Related Links

1.CALLED TO ORDER

The Workshop Meeting of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) Board of Directors was called to order by Chairperson Pirzynski at 8:34 a.m., Hyatt     San Jose, Mediterranean Center, 1740 North First Street, San Jose, California.

ROLL CALL            

Members Present                       Members Absent
Jim Beall, Ex-Officio                       Nora Campos                                                           Cindy Chavez                                David Casas
David Cortese                               Dean Chu
Don Gage
Ron Gonzales
Liz Kniss
Bob Livengood
Jamie Matthews
John McLemore, Ex-Officio
Joe Pirzynski, Chairperson
Forrest Williams

Alternates Present                      Alternates Absent
Dennis Kennedy                            Pete McHugh
Breene Kerr                                  Dolly Sandoval
                                                     Ken Yeager

             * Alternates do not serve unless participating as a Member.

A quorum was present.

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

Ralph Rapp, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 715, noted that     Local 715 is in the process of salary negotiations and has been offered 1.5 percent by Management.  Mr. Rapp expressed concern that the amount is inconsiderate and unfair as VTA pays below average compared to other cities.

ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION at 8:39 a.m.

Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 54957.6]

Employee Organizations:

VTA Designated Representatives:

Ex-Officio Board Member McLemore arrived at the meeting and entered Closed Session at 8:44 a.m.
Board Member Cortese arrived at the meeting and entered Closed Session at 8:45 a.m.
Alternate Board Member Kennedy arrived at the meeting and entered Closed Session at 8:51 a.m.
Board Member Chavez arrived at the meeting and entered Closed Session at 8:53 a.m.

RECONVENED TO OPEN SESSION at 8:56 a.m.

Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 54957.6]

Employee Organizations:

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 715
Transportation Authority Engineers and Architects (TAEA)

VTA Designated Representatives:

Kaye L. Evleth, Chief Administrative Officer
Robert Escobar, Manager, Office of Employee Relations

There was no reportable action taken during Closed Session.

Service Management Plan Fiscal Years 2006/07

Matthew O. Tucker, Chief Operations Officer, presented the Service Management Plan (Plan) and highlighted key findings and recommendations of the Plan.   The Plan was formally adopted by the Board in December 2003 and is directly tied to the current FY 2006-07 Budget.  The Plan is divided into two phases:  Phase 1 is the Plan presented today which contains performance evaluations, recommendations, and outline of future activities; Phase 2 is where the final service package is developed and implemented.                     

The Plan provides a background on VTA’s operating environment.   VTA’s service area is large, lacks higher density residential and commercial development, has improved travel conditions, and experienced severe economic downturn.   This environment therefore affects route performance.  Routes are classified into three categories (primary routes, secondary grid routes, and feeder routes) and routes that are performing 75 percent below the average of its category is considered underutilized.  In addition, a minimum standard of 15 boardings per hour also evaluates route performance.  Staff will look at marketing activities and other strategies to improve underutilized services, conduct service modifications, and reallocate resources, when necessary.  The implementation of the service modifications is scheduled for January 2006.

Member Kniss took her seat at 9:02 a.m.

The Plan provides recommendations for paratransit service.   Specific recommendations include deferral of the following:  curb-to-curb service, trip-by-trip eligibility, out-of area surcharge, and fixed route feeder service.  Fixed route travel education program implementation, review of contract model, and review of the eligibility process are also recommended in the Plan.

The Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA) will be conducted starting Fall 2005 to determine the best cost efficient and cost effective methods to improve and expand public transportation service.   The key elements of the COA are market segmentation analysis, development of service delivery alternatives, extensive public input, and Board Review and adoption of the Plan.         

Mr. Tucker reported that the Vasona Light Rail would be operational in August 2005.   He also reported that the New Rapid Line 522 replaces Limited Line 300.  The rapid line will have a branding package, signal prioritization, and reallocation of resources.  The rapid line will continue to evolve as funding sources become available. 

Upon query of Alternate Member Kerr, Bill Capps, Service Operations and Planning Manager, stated that the rapid line would save about 30 minutes of travel time from Palo Alto to San Jose.

Board Member Livengood inquired whether the route standards discussed are national standards.   Mr. Tucker stated that the standards discussed are specifically designed and adopted by the Board for VTA. 

Board Member Livengood inquired if there is a location pattern for low performing routes.   Mr. Tucker responded that bus ridership is consistently down across the board however; low performing feeder routes are serving the South County. 

