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

Board Minutes


BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

Thursday, December 4, 2003

Council Chambers
City of San Jose
801 North First Street
San Jose, California

1.

CALLED TO ORDER at 4:05 p.m.

  
2.

ADMINISTERED OATH OF OFFICE to interim appointee Board Member�Fred Fowler, City of Sunnyvale, representing Group 2.�

Noted that the City of Sunnyvale will make their permanent appointment in�January 2004.

Board Member Mossar took her seat at 4:06 p.m.

  
3.

ROLL CALL

Members Present:�� Beall (Ex-Officio), Chavez, Cortese, Dando, Dixon, Fowler, Gage, Gonzales, McHugh, McLemore, Mossar, Pirzynski, Williams

Members Absent: Alvarado, Kennedy, Yeager

  
4.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Advised the Board Members that there is an action item in Open Session immediately following Closed Session.

Accepted Orders of the Day.

  
5.

AWARDS AND COMMENDATIONS

A.� Employees of the Month for December 2003 and Supervisor of the Quarter

Presented awards to Duane Rhodes, Guadalupe Operations, and Susan Bennett, River Oaks Administration, as VTA Employees of the Month for December 2003, and Raul Quiroz as Supervisor of the Quarter.�Laura Fosselman, Chaboya Maintenance, was unable to attend.

B.� Adopted Resolution No. 03.12.17 for retiring employee, Harrison Smith,Transit Foreperson, for 34 years of service.

  

CONSENT AGENDA

Requested that the following Agenda Items be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda: �Item #8., Authorize the General Manager to submit Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2004 grant applications and execute grant agreements with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for the Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program, Section 5309 Fixed Guideway / New Rail Starts / Bus and Bus Facilities Programs, and Section 3037 Job Access and Reverse Commute Program and�Item #19., Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with Kingston Constructors, the lowest responsive bidder, in an amount of $3,149,450 for the fabrication, delivery, installation and testing of signal systems equipment for the Tamien to Lick Double Track Project.

Requested that the following Agenda Item be removed from the Regular Agenda and placed on the Consent Agenda: Item #22., Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with U.S. Traffic for supply and delivery of bus signal priority equipment for use in the Line 22 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project.� �(Item heard at TP&O�September 18, 2003 Meeting.)

  
6.

Approved the Minutes of the Regular Board of Directors Meeting of November 6, 2003.

  
7.

Approved the Minutes of the Board of Directors Workshop Meeting of November 7, 2003.

  
 

ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE COMMITTEE

8.

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

Authorize the General Manager to submit Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2004 grant applications and execute grant agreements with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for the Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program, Section 5309 Fixed Guideway / New Rail Starts / Bus and Bus Facilities Programs, and Section 3037 Job Access and Reverse Commute Program.

  
9.

Adopted Resolution Nos. 03.12.18 and 03.12.19 assuring local match for two Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) funded projects and authorized�the General Manager to execute associated contracts with MTC and the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the design and construction of the projects as follows: 1) San Fernando Station Plaza/Los Gatos Creek Trail Improvements ($885,000 grant award) and 2) River Oaks Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge ($1,000,000 grant award).

  
10.

Authorized the General Manager to execute an agreement to extend the BART Plus multi-agency ticket program in cooperation with BART and seven other Bay Area transit agencies.�

  
11.

Authorized the General Manager to extend the existing agreement with BKSH & Associates for federal legislative advocacy services for a period of two years in the amount of $402,000 for a new contract total of $1,955,000.� �From January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2004, the fixed retainer would be $16,500 per month.� From January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2005, the rate would be $17,000 per month.� �Further, authorized the General Manager, at his discretion, to extend this agreement after December 31, 2005, for two additional one-year periods at a fixed retainer rate to be negotiated, but which shall not exceed $17,500 per month for the first option and which shall not exceed $18,400 per month for the second option.

  
12.

Adopted a support position for AB 428 (Richman) Electric power: direct access,�AB 816 (Reyes) Electric power: direct access, and AB 1233 (Horton) Highway capacity enhancement projects.

