Skip to Main Content Skip to Side Navigation Skip to Top Navigation
Home>About Us>BOD>Board Minutes

Board Minutes


BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

August 7, 2003

Board of Supervisors' Chambers
County Government Center
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, California

1. CALLED TO ORDER at 6:06 p.m.
  
2. ROLL CALL

Members Present:� Alvarado, Beall (Ex-Officio), Chavez, Cortese, Dando, Dixon, Gage, Gonzales, Kennedy, La Poll, McLemore, Mossar, Pirzynski, Springer, Valerio, Williams

Members Absent:� McHugh, Yeager

  
3. ORDERS OF THE DAY

Add Addendum Item #23.X. Adopt a resolution declaring and determining that public interest and necessity demand the immediate expenditure of public money to procure and install air conditioning equipment in an amount not to exceed $100,000 without requiring a competitive bid and finding that such a procurement is an emergency that will not permit a delay that would result from a competitive solicitation for bids.

Accepted Orders of the Day.

  
4. AWARDS AND COMMENDATIONS

Employees of the Month for July and August 2003

Presented an award�to Russell Anstadt, River Oaks Administration,�as�VTA Employee of the Month for July 2003. Tu Vo, Chaboya Maintenance, and�� �Pat Hidalgo, Chaboya Operations, were unable to attend.

Presented an award to Edgardo Pasucal, Vasona Field Office Administration, as VTA Employee of the Month for August 2003.� �Belete Bekele, Guadalupe Maintenance, and Nancy Jones, Cerone Operations, were unable to attend.

  
5.

Adopted Resolution No. 03.08.10 on a vote of 7 ayes to 5 noes to 0 abstentions authorizing the General Manager or Chief Financial Officer to take all necessary steps for VTA to issue bonds secured by and payable from 2000 Measure A in an amount not to exceed $550 million and to file a validation action in the Santa Clara County Superior Court with respect to one or more such bonds.� �Board Members Springer, Alvarado, Gage, McLemore, and Mossar opposed.

Staff noted that the Adopted Budget included approximately $140 million of recommended financing for the repayment obligation, which were funds advanced by the Enterprise Fund to advance Measure A projects.

Staff noted that at the June 5, 2003 Board of Directors Meeting when the Board adopted the budget, the Board directed staff to investigate the feasibility of issuing additional amounts of debt to forestall the service reductions that were contained in the Recommended Budget.� �Staff noted the amount was approximately $80 million.

Staff noted that on June 19, 2003, when the financing transaction was brought to the Board for approval, some Board Members indicated that when staff brings back the final transaction for approval, it should also include the funds necessary for the advancement of the BART Preliminary Engineering.

Staff noted that two interim status memorandums were issued to the Board of Directors, because staff has had difficulty determining the best most cost effective financing proposal.� �Staff noted that in front of the Board was a financing transaction that was a little bit different than first proposed, which was the commercial paper route.� Staff noted that due largely to the market getting saturated and the cost getting quite a bit higher, staff is proposing a plan that achieves the goals and essentially over the three-year, between now and when the tax gets collected, it actually ends up costing VTA some $7 million less than the original program proposed.

Expressed concern regarding the unrecoverable costs associated with the bond issue and asked�staff to discuss.

Expressed concern regarding receiving the staff report in a timely manner and noted�it was a huge decision with very little lead-time and found it to be distressing.

Directed attention to Page 2 of the staff report and queried�about the��$92.5 million.

Noted the expectation of seeing a spreadsheet giving an idea of the expected costs, life of bond costs.� �Commented that it still does not have numbers to be looked at in order to understand the magnitude of the costs of the bond.

Queried if staff did any analysis of the impact of the decision on other projects not named in the proposal.

Stated that staff report was received without attachments approximately three days ago.� �Queried if staff has compared the transit project planning horizon with the numbers listed in the staff report to see where that leaves VTA.

Queried about the initial amount of money VTA was to borrow.

Ex-Officio Board Member Beall took his seat at 6:23 p.m.

Staff noted that VTA would not go out and issue $550 million immediately.� �Staff noted that the program in front of the Board gives staff the ability to issue a series of bonds over time as the needs for the specified purposes occur.� Staff noted that VTA would contemplate that the bonds would be issued in six-months increments and could be a little more or a little less.