Board Member Chavez inquired about the role of Fare Policy in the Service Management Plan.  She commented that the Fare Policy should be more flexible and connected to technology.  Mr. Tucker responded that the COA would examine all aspects including the technology piece.

Board Member Williams inquired about an analysis of a possible rapid light rail.  Mr. Tucker stated that rapid light rail has some limitations and could be expensive.  However, it will be part of the COA and could certainly be put on the table for discussion.

Greg Perry, Mountain View Council Member and VTA Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Member, noted that the Service Management Plan should include a standard for evaluation for the new community shuttles.   Mr. Perry commented that there should be a single standard for all routes.  Mr. Tucker responded that routes are evaluated based on intent of why the route is implemented and not on single standard.

On order of Chairperson Pirzynski, there being no objection, the Proposed Service Management Plan was reviewed.

Recommended Biennial Budget for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007

Alternate Board Member Kerr left his seat at 9:19 a.m.

Peter M. Cipolla, General Manager, provided a brief introduction and highlighted that VTA was able to effectively face the three straight years of financial crisis.    He noted that VTA and its employees worked together to prevent the need to bond from the Measure A Program.  The budget is designed to maximize cost efficiencies and streamlining will be continued.  The budget was developed with a primary goal of presenting a fiscally sound plan that has flexibility to adjust to a variety of conditions.  Some monies have already been reinvested in reserves, reserve ratios are increasing, and VTA is beginning to reinvest in capital projects. However, VTA must still have a significant or permanent additional major revenue source for the organization to support the current system and the enhancements the community is looking for.  Mr. Cipolla mentioned that the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) would hold its 2006 National Annual Conference in Santa Clara County and VTA will be able to showcase the entire system. 

Alternate Board Member Kerr took his seat at 9:20 a.m.

Board Member Gage inquired if there are plans to use the $80 million bond. Roger Contreras, Chief Financial Officer, responded that it is not necessary to advance those funds from Measure A.

Mr. Contreras presented a PowerPoint presentation entitled Recommended Biennial Budget Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007.   VTA’s accomplishments include elimination of the potential 21 percent service cut, the non-use of the $80 million bonding authority, and replenishment of reserves.  These accomplishments could be attributed to labor contracts, service and staff reductions, improved productivity and efficiency, development of fare policy, fare increases, reduction of capital projects, and re-organization of major programs and functions including a transitional work program for Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU).   However, VTA still faces the challenges of striving to be more efficient with the least impact to customers.  

Mr. Contreras directed attention to Sources and Uses of Funds and highlighted that the total operating expenses for the next two fiscal years are less than the approved FY 2005 budget.   The Budget also forecasts an increased operating reserve percentage of 14.4 percent for FY 2006 and 14.9 percent FY 2007.  These percentages are anticipated but may slightly change by June 2005, when the final Budget will be adopted.

The only change anticipated for the Budget Assumptions is the volatile fuel costs.   Because of this, the operating budget may increase about $500,000 for each fiscal year at the final submission of the Budget.  Mr. Contreras noted that the fuel increase and the     $1 million increase in pension fund contribution for ATU Members would have an impact on the reserves.

Mr. Contreras stated that VTA is projecting a conservative increase of 4.8 percent sales tax revenue compared to the 5.75 percent increase projected by the 15 cities in Santa Clara County.  Staff is projecting Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues of $71 and $73.4 million for 2006 and 2007 respectively, $36.7 and $36.9 million for fare revenues, and $33.4 and $34.5 million for federal Operating Grants. 

On expenses, wages and benefits take a big share of the budget with 71 percent for FY 2006 and 68 percent for FY 2007.   Mr. Contreras explained that this is still below the industry standards based on the findings of the 2004 University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Study on labor and transit industry where 75 percent of the cost is attributed to labor.  Other expenses are the Debt Service (7 percent for both 2006 and 2007), Contracted Services (14 percent for both 2006 and 2007), and Miscellaneous expenses (8 percent for 2006 and 11 percent for 2007).           

Each division’s budget was presented.   The Office of the General Manager sees a budget decrease of $200,000 and $100,000 for 2006 and 2007, respectively.   Goals of this division include hosting the APTA 2006 Annual Conference and the VTA Performance Report.  There are no significant budget changes recommended for this division.

The Office of the General Counsel has a slight increase of $100,000 from the previous fiscal year.   Mr. Contreras explained that this change is attributed to increases in fringe benefits.  There are no significant budget changes recommended for this division.