  
13.

Adopted Resolution No. 03.12.20 amending Chapter 9 of the Administrative Code to add provisions relating to: 1) contracting services through sealed bidding; 2) contracting for incidental services; 3) utilization of tag-on procurements for services; and�4) execution of Cooperative Agreements with public agencies and public utilities.

  
 

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND PLANNING COMMITTEE

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

TRANSIT PLANNING AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE

14.

Authorized the General Manager to execute a contract with the lowest responsible bidder, Tron Construction, Inc., in the amount of $635,000, for construction of Noise Mitigation on the Vasona Light Rail Project.

  
15.

Authorized the General Manager to execute an amendment to the current contract with Orbital Sciences Corporation (Orbital) for the Advanced Communications System (ACS) to extend the term of the contract, at no additional cost, through December 31, 2005, as needed for project completion.

  
16.

Authorized the General Manager to execute a contract with San Jose Forklift (DBA Js Forklift), the lowest responsible and responsive bidder, for Floor Scrubbers and Vacuums preventive maintenance and repair at all VTA Maintenance Divisions.� �The term of the contract is for three years with two one-year options in the amount of $121,465 per year for the first three years and $126,548 per year for option years four and five.� The total amount of the contract including materials and parts is $617,491 for the five-year period.�

  
17.

Authorized the General Manager to execute a contract with Pacific Power Service Corporation for Emergency Generator, UPS (Uninterruptible Power Systems), and Switchgear preventive maintenance and repair at various VTA facilities.�The term of the contract is for three years with two one-year options in the amount of $166,534 for year one, $165,460 for year two, and $169,036 for year three.� Option year four is $173,132 and option year five is $174,328.� The total amount of the contract is $848,490 for the five-year period.

  
18.

Authorized the General Manager to execute a contract with Tri-City Maintenance, the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, for Janitorial Services and Supplies at VTA Operator facilities.� The term of the contract is for three years with two one-year options at a cost of $93,800 a year for each of the first three years.� Option years four and five are $96,464 and $99,208 respectively.� The total amount of the contract is $477,072 for the five-year period.

  
19.

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

Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with Kingston Constructors, the lowest responsive bidder, in an amount of $3,149,450 for the fabrication, delivery, installation and testing of signal systems equipment for the Tamien to Lick Double Track Project.

The Agenda was taken out of order.

  
22.

Authorized the General Manager to execute a contract with U.S. Traffic for supply and delivery of bus signal priority equipment for use in the Line 22 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project.� �(Item heard at TP&O September 18, 2003 Meeting.)

  
  
 Go to Top
  
  

REGULAR AGENDA

  
8.

Authorized the General Manager to submit Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2004 grant applications and execute grant agreements with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for the Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program, Section 5309 Fixed Guideway/New Rail Starts/Bus and Bus Facilities Programs, and Section 3037 Job Access and Reverse Commute Program.

Robert Means, Interested Citizen, addressed�the Board of Directors and directed attention to the handout entitled What transportation experts say about Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) is wrong and requested consideration of the PRT versus BART System.�

Ex-Officio Board Member Beall took his seat at 4:15 p.m.

Board Member Dando took her seat at 4:16 p.m.

CONSENT AGENDA

(continued)
  
9.

Adopt resolutions assuring local match for two Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) funded projects and authorize the General Manager to execute associated contracts with MTC and the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the design and construction of the projects as follows: 1) San Fernando Station Plaza/Los Gatos Creek Trail Improvements ($885,000 grant award) and 2) River Oaks Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge ($1,000,000 grant award).

Jerry Grace, Interested Citizen, addressed�the Board of Directors and noted that he did not wish to speak on Item #19, which was removed from the Consent Agenda.� He noted that he wanted to speak on Item #9.� He queried if MTC and VTA are working together.

REGULAR AGENDA

(continued)
  
19.