Stated that the intent is not to derail the BART Project, but noted�that when initially talking about using and borrowing funds, it was for the intent of paying off the existing debt, the right-of-way, and keeping the whole system afloat.� Noted the difficulty is that there is a Measure that starts in 2006 and that is the scheduled time for VTA to move forward on issues such as, the engineering and maintenance yard.�

Noted that when the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee formed its opinions and the Board accepted the opinions, it was agreed that no capital projects would be looked at until there was a good understanding of the financial picture and what was happening.� �Noted not wanting to borrow more money than actually needed to satisfy keeping the organization afloat with basic service.� Noted has no problem as the normal process occurs to do the things that you want to do.� Commented there are so many unknowns in terms of the economy and if VTA goes out and borrows money to move projects ahead, that are future projects, thinks would be putting organization at risk.

Referred to the $60.5 million and queried�if $32 million of the $60.5 million was for the Newhall Maintenance Yard Facility.� Queried if the facility is listed anywhere without a financial number tied to it.� Referred to the $550 million and queried if the Newhall Maintenance Yard is included.

Noted that the bonds for $550 million would not be issued tomorrow and understands the bonds would be stretched possibly over years, but certainly months.� �Asked that staff discuss further.

Noted several discussions with national level transportation issues during the summer.� �Commented that it seems to be very evident that in order to qualify for New Start money, cities and counties need to have good regional plans and be ready to go with their project.� Queried if staff could talk about the strategy on some of the actions to make sure that VTA is in the cue for New Start money.

Commented on listening carefully to the questions posed and to the responses given and noted�the detection of a certain ambiguity, which is consistent with the report itself in that there is not enough stated in the report that rationalizes or gives the justification for incurring the type of debt being suggested.

Directed attention to Page 2 of the staff report and commented�about researching the Minutes of June 19, 2003, to see where in the Minutes it indicates as in the staff report that the Board directed staff to include the amounts necessary to fund BART preliminary engineering in the financing structure.� Noted recall of earlier discussions about financing early on the Measure A funds, in particular, because of the interest in staving off the major reductions being proposed.

Queried about the conclusion of the Environmental Impact Review (EIR) for the BART Project.� �Queried if the sequence is the normal sequence; VTA would do the EIR and then the preliminary engineering.� Queried if talking about staggering the sale of the bonds, that is with the assumption that VTA would begin to issue bonds for engineering some time in the future.

Noted that the decision being proposed by staff merits a great deal of thought, a great deal of deliberation, and cannot be done quickly without understanding what the implications are, not only for the County of Santa Clara, but certainly for the Agency today and in the near future.

Directed attention to Page 4, Fiscal Impact, and noted�that the $92.5 million of costs associated with the financing structure is a huge amount of money.� Directed attention to the $60.5 million for other Board approved projects and noted that the $60.5 million requires clarity about VTAs intentions for the use of the money.

Queried if in Mr. Cipollas professional opinion, as the head of the agency, if he believed that this is a prudent thing for the Board of Directors to be doing given the enormous uncertainties that surround VTA.

Directed attention to Attachment 3, Proforma 2000 Measure A Revenue & Expenditure Plan, and noted�if VTA borrows $550 million, VTA is basically borrowing all of the first four years of revenue, plus about a quarter of the revenue of the fifth year.� Noted if VTA is paying back over a billion dollars, VTA is basically taking double the amount, which is about half of the revenue that would ever be received under 2000 Measure A.� Queried if the numbers were being misread.

Referred to the Minutes of the June 19, 2003 Meeting and noted�the motion and comments from Board Members.� Noted the lack of any action in the motion by the Board that says anything about including anything in terms of staffs second statement contained in the staff memorandum, which states: Also on�June 19, 2003 the Board directed staff to include the amounts necessary to fund BART preliminary engineering in the financing transaction brought back for final action.� Noted that it did not appear to be part of the Minutes and queried if something was missing from the Minutes or was a request made by the Board Members to see the information.

Expressed concern regarding the Caltrain improvements in South County.� �Queried if staff has an estimate of a timeframe, given that this borrowing might occur, there would be money available for the Caltrain improvements for better service in the South County.� Queried if any work has been done.

Expressed concern regarding the answer given about June 19, 2003, and stunned that the memo would rewrite history.� �Noted that Board directed staff means a majority vote of the Board.

Queried when is the point of no return on the BART Project; has VTA already passed it or is it somewhere in the future and what is it.

Queried whether a financial decision such as this, is a simple majority vote.

Directed attention to Page 2 of the staff report, and queried �about the�$92.5 million as it relates to the whole package.