Board Member Livengood left his seat at 9:35 a.m.

Board Member Livengood took his seat at 9:36 a.m.

Mr. Contreras moved to the Fiscal Resources Division, noting several accomplishments such as complex financing transactions, investment earnings, implementation of the first Biennial Budget, and the Fare Policy.   The Division strives to remarket Measure A Bonds, evaluate potential pension obligation bonds, fund accounting conversion, conduct annual vendor fair, compliance review plan, and to automate the budget system.  The division plans to streamline business processes and reduce professional and special services.  Mr. Contreras added there would be additional reduction in staff.

Kaye Evleth, Chief Administration Officer, presented the Administrative Services Division Budget and noted its accomplishments such as the restructuring of the Technology Department, development of service delivery model, Technology Strategic Plan/Capital Investment Program, reduction of staffing, and reduction of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Complaints by 50 percent.   Goals are to upgrade SAP, provide real-time customer information, negotiate new labor contracts with Local 715 and Transportation Authority Engineers & Architects Association (TAEA), and update the Affirmative Action Plan (AAP)/EEO program.   There are no significant changes recommended for this division.

Board Members Cortese and Kniss left their seats at 9:38 a.m.

Jack Collins, Chief Construction Officer, presented the Construction Division budget and highlighted that the Division has experienced a decline in budget due to construction projects completion of 1996 Measure B Program.   The completed projects are: Tasman East/Capitol Light Rail Project, 85/101 South Interchange, 237/880 Interchange,  85/87 Landscaping, Phase 1 of Light Rail Station Platform Modification, Cerone Operations and repair, Zero Emission Bus (ZEB), and New Road Call Facilities.  The objective for the next two years are to open the Vasona Light Rail, complete Preliminary Engineering (PE) for Silicon Valley Rapid Transit, Capitol Expressway Light Rail Project, Coleman/880 Interchange, 85/101 (North) Interchange, 85 Noise Mitigation, 17 Auxiliary Lanes from Hamilton to Camden, and Closeout Plan for the 1996 Measure B Projects.  The major budget changes are related to staffing reductions due to the completion of the 1996 Measure B Program projects.

Ex-Officio Board Member Beall took his seat at 9:41 a.m.

Board Member Cortese took his seat at 9:41 a.m.

Board Member Matthews left his seat at 9:41 a.m.

Board Member Gage inquired about staff reductions.   Mr. Collins replied that staff reductions would mainly be VTA employees, specifically, construction inspectors and engineering staff. 

Board Member Gage suggested presenting to the Board how goals are measured over the next two fiscal years. 

Board Member Matthews took his seat at 9:44 a.m.           

Carolyn Gonot, Chief Development Officer, reviewed the Development & Congestion Management Division Budget.   The accomplishments of the Division are:  Conceptual Highway Engineering Studies, Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2030, I-680/I-880 Cross-Connector Studies, Countywide Transportation Model Update, Completion of the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP), Secured Federal Grants, Final Environmental Report for the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit (SVRT), and Joint Development Program.  This Division aims to complete the 2005 Congestion Management Program, 2006 State Transportation Improvement (STP) Program, Agreements with different agencies, Economic Impact Analysis for BART, Transit Capital Expansion Policy and New Corridor Study, High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes Feasibility and PE, Property Acquisition Policy, Strategic Marketing Plan, and several Comprehensive Promotional Campaigns.  The major budget changes for this division include an establishment of Joint Development Program and Increased Ridership Marketing Campaigns. 

Board Member Kniss took her seat at 9:47 a.m.

Board Member Gage left his seat at 9:49 a.m.

Mr. Tucker reviewed the budget of the Operations Division.   The accomplishments include service performance improvements, productivity improvements, increased light rail ridership, ZEB Pilot Program implementation, and Service Management Plan.   For the next two fiscal years, the Operations Division plans to conduct the COA, implement the Community and Enhanced Bus, and open the Vasona Light Rail.  The major budget changes include productivity improvement plan, security services contract, paratransit contract, and diesel fuel cost increases.

Board Member Gage took his seat at 9:55 a.m.

Alternate Board Member Kennedy congratulated VTA staff for their accomplishments. 

Alternate Board Member Kerr inquired about the goals and the cost associated with the Strategic Marketing Plan.   Ms. Gonot responded that the Strategic Marketing Plan Draft is still being developed. It will essentially review in-house marketing efforts, measure effectiveness of campaign, and determine which type of services should be contracted out.           