Authorized the General Manager to execute a contract with Kingston Constructors, the lowest responsive bidder, in an amount of $3,149,450 for the fabrication, delivery, installation and testing of signal systems equipment for the Tamien to Lick Double Track Project.

  
 

ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT - (See Agenda Item #28.A.)

20.

Adopted a Fare Policy, by Resolution No. 03.12.21, addressing both recovery ratio and pricing/structure goals for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.

Staff noted that the Congestion Management Program and Planning (CMPP) Committee at their November 20, 2003 Meeting, made a motion to recommend to the Administration and Finance (A&F) Committee that the Policy be modified to reflect that the youth fare should be 80-90 percent of the adult cash fare and that the senior and disabled should be 40-45 percent.� Staff noted it was reported to the A&F Committee and the Committee concurred and requested that staff reflect the change.� Staff noted the same sentiment was received from the Transit Planning and Operations (TP&O) Committee at their November 20, 2003 Meeting scheduled later in the afternoon.� Staff noted that the materials have all been modified to reflect the change and that the Policy before the Board has the adult cash fare as the base fare, the youth fares to be 80-90 percent and the senior and disabled to be 40-45 percent.

Directed attention to the VTA Fare Policy, Page 6 of 6, Item B. ADA Paratransit Service, and queried about the Board action taken on the Door-to-Door Surcharge listed under Fare Category.

Directed attention to the Attachment F Summary of VTA Transfer Arrangements with Adjoining and Overlapping Transit Operators, Rail Operators: Calrain, ACE, and BART and queried about the issue of cooperation between VTA and the Rail Operators.�

Commented that the VTA Fare Policy is the best document seen on the whole fare discussion.�

Acknowledged the willingness of VTA to continue to meet with San Jose State University.

Requested that as the fare discussion and fare policies come back to the Board that the information on the charts actually incorporate the numbers and percentages of people who fall under the particular categories.� Referred to the illustration about farebox recovery being an element of a three-legged stool and requested all three of those legs, at least at the beginning of the discussion, are presented in a way that makes it easy for the Board to understand their role and interdependency.

Directed attention to the VTA Fare Policy, Page 6 of 6, and queried about the distinction between the Companion and the Same Day Trip Companion.� Queried about the fare for a Personal Care Attendant.

Directed attention to the following wording contained on Page 6 of 6, under Requirements/Restrictions: A person, other than a Personal Care Attendant and queried if there is a distinction between Companion and Personal Care Attendant in the rate.

Lupe Medrano, Interested Citizen, addressed the Board of Directors and noted that she is a single, blind mother of two, and a student at San Jose State University.� �She strongly recommended that VTA and San Jose State University negotiate the ECO Pass and noted if the ECO Pass were lost, it would cause a hardship on herself and others who use paratransit to get their education.� �Ms. Medrano noted that she has heard that VTA and OUTREACH went above and beyond the ADA requirements to provide services for the disabled community.� She queried why was this done and why VTA and OUTREACH want to go back to just the ADA requirements.� �Ms. Medrano asked the Board of Directors about the impact.

Eyedin Zonobi, San Jose State Universitys Transportation Solutions, addressed the Board of Directors and noted that Transportation Solutions administers the Transit Access Program (TAP).� �He noted that TAPs future and contract with VTA is in jeopardy.� �Mr. Zonobi noted that Transportation Solutions has a meeting with VTA next week and asked that TAP be placed on the same fare structure as ECO Pass, $30 per person per year.

  
 

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND PLANNING COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT - (See Agenda Item #28.B.)

21.

Approved the 2003 Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program (CMP).

  
 

TRANSIT PLANNING AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT - (See Agenda Item #28.C.)

22.

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

Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with U.S. Traffic for supply and delivery of bus signal priority equipment for use in the Line 22 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project.� �(Item heard at TP&O September 18, 2003 Meeting.)

  
23.