Michael Macarelli, Interested Citizen, addressed�the Board of Directors and described three much-needed and high-quality transportation projects.� He noted the payoff for VTA would be helping more people, more effectively, at a lower cost, which after all is the nature of VTAs purpose.

Stuart Cohen, Transportation and Land Use Coalition (TALC), addressed�the Board of Directors and thanked the Board of Directors for their strong support for the $80 million to maintain service.� Mr. Cohen provided a memo to the Board of Directors and noted the memo contains dollar figures that are somewhat more generous than what the Measure B Administrator provided a couple of days ago.� He noted initially with the $6.5 billion projected in October 2000, there was going to be $3.4 billion dedicated to the other capital projects besides BART.� Between the economic recession and the BART additional costs for financing, $800 million is left for other projects.� Mr. Cohen noted that only 22 percent of the funding remains for the other projects and that financing tonight brings the number down further.

Irvin Dawid, Sierra Club, addressed�the Board of Directors and congratulated the Board of Directors for having the foresight and the courage to attempt to borrow $80 million to keep the very important transit system alive.� He referred to the six items listed on the ballot measure and noted of the six items listed, four are essentially rail, capital intensive.� He referred to two of the items and noted that one appeals to disabled access, senior safety, clean air buses, and the other is to increase rail and bus service.� Mr. Dawid noted that the two items apply to the entire County, are fiscally sound and deserve the highest priority.

Rob Means, Sunnyhills Neighborhood Association, addressed�the Board of Directors and expressed concern about the risky financial decisions that could put the entire organization at risk.� He suggested a solution that would get��70 percent of the perspective users of the BART system to the Milpitas Light Rail Transit (LRT) station at 5 percent of the projected cost of the BART system.��Mr. Means noted that the Sunnyhills Neighborhood Association in Milpitas has recently put up a full-scale model of what the Personal Rapid Transit (PRT).� The PRT is a small light-weight cab that is on an elevated guideway and would cost $10 million a mile for cars, stations and guideway.�

Andy Chow, Interested Citizen, addressed�the Board of Directors and thanked the Board of Directors for putting the dollar amount to save the bus service.� He expressed concern regarding the portion that would be spent for BART.�� Mr. Chow noted that he does not blame VTA for the bad economy, but indicated that the move would basically destroy the equity that was promised to the officials and the voters.

Eugene Bradley, Santa Clara VTA Riders Union, addressed�the Board of Directors and thanked the Board of Directors for considering requesting a report to release $80 million worth of bonds to prevent the proposed service cuts proposed for January 2004.� He noted taxpayers are concerned about the fact that $252 million will be proposed to be bonded towards rail capital projects, specifically, the BART extension.� Mr. Bradley noted that the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee indicated that money should not be borrowed towards capital projects unless there are operations funding to run the projects.� He expressed concern that 2000 Measure A appears to be tilted more towards San Jose and reminded the Board of Directors that this is the Valley Transportation Authority not San Jose City Lines.� Mr. Bradley noted that BART could wait and noted what is best for the economy is a strong and meaningful bus and light rail system.�

Bob Brownstein, Interested Citizen, addressed�the Board of Directors and noted he was in favor of the staff recommendation and in favor of the memo by five Board Members for the implementation of the measure.� He noted that he would agree that the language in the staff memorandum describing the meeting on� June 19, 2003, is not a full reflection of what happened at the meeting.� Mr. Brownstein noted that he was in attendance at the meeting and thought that it was absolutely a reasonable response to the tenure of the discussion at the meeting for staff to make an effort to see if staff could get financing for all of the measures that the Board discussed at the time.� He noted that the vote today is not a vote that says BART has to happen and nothing else in 2000 Measure A will happen.� The vote is part of an effort to try and take advantage of opportunities.

Margaret Okuzumi, Bay Rail Alliance, addressed�the Board of Directors and noted that the first responsibility of the Board is a fiduciary one.� She noted that the Board still has to address fundamental structural issues of how VTA is going to operate and maintain the system that VTA has now.� She noted that there are a lot of questions that need to be answered before committing VTA to be so indebted to jump-start the BART service.� She referred to the analysis conducted by County staff which showed that 2000 Measure A revenues would be reduced by at least $2 billion and should be considered when looking at how the bonding will affect VTAs ability to deliver projects.�

Zakhary Cribari, Interested Citizen, addressed�the Board of Directors and noted VTAs difficulty in managing finances.� He noted that current operating costs should always come first and that VTA needs to be stable in operating current services before adding services.�

Expressed concern that the staff report has not provided adequate information to be able to be confident that the vision set forth in the recommendation is sound.

