ms. Rensi indicated that VTA used the exact same process in the past.   She indicated that two years ago the competitive fund borrowed from the BEP to fund additional competitive projects, noting that the funds were paid back in 2005.  She acknowledged that this action would result in less funds being available to the competitive program next year.

Alternate Member Rodriguez noted that he had an opportunity to participate in the selection committee and commended all agencies that submitted proposals.   He referred to Attachment A – Santa Clara County FY 2006-07 TFCA 40% Program and indicated that most of the eligible projects are one-time projects.  He referred to the first ranked project, Light Rail Shuttle Program, and asked why VTA’s project is a program and not a project.  Ms. Rensi noted this is one of the few funding sources that will actually fund operations.

M/S/C (Jenkins/Tripousis) on a vote of 11 ayes to 1 noe to 0 abstentions to review and recommend that the VTA Board of Directors approve the programming of FY 2007 Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program Manager (TFCA 40%) funds to projects.   Vice Chairperson Dey opposed.

Information on City Transportation Presentations to the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) by PAC Chairperson

Mr. Lawson introduced Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Chairperson Steve Glickman.

Mr. Glickman indicated that he is now in his third year of serving on PAC and had the pleasure of serving under former Chairpersons Dolly Sandoval and Yoriko Kishimoto.    He noted that during those two years,   the PAC Meetings were at times less than smooth than what the Members would have preferred.  He observed PAC struggling with its tasks and responsibilities. The way to address this issue was to invite the representative agencies to present their respective city’s/town’s transportation visions, needs, considerations, and concerns in whatever format they felt appropriate.

Mr. Glickman indicated that the invitation is for each individual Member Agency, should they wish, to make a presentation to PAC.   PAC would then discuss the presentation and have all the members essentially take a look at how supportive they feel they can be of another Member Agency’s proposal and then forward that summary onto the Board of Directors, which would become part of the record. 

Member Curtis queried about the type of report to be presented by the Member Agency.   Mr. Glickman noted that it is largely well within the bounds and scope of the individual Member Agency to decide what it thinks is important for persons to know about their respective city/town. 

Alternate Member Tripousis reported that the City of San Jose has taken the PAC up on its gracious invitation and is making a presentation on the Coyote Valley Specific Plan at tonight’s PAC Meeting.   He noted that the City of San Jose would like to plan for a future presentation where we would talk about our overall transportation set of priorities and projects.  Alternate Member Tripousis indicated that each Member Agency should provide a presentation on a project/activity that is most interesting in their particular jurisdiction.

Upon query of Vice Chairperson Dey, Mr. Glickman noted that the Member Agency did not have to provide a report, a presentation would be sufficient.   He noted that a report regarding the presentations from the Member Agencies would come from PAC and would be forwarded to the Board of Directors.

Ex-Officio Member Coss-Fitzwater queried about the length of time PAC is willing to devote on the presentation during the meeting.   Mr. Glickman noted that the presentation is an agenda item and that PAC will learn in the process.   If it takes PAC three hours to go through a presentation, then PAC will rethink the process.

Member Kass noted that the idea of educating persons in the county about transportation needs and issues in individual communities is a positive one.   He did, however, express concern that this might not be consistent with attempts to build regional consensus.    Mr. Glickman indicated that there are immediate safety valves, noting that the informational report becomes part of the public record.  He indicated that PAC will review each presentation and will forward an informational report to the Board of Directors.  The PAC, he concluded, sees this as an opportunity to share valuable information with the Board of Directors.       

Mr. Glickman noted that he has tremendous respect for the fellow elected officials that he works with, but they are not as knowledgeable about individual technical areas of running their respective cities or towns as the TAC Members.

Member Likens indicated that she has been asked to work with Palo Alto Vice Mayor Yoriko Kishimoto on the City of Palo Alto’s presentation to PAC in May 2006.    She noted that it was her understanding that this was an opportunity for the Members of PAC to present their community’s priorities more as an informational sharing. Upon query of Member Likens, Mr. Glickman noted that an informational report regarding the presentations would be forwarded to the Board of Directors.

Chairperson Yoshino queried if the presentations are made in combination with the elected official and administration from the Member Agency.   Mr. Glickman noted that is an internal question within the Member Agency.

Member Jenkins asked if one or more presentations would be made during the PAC Meeting.   Mr. Glickman indicated that it would be an ongoing process.

Chairperson Yoshino expressed TAC’s interest in revisiting the item in a year to see what agencies have made presentations to PAC.   He thanked Mr. Glickman for his presentation to TAC.

Member Kass requested that the presentation provided by the City of San Jose pertaining to the Coyote Valley Specific Plan also be presented to TAC.

Chairperson Yoshino requested that TAC receive a short summary on the presentations provided at PAC.

On order of Chairperson Yoshino, there being no objection, the Committee received a report regarding Information on City Transportation Presentations to the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) by PAC Chairperson.

OTHER

No Smoking Signs

Mr. Lawson reported that at the March 8, 2006 Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting Members expressed concern regarding persons smoking at VTA bus shelters and light rail stations and recommended that VTA place “No Smoking” signage at its bus shelters and light rail stations.   Mr. Lawson directed attention to the correspondence between VTA and CAC Member Ellen Fletcher, dated May 18, 1999, and correspondence forwarded by Member Fletcher to the CAC Chairperson Martin Schulter regarding the issue.

Mr. Lawson reported that there is considerable movement on the part of transit agencies and the public to protect people against the affects of second hand smoke.   He indicated that CAC is recommending that TAC forward to PAC the recommendation of VTA placing “No Smoking” international signage at bus shelters and light rail stations.

M/S/C (Tripousis/Likens) to request that the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) consider the comments and recommendations from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and recommend that the Board of Directors direct staff to install No Smoking signs at bus shelters and light rail stations. 

Committee Work Plan

Mr. Lawson noted the request from the Committee to have the City of San Jose Coyote Valley Specific Plan presented to TAC. 

Upon query of Member Jenkins, Stephen Flynn, Sr. Management Analyst, noted that the Committee Work Plan is a planning and scheduling tool and is always a work in progress.

Chairperson Yoshino requested that the “Report regarding Information on City Transportation Presentations to the PAC” be revisited and listed on the Work Plan as an item for future consideration.

On order of Chairperson Yoshino, there being no objection, the Committee Work Plan was reviewed.

Announcements

Member Curtis expressed concern regarding the danger to drivers due to the deterioration of Highway 17, specifically through Los Gatos. 

Member Witthaus also expressed concerned regarding the deterioration of the roadway on El Camino Real in Sunnyvale and requested that Caltrans provide a presentation to TAC regarding its Pavement Rehabilitation Program. 

Member Kass expressed concern regarding the deterioration of the roadway on the Alameda from I-880 to downtown San Jose.

Ex-Officio Member Taubeneck noted that Caltrans could provide a presentation on its Pavement Rehabilitation Program in a couple of months.

ADJOURNMENT

On order of Chairperson   Yoshino, there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 2:50  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.