Adopted on a vote of 11 ayes to 1 noe to 0 abstentions, the Service Management Plan and Resolution No. 03.12.22 formalizing the methods and procedures used to design, develop, evaluate and modify light rail and fixed route bus service, and to outline VTAs overall service management strategy.� �Member Mossar opposed.

Voiced non-support of the Service Management Plan.� Noted even though understands the importance of evaluating service and making sure that VTA is not spending money on services that are not important or productive, reads the document as a death knell for service in areas that are not central to the County.� Noted there is no planning in the document that underscores those facilities that need to be served, such as Stanford Hospital and the Veterans Administration Hospital.� Noted that both Stanford Hospital and the Veterans Administration Hospital are losing service and will continue to lose service, in fact almost have no service left.� Noted that this document means that over the years, Stanford Hospital and the Veterans Administration Hospital will never be served.� Noted before adopting the document, the� Board should really understand in a more global way what the base service for the whole County should be and it is from that base the services should be evaluated.

Noted does not think the Plan is effective and encouraged�other Board Members to think carefully about implications of adopting the Plan.

Queried about the frequency of evaluating the Plan in relationship to issues that may come up from smaller communities and how to make adjustments to allow or meet those needs.

Commented with regard to the Veterans Hospital that is in the north of the County, the Veterans Administration sent letters to VTA asking not for restoration of services cut, but preservation of existing service.� Commented does not think the Board ever saw copies of the letters.� Commented that Board Members are not given the opportunity to see what happens in outlined areas as services are cut.� �Commented that the Board is not given the opportunity to see that over time these routes that serve institutions like the Veterans Hospital are cut a little bit and a little bit more.� Noted either the Board has to in this action give very clear direction to staff that they want to know what the locals are asking for or the Board will not be able to have the flexibility to use these guidelines tothe best advantage of the whole County.

Eugene Bradley, Santa Clara VTA Riders Union, addressed the Board of Directors and noted that he is in agreement with Board Member Mossars comments regarding the fact that transit service, particularly in the northern and southern areas of the County, are slowly being reduced to zero.� He referred to the Fare Policy document and noted that information is missing regarding how much revenue San Francisco Muni generates from development fees.� Mr. Bradley noted that VTA has to have some flexibility in the Service Management Plan so that everyone benefits.�

Directed attention to the Service Management Plan, Page 4-2, 4-3, and 4-5 and noted that there is a plan for outreach.� Commented that the Plan was very good and noted that the Plan does codify a process for reaching out to people.

Directed attention to the Service Management Plan, Page 4-4, Section 4.2.1. Service Changes Requiring Formal Approval, the following statement contained in bullet�item #5 Proposed changes that are anticipated to be controversial.� Commented that the Board will receive notification and the staff would be more than happy to work with the Board.� Noted if gets to a point where elimination is proposed, would have to come to the full Board.

  
  
 Go to Top
  
  

OTHER ITEMS

24.

Supported the proposed Congestion Management Agency (CMA) Option for the discretionary revenue investment included in the Metropolitan Transportation Commissions 2005 Regional Transportation Plan, Transportation Plan 2030.

Queried if VTA received any response from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) on the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) Option.

Referred to a letter that the Board received today from Mr. Cipolla to a Mr. Heminger and queried if Mr. Cipolla could expand on what he is saying on Page 4, last paragraph.� Quoted the following statement from the paragraph: If a change in approach is not in MTCs future, then we would be compelled to recommend a change in role and approach for VTA to assure we have maximum local control.� Expressed support of statement, and queried if there is a realistic option.

Noted the aggressive position taken on the MTC to change some of its procedures and allow the CMAs a more active role.� Noted everyone is pretty much in agreement to change the process of the previous RTP of three years ago and MTC is favoring the option that mirrors very closely to what the CMAs want.� Referred to the letter to Mr. Heminger and noted as representatives for Santa Clara County, it was the understanding that the staff members of the MTC and VTA were already meeting to work out some of the issues.