Expressed concern regarding taking unnecessary risks by bonding for some of the future projects and noted�that time is needed to assess what has to be done.

Board Members Springer and Cortese left the meeting at 8:01 p.m.

  

CONSENT AGENDA

6.

Approved the Minutes of the Regular Board of Directors Meeting of June 5, 2003.

  
7.

Approved the Minutes of the Joint Meeting of VTA Board of Directors and�Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors of June 6, 2003.

  
8. Approved the�Minutes of the Special Board of Directors Meeting of June 19, 2003.
  
9.

Received and filed�the Meeting Record of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors Committee of the Whole Meeting (in lieu of Administration and Finance Committee Meeting) of July 17, 2003.

  
 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (COW)

10.

Approved the following re-appointments to the Citizens Advisory Committee with a term expiration of June 30, 2005: Ellen Fletcher representing the Bicycle Group (Community Interests), Mas Minami representing Senior Citizens (Community Interests), Connie Rogers representing South County Cities (City/County Grouping), Patricia Sausedo representing National Association of Industrial & Office Properties (Business and Labor), Martin B. Schulter representing Disabled Community (Community Interests), Diane Tripousis representing City of San Jose (City/County Grouping), and Sarah Zimmerman representing South Bay Labor Council (Business and Labor).

  
11.

Authorized the General Manager to extend the existing contract with Mercer Investment Consulting, Incorporated, to monitor Investment Managers performance, provide asset allocation studies and assist in Investment Manager searches for a period of three years for an amount not to exceed $225,000 with an option to extend for two years (one year at a time) at a negotiated amount.

  
12.

Authorizedthe General Manager to extend the existing contract with Union Bank�of California for Commercial Banking and Custodial Safekeeping Services for a period of five years for an amount not to exceed $815,000.

  
13.

Authorized the General Manager to execute an amendment to the contract with Jacobs Engineering, Inc., for Design Services During Construction in the amount of $99,900 for the North Division Construction Completion Project and authorized�payment of $212,000 for additional final design services for a total augmentation of $311,900 bringing the Board authorized Jacobs Engineering Inc. contract total to $2,645,937.

  
14.

Authorizedthe General Manager to amend the contract with URS Corporation for final design and design support during construction of the I-880/Coleman Avenue Interchange Project, increasing the approved contract by $800,000 for a new total contract value not to exceed $8,539,322.

  
15.

Authorized�the General Manager to amend the contract with Brian Kangas Foulk to include additional project scope for the final design of the Route 87 South HOV Lane Widening Project, increasing the existing contract by $651,800 for a new contract value not to exceed $8,570,743.

  
16.

Authorized�the General Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the County of Santa Clara, the City of San Jose, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District establishing the organizational framework�for the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan.

  
17.

Authorized the General Manager to increase the authorization for the two�task-order contracts for On-Call Biological Services by a total of $300,000 for a new combined value of $875,000.

  
18.

Authorized the General Manager to execute a service agreement with San Jose artist Diana Pumpelly Bates in the amount of $584,000 for design, fabrication and installation of CODE projects for the Vasona Light Rail Project.

  
19.

Authorized the General Manager to execute a contract with Sunnyvale Towing and Transportation, the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, for bus towing and recovery services.� The term of the contract is for one year with four one-year options at an estimated cost of $82,500 for the first year.� Options years two, three, four and five are estimated at $85,000, $87,500, $90,000 and $93,000 respectively.

  
20.

Adopted Resolution No. 03.08.11 modifying the existing VTA Permit Fee Schedule effective September 1, 2003 to fully recover VTA costs for issuing access and inspection permits to contractors working within VTA properties and facilities or within transit related improvements.

  
21.

Authorized the General Manager to amend the contract with Santa Clara Valley Highway Associates for Program Management and Construction Management services for the 1996 Measure B Transportation Improvement Program (MBTIP) increasing the contract value by $19,280,244 for a new total contract value not to exceed $74,657,723 and extending the contract term through December 2006.

  
22.

Adopted Resolution No. 03.08.12 to amend Section 2-76 of the VTA Administrative Code pertaining to post employment restrictions to permit former employees to work for VTA consultants and contractors under certain conditions.

  
23.

Adopted a support position for AB 839 (Salinas), which deals with public transit security recordings.

  
 

ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE COMMITTEE

 There were no items submitted for the Consent Agenda by the Administration and Finance Committee.
  
 

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND PLANNING COMMITTEE

 There were no items submitted for the Consent Agenda by the Congestion Management Program and Planning Committee.
  
 

TRANSIT PLANNING AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE

 There were no items submitted for the Consent Agenda by the Transit Planning and Operations Committee.
  
  
 Go to Top
  
  

REGULAR AGENDA

  
  
 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (COW)

See Agenda Item # 27. A

There were no items submitted for the Regular Agenda by the Board of Directors Committee of the Whole (COW).

  
 

ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT - See Agenda Item #27.B

 There were no items submitted for the Regular Agenda by the Administration and Finance Committee.
  
 

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND PLANNING COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT - See Agenda Item #27.C

 There were no items submitted for the Regular Agenda by the Congestion Management Program and Planning Committee.
  
 

TRANSIT PLANNING AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT - See Agenda Item #27.D

There were no items submitted for the Regular Agenda by the Transit Planning and Operations Committee.

Board Member Alvarado and Ex-Officio Board Member Beall left the meeting at 8:02 p.m.

Vice Chairperson Gage left his seat at 8:02 p.m.

  
  
 Go to Top
  
  

OTHER ITEMS

23.X.

Adopted Resolution No. 03.08.13 declaring and determining that public interest and necessity demand the immediate expenditure of public money to procure and install air conditioning equipment in an amount not to exceed $100,000 without requiring a competitive bid and finding that such a procurement is an emergency that will not permit a delay that would result from a competitive solicitation for bids.

Noted Duane Haugen, Interested Citizen, had requested to speak on the item, but had left the meeting.� �Noted that staff had answered his questions.

Vice Chairperson Gage took his seat at 8:05 p.m.

  
24. ITEMS OF CONCERN AND REFERRAL TO ADMINISTRATION

There were no Items of Concern and Referral to Administration.

  
25. LEGISLATIVE REPORT

Accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

  
26. REPORT FROM AD-HOC FINANCIAL STABILITY COMMITTEE

There was no report from the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee.

  
27. SUMMARY MINUTES FROM STANDING COMMITTEES

A.� Board of Directors Committee of the Whole

���� Accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

B. � Administration and Finance Committee

��� � Accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

C.� Congestion Management Program and Planning�Committee

����� Accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

D. Transit Planning and Operations Committee

������ Accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

  
28. REPORTS FROM ADVISORY COMMITTEES

A.Committee for Transit Accessibility (CTA)

�� �� Accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

B. �Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)

����� Accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

C.� Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)

����� Accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

D.Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

����� Accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

E.Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)

����� Accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

F. Community Design Enhancements Committee (CODE)

����� Accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

  
29. REPORTS FROM JOINT POWERS BOARDS (JPBs) & REGIONAL COMMISSIONS

Advised the Board Members that the Reports from the JPBs & Regional Commissions were placed in front of them on the dais.

A.� Peninsula Corridor JPB

B.��Capitol Corridor JPB

C.� Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)

  
30. REPORTS FROM VTA POLICY ADVISORY BOARDS (PABs)

Noted that there were no PAB Meetings held during the month of July 2003.

A.� Tasman/Capitol Light Rail PAB

B.� Vasona Light Rail PAB

C.� Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor PAB

D.� Caltrain PAB

E.� Downtown/East Valley PAB

F.� Highway PAB�- South

The Agenda was taken out of order.

  
29.

REPORTS FROM JOINT POWERS BOARDS (JPBs) & REGIONAL COMMISSIONS (Continued)

A.Peninsula Corridor JPB

B.��Capitol Corridor JPB

C.��Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)

Jerry Grace, Interested Citizen, addressed the Board of Directors and expressed concern regarding the change in location of the Caltrain Meeting held today. He queried about the outcome of the meeting.

Staff noted that Frank Sharpless, Transportation Policy & Program Manager, would provide Mr. Grace with information regarding the meeting.

Noted that the Caltrain Meeting scheduled next month would be held in�San Francisco at the Board of Supervisors.

  
31. REPORT FROM THE CHAIRPERSON

Appointed Board Members LaPoll, Pirzynski, Williams and Gage to the Ad-Hoc Committee to review the City of Milpitas restructuring proposal.�

Noted request for Board Member LaPoll to serve as Chairperson of the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee.