Directed attention to Attachment A Transportation 2030 Plan Regional Program Investment Scenarios, and noted the opinion that somewhere between Option B and the CMA Option is where consensus of the Commission is going to end up.� Commented that there is some concern for Lifeline Transportation and Pedestrian/Bicycle issues.� Noted for two months at the Commission and the Planning Programming Committee Meetings, has been trying to instill in MTC and the other Commissioners the desire of Santa Clara County to have as much flexibility as possible with any funds due to the fiscal situation in Santa Clara County.� Noted if Board adopts the position, would ask to reinforce the issue of flexibility, so that we can locally try to use the resources wisely, but in light of our situation, to keep it flexible throughout the 30-year period of the plan.

Mr. Grace addressed the Board of Directors and noted he is an agreement with�Ex-Officio Board Member Bealls comments.� Referred to MTC Meeting held in�San Francisco and noted was a very good meeting.

Mr. Bradley addressed the Board of Directors and noted that there really needs to be some flexibility in the MTC 2030 Plan, because in a recession like this, the first thing that happens is service ends up being reduced.� �Meanwhile, we end up having to formulate some plan to go back to the polls to find out whether or not voters would want to continue to use a sales tax for service they cannot use, because it is simply too inconvenient to use in the first place.

Directed staff to draft a letter for Jane P. Kennedys signature as Chair of the Board on behalf of the Board of Directors, that VTA supports the regional Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs) position on County Investment Targets as part of MTCs Transportation 2030 Plan.

Requested that the statement of flexibility also be included in the letter.

  
25. ITEMS OF CONCERN AND REFERRAL TO ADMINISTRATION

A.������� �Inquiry from Santa Clara County Supervisor and VTA Alternate Board Member Pete McHugh requesting an oral status report on the reorganization of the Information Technology and Maintenance Departments.

Requested that staff provide current status of the reorganization plans and the concerns of the employees of the Information Technology Department and Transportation and Maintenance Division.

B.������� �Staff response to an inquiry dated November 20, 2003 from Santa Clara County Supervisor and VTA Alternate Board Member Pete McHugh requesting an oral status report on the reorganization of the Information Technology and Maintenance Departments.

Staff directed attention to staff response, dated December 2, 2003, and noted this stems from VTAs continuing efforts to review, revise, and trim down as much as possible within the organization and keep it a viable organization.� �Staff noted that over the past several weeks, VTA has been meeting, discussing, and conferring with Labor on all of the issues with regards to the reorganizations and restructures.� Staff noted as referenced in the memorandum, the results of this is several million dollars on an annualized basis that will eventually be realized by VTA which interprets into more service on the street.

Staff noted that as late as this afternoon, VTA has been able to resolve the issues with at least one of the organizations.� �Staff noted that there are still some questions with one of the other organizations, which may or may not be able to be resolved.

Thanked the staff for their response and their continued working with the concerned individuals.� �Noted that apparently there has been resolution reached with Local 715 on their issues.� Noted that there are still some issues apparently open with County Employees Management Association (CEMA), and queried if there were continuing discussions to attempt to resolve the issues.

Randy Johnese, Business Representative for CEMA, addressed�the Board of Directors and noted that they represent VTAs supervisory, administrative, and managerial workers.� He noted that CEMA has a 26-year history representing VTAs supervisors, administrators, and managers, which has been a business-like relationship for the most part until earlier this year when VTA embarked on a union-busting course.� Mr. Johnese noted that since last spring, VTA made three attempts to strip most of its supervisors, administrators, and managers of their right to representation.� He noted that three times the State Department of Industrial Relations rejected VTAs attempt, VTA Executive Managers intend to persist on this union-busting course.� He noted that CEMAs contract expired last June, but to this day, VTA refuses to bargain over a successor agreement, and now we are presented with this so-called reorganization, which is like calling Jack the Ripper a surgeon.� Mr. Johnese noted that VTA proposes to lay-off two-thirds of the Information Systems supervisors while creating a new classification with nearly identical job specifications.� The only reasonable assumption is that their intention is to avoid the seniority lay-off provisions of our contract.� He noted that VTA shared a study with CEMA that indicates VTA is understaffed with maintenance supervisors, and in the same breath, they tell us that they are laying off almost half of the maintenance supervisors.� He noted that there have been no ongoing discussions with CEMA and that the majority of cuts in the reorganization are amongst CEMA represented employees.

Board Member Mossar left the meeting at 5:11 p.m.

Allen Wheeler, Member of Advisory Council of CEMA, addressed�the Board of Directors and expressed appreciation and commendation for the majority of the most distressing issues being addressed in the recent agreements between�Local 715 and Management.� He noted that this does not mean that there is not more work to be done, noting that there is a significant impact to CEMA represented employees that are not being addressed in an appropriate manner.� Mr. Wheeler noted that he is hoping that the issues of seniority layoff provisions will be taken under consideration as well as an examination of some rationale that describes how the work will be done in the future under a stripped down organization in IT.

Marilynn Smith, SEIU, Local 715 Chapter Chair for VTA, addressed�the Board of Directors and thanked the Board of Directors and VTA Management for working with the Central Labor Council and with Local 715 and for listening to concerns regarding the upcoming layoffs and reorganizations.� She noted that at about noon today, we were able to iron out a compromised agreement that meets our needs and I believe meets Managements needs.� She noted that Local 715s position is that with the compromise in place we are going to be able to live with the terms of the reorganization.� Ms. Smith noted that we know that VTA Management and the Board are under great pressure to implement efficiencies, and while we do not like layoffs, we understand the necessity to streamline operations, especially in these hard times.� She noted that the only issue outstanding in concern with CEMA, is the issue of implementing single highest year.� She noted that we are still hoping for a speedy resolution to that problem, so that people who are contemplating retirement can take advantage of the benefit that we negotiated in good faith last May.

Tom Starkey, CEMA Business Representative, addressed�the Board of Directors and noted he is trying to get focused with the concerns CEMA Members had around the IT Supervisor and the need to create a new classification.� He noted it is CEMAs hope that they can use the existing classification and thereby use their seniority to eliminate the least three.� Mr. Starkey noted that in Maintenance, 8 of 18 supervisors are being eliminated and the concern is the span of control that will be left with those roughly 10 remaining supervisors.� He asked the Board to consider putting off the decision for 90 days, so that we could talk about how to deal with our span of control issues and deal with the issue of our IT Supervisor using that class instead of the new class.

Barbara Williams, Worksite Organizer for Local 715, addressed�the Board of Directors and echoed Ms. Smith comments.� She noted that Local 715 and CEMA Members met with some of the Board Members individually and thanked the Board Members for the time that they spent meeting with Local 715 and CEMA Members.� Ms. Williams noted that she also looks forward to the resolution of single highest year, noting that it was ratified in the contract.

Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, Labor Council, addressed�the Board of Directors and recognized VTA staff and Board of Directors for really trying to reach a compromise today in the Technology Department.� She noted that the Labor Movement has really tried to work with Local 715 and the affiliates at VTA to be able to identify cost savings while being able to maximize services to the people that use VTA services and is very concerned about what is happening right now.� She noted concerns from the Labor Council perspective and when we ask people to take leadership and take concessions, there is a couple of things they get.� When that agreement is not honored it makes it problematic for us and it makes it more problematic for the additional unions that are beginning to open contract negotiations.� Ms. Ellis-Lamkins noted that essentially Local 715 said, we are going to pay more for our medical benefits, we are going to not take a raise, but in turn we are going to get what is called last best year for CALPERS.� CALPERS requires that if one administrative group gets it, everyone gets it.� She noted that at the same time there has been this case that is essentially before the Department of Industrial Relations, which says all those folks in the management unit should not be there.� She noted that a couple of weeks ago VTA lost and the Department of Industrial Relations Hearing Officer said, no you are wrong, you really should not be breaking that unit apart.� She noted that the consequence is that Local 715 who agreed to concessions is not getting the benefits, because all folks have to get it.� The Department of Industrial Relations reclassification is being used to stop Local 715s administrative benefits.