Noted that the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee would meet and report back at the November 7, 2003 Board of Directors Workshop.

Mr. Bradley addressed the Board of Directors and noted that ever since VTA first came into being in 1996, the Santa Clara VTA Riders Union has noticed there is a very serious lack of accountability.� �He noted that the Board Members are appointed by the City Councils and that taxpayers cannot run for the VTA Board nor can they recollect or recall who sits on the VTA Board.� �He noted that transit agencies in the Bay Area, such as BART and AC Transit currently enjoy Board Members that are directly elected from the public. �Mr. Bradley noted it should be common sense that if voters are going to approve taxes and bond measures that will basically build transit for the next 40 years that the voters should also select who gets to be responsible for that money. He requested that the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee amend the City of Milpitas proposal to reflect that Board Members are selected directly from the public.

  
32. REPORT FROM THE GENERAL MANAGER

There was no report from the General Manager.

  
33. ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no Announcements.

  
34. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

Lupe Medrano, San Jose State University Student, addressed the Board of Directors and expressed concern regarding being disabled and on a fixed income.� She challenged the Board of Directors to wake up tomorrow morning, get in a wheelchair or put on a blindfold, and go through their daily routine and take public transit.� Also, challenged the Board of Directors to get a piece of paper and pen and write $1,000, then deduct rent, food, bills, transportation, and other necessities.� Ms. Medrano noted that when looking at these numbers and the numbers the Board of Directors has to work with, ask yourselves, whose needs are being met; who is really hurting for money.

Mr. Cribari addressed�the Board of Directors and noted that based on the Board of Directors decision tonight to bring BART to San Jose, he feels that the Board of Directors did not thoroughly listen to the passengers.� He noted that he uses public transportation, because he cares about nature, pollution, and trying to show equality to people who are not as fortunate as he.

Mr. Grace addressed�the Board of Directors and noted he was pleased that MTC provided monies.� He referred to the Joint Meeting held between BART and VTA regarding bringing BART to San Jose and noted his support.

  
35.

CLOSED SESSION at 8:17 p.m.

Vice Chairperson Gage and Board Member Dando left the meeting at 8:20 p.m.

A.� Conference with Labor Negotiators

[Government Code Section 54957.6]

Employee Organizations:

County Employees Management Association (CEMA)

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 715

Transportation Authority Engineers and Architects (TAEA)

Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 265

VTA Designated Representatives:

Kaye L. Evleth, Chief Administrative Officer

Scott Buhrer, Chief Financial Officer

Robert Escobar, Manager, Office of Employee Relations

B. �Existing Litigation - Conference with Legal Counsel

[Government Code Section 54956.9(a)]

Name of Case: Homer J. Olsen v. VTA

(Santa Clara County Superior Court Lead Case No. CV785402, Consolidated Cases)

C.� Existing Litigation - Conference with Legal Counsel

[Government Code Section 54956.9(a)]

Name of Case: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority v. Sobrato, et al.�(Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV 809425--Complaint in Eminent Domain)

RECONVENED TO OPEN SESSION at 8:25 p.m.
  
36.

CLOSED SESSION REPORT

A.� Conference with Labor Negotiators

[Government Code Section 54957.6]

Employee Organizations:

County Employees Management Association (CEMA)

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 715

Transportation Authority Engineers and Architects (TAEA)

Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 265

VTA Designated Representatives:

Kaye L. Evleth, Chief Administrative Officer

Scott Buhrer, Chief Financial Officer

Robert Escobar, Manager, Office of Employee Relations

There was no reportable action taken during Closed Session.

B.� Existing Litigation�- Conference with Legal Counsel

[Government Code Section 54956.9(a)]

Name of Case: Homer J. Olsen v. VTA

(Santa Clara County Superior Court Lead Case No. CV785402, Consolidated Cases)

There was no reportable action taken during Closed Session.

C.  Existing Litigation - Conference with Legal Counsel

[Government Code Section 54956.9(a)]

Name of Case: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority v. Sobrato, et al.� (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV 809425--Complaint in Eminent Domain)

There was no reportable action taken during Closed Session.

  
37.

Authorized the General Manager to amend and extend the terms and conditions of a labor agreement negotiated between Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Transportation Authority Engineers and Architects Association (TAEA).

  
38.

ADJOURNED at 8:27 p.m.

  
  
 Go to Top