Queried about the timing issue and queried�if staff would continue to work with CEMA.

  
26.

LEGISLATIVE REPORT

Accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

  
27.

REPORT FROM AD-HOC RESTRUCTURING PROPOSAL COMMITTEE

Heard a report that the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee met on Wednesday, November 19, 2003, and reported the following:

1)���Board of Directors Composition:

It is the general consensus of the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee having taking testimony, particularly from Vice Mayor Dixon of Milpitas, that in understanding some of the needs to better reshape communication within the Board, that at this time, the Committee does not see it necessary to change in a wholesale manner, the nature of the Boards composition.� �However, particularly noted, is that the Committee would not want to do anything that would require legislative action.� The Committee continues to review the restructuring proposals that are in front of them in a general context.�

2)��City Groupings:

Staff has been instructed to meet with current city grouping members for input and possible changes in current city groupings.� �There seems to be some possibility of our making some alterations within the city groupings themselves to facilitate better communications.

There seems to be a greater need for the city groupings themselves to interact and dialogue and methodologies are in front of the staff to accomplish this.

3)���Alternates to the Board of Directors:

The issue of Alternates has been raised as a significant issue.� �There are some legal ramifications to Alternates speaking in front of the Board, which will be dealt with in terms of further study.� But the question is, could each of the cities represented in our Agency have Alternates at the meetings and that is certainly something that is being looked into.

4)��Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)

Currently, the methods that PAC engages in when it is giving advisement to the Board is under study for purposes of returning to the original intent of the PAC when the Board was formed initially.� �And that is to be a much more aggressive and much more intense discussion of policy prior to the Board.� And because of that, the PAC is going to take up this issue in greater depth at its next meeting.

The end result of all of this is that there is much in front of staff at this point to be dealt with, so the Committee is recommending that we return in March 2003 after staff has had the chance to evolve each of these issues, after having city groupings discussion, have a better indication of where the entire set of 15 cities and towns in the County is moving, including the County.

At that time, the Committee intends to draft recommendations, discuss, and receive comment, particularly input from PAC, and submit a set of recommendations to the Board probably in mid to late Spring 2004.

Mr. Bradley addressed�the Board of Directors and queried if the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee would be meeting in March instead of January 2004.� Queried about the date of the meeting and where to submit materials to be given to Committee.

  
28.

SUMMARY MINUTES FROM STANDING COMMITTEES

A.��� Administration and Finance Committee

Accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

B.��� Congestion Management Program and Planning Committee

Accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

C.��� Transit Planning and Operations Committee

Accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

Board Member Gonzales left the meeting at 5:26 p.m.

  
29.

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.

  
30.

REPORTS FROM JOINT POWERS BOARDS (JPBs) & REGIONAL COMMISSIONS

Received and filed reports from the Joint Powers Boards (JPBs) & Regional Commissions.

A.��������������� Peninsula Corridor JPB

B.��������������� Capitol Corridor JPB

C.����������� �Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)

  
31.

REPORTS FROM VTA POLICY ADVISORY BOARDS (PABs)

A.��������������� Tasman/Capitol Light Rail PAB

Accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

B.��������������� Vasona Light Rail PAB

Accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

C.��������������� Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor PAB

There was no report on the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor PAB.

D.��������������� Caltrain PAB

There was no report on the Caltrain PAB.

E.���������������� Downtown/East Valley PAB

Accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

F.����������� �Highway PAB South

Accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

  
32.

REPORT FROM THE CHAIRPERSON

There was no report from the Chairperson.

Appoint a Board Member to the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee replacing departing Board Member Francis La Poll.�

There was no action taken on this item.

  
33.

REPORT FROM THE GENERAL MANAGER

There was no report from the General Manager.

  
34.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no Announcements.

  
35.

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

James Wightman, Interested Citizen, addressed�the Board of Directors and queried about getting a VTA Map for the Downtown Center for the first month of year.

Mr. Grace commented�on the location of the meeting.

Bruce Stevens, VTA Employee, addressed�the Board of Directors and noted that as the Sheriffs disappear from the organization there is a public safety issue.� He noted at the Safety Committee Level, we have been trying to get information as to how VTA is going to fill the gap as the Sheriff disappears.� He expressed concern that there is no real plan as the Sheriff is exited and there does not seem to be any movement towards a solution to the problem.

  
36.

CLOSED SESSION at 5:31 p.m.

Board Member Dando left the meeting at 5:55 p.m.

A.����������� �Existing Litigation - Conference with Legal Counsel

[Government Code Section 54956.9(a)]

1. Name of Case: VTA v. The Pond House I LLC, et al.

(Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. CV 810066--Eminent Domain)

2.����������� �Name of Case: Homer J. Olsen v. VTA

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

3. Name of Case: County Employees Management Association (CEMA) v. VTA, et al.

(Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. CV 006 149)

4. Name of Case: In the Matter of a Controversy Between VTA, Employer, CEMA, Incumbent Union, and AFSME, Petitioner

(before the State Department of Industrial Relations, no assigned case number)

B.����������� �Conference with Labor Negotiators

[Government Code Section 54957.6]

Employee Organizations:

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

C.����������� �Public Employee Performance Evaluation

[Government Code Section 54957]

Title: General Manager

Title:�General Counsel

RECONVENED TO OPEN SESSION at 6:18 p.m.
  
37.

CLOSED SESSION REPORT

A.����������� �Existing Litigation - Conference with Legal Counsel

[Government Code Section 54956.9(a)]

1. Name of Case: VTA v. The Pond House I LLC, et al.

(Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. CV 810066--Eminent Domain)

There was no reportable action taken during Closed Session.

2.����������� �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.

3. Name of Case: County Employees Management Association (CEMA) v. VTA, et al.

(Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. CV 006 149)

There was no reportable action taken during Closed Session.

4. Name of Case: In the Matter of a Controversy Between VTA, Employer, CEMA, Incumbent Union, and AFSME, Petitioner

(before the State Department of Industrial Relations, no assigned case number)

There was no reportable action taken during Closed Session.

B.����������� �Conferencewith Labor Negotiators

[Government Code Section 54957.6]

Employee Organizations:

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.

C.����������� �Public Employee Performance Evaluation

[Government Code Section 54957]

Title: General Manager

Title:�General Counsel

There was no reportable action taken during Closed Session.

  
38.

Considered 2004 Compensation Recommendations for VTA General Manager and VTA General Counsel.

Noted in light of VTAs financial situation, the Board of Directors is recommending the previously approved 7.5 percent market rate adjustment to the General Managers salary continue to be deferred.� �The Evaluation Committee will reconvene prior to April 30, 2004, to determine the appropriateness of implementing the previously approved adjustment and any additional compensation adjustments at that time.

Noted in light of VTAs financial situation, the Board of Directors is recommending the previously approved 7.5 percent market rate adjustment to the General Counsels salary continue to be deferred.� The Evaluation Committee will reconvene prior to�April 30, 2004, to determine the appropriateness of implementing the previously approved adjustment and any additional compensation adjustments at that time.

Mr. Bradley addressed�the Board of Directors and noted that there was never any information received in the Board packet regarding the final recommendation as to whether or not the salary adjustments for the General Manager as well as the Legal Counsel were to be considered.� He noted that he preferred that their salary adjustments be deferred again, because there is no money in the state.� Mr. Bradley noted that it makes no sense from a tax payers perspective, why the General Manager gets a pay raise, market rate adjustment or not, when fares are about to be raised.� He asked that the Board defer the salary until such time as the economy gets better as well as the quality of transit in the County.

Mr. Starkey withdrew�his request to speak.

  
39.

ADJOURNED at 6:21 p.m.

  
  
 Go to Top