Ex-Officio Board Member Beall and Board Member Kniss left their seats at 9:58 a.m.

Mr. Collins reviewed the Capital Budgets and stated that new projects include Caltrain Capital Contribution, Information System Communications & Technology, Operating Equipment, Operating Facilities, Passenger Facilities Expansion, and Revenue Vehicles and Equipment.   The total cost of all projects is approximately $28.7 million for 2006 and $27.8 million for 2007.  With grant funding and Measure A, total net to VTA is $9.5 million for 2006 and $8.7 million for 2007.

Ex-Officio Board Member Beall took his seat at 10:01 a.m.

Upon query of Board Member Williams, Mr. Collins explained that cost increase for Technology is due to the upgrade of the SAP Enterprise System and the installation of the Budget Module.   The implementation of these technologies will maintain the enterprise system and provide more efficiency.

Board Member Gage left his seat at 10:02 a.m.

Board Member Kniss took her seat at 10:03 a.m.

Alternate Board Member Kennedy inquired about the relationship of Capital Budget to the Transit Capital Improvement Plan (TCIP).   Mr. Collins responded that that all of the projects are included in the TCIP. 

Board Member Gage took his seat at 10:05 a.m.

Mr. Collins also discussed the carryover projects for the Capital Budget and noted that most of these projects are almost complete.   These projects are carried over to this budget because there are still expenditures and grants for projects are not closed out. 

Mr. Contreras stated that the budget would be presented and discussed at several Community Meetings throughout the County.   The Biennial Budget will also be discussed at VTA Advisory and Standing Committees in May 2005.  VTA Board of Directors’ adoption of the final Budget is scheduled on June 2, 2005.

Board Member Gonzales commented that the presentation was good and referred to     Slide #5, Revenue, Sales Tax, and requested clarification on the numbers.  Mr. Contreras explained that the yellow bars represent the 1976 ½ cent operating sales tax and the green bars represent the 18.4 percent of the 2000 Measure A or the operating share. 

Philip Bumb, South Bay Labor Council, stated that paratransit needs should be addressed by Measure A funds in the budget.   

Mr. Perry acknowledged the accomplishments of VTA.   He expressed concern that the overall cost for buses and light rail is escalating faster than inflation.  He further expressed concern that the administration’s costs are extremely high and noted that labor contracts are detrimental to VTA. 

Board Member Cortese referred to Slide #14, and inquired about the flexibility of the Service Management Plan and the Budget for unforeseen needs.   Mr. Tucker replied that unforeseen needs are examined on a case-by-case basis and staff responds as quickly as possible.

Board Member Cortese inquired about the security services contract.   Mr. Tucker explained that the overall strategy is to ensure that the level of service is consistent with VTA’s needs.  Staff is currently gathering information from different cities to compare how well VTA’s budget measures up. 

Alternate Board Member Kennedy referred to Slide #5, Revenue, Sales Tax, and inquired about the basis for the 18.4 percent and if this could be changed.   He referred to the correspondence from VTA that states a $1.61 billion earmarked for operating assistance and the $1.824 billion operating assistance in the TCIP.  He also inquired about the assumptions used in the TCIP for Measure A and queried if there is flexibility in designating Measure A funds for operating assistance. 

Mr. Cipolla stated that the 18.4 percent was derived from the original Measure A program when the Board adopted the VTP 2020.   Mr. Cipolla stated that the Board could opt to change the percentage but cautioned that this percentage has also been carried forward to the adopted VTP 2030.  The $1.824 billion in the TCIP refers to the escalation of $1.1 billion in the year received.

Board Member Kniss inquired whether the Board has ever had an open discussion about the possibility of changing the 18.4 percent to obtain more revenues.   Mr. Cipolla stated that the Board has not discussed that possibility.

Board Member Kniss inquired about the base salary and benefit package of VTA drivers and mechanics.   Board Member Kniss stated that the County usually adds about 1/3 as benefit packages to employees.  Mr. Contreras responded that VTA’s percentage range is in the high 60’s.

Board Member Gage inquired if there are mechanisms to accommodate customers who need special services.   Mr. Tucker responded that customers who want changes could call VTA Customer Service Department or the Service Planning and Operations Department.  Board Member Gage suggested that the contact number should always be listed so that people would be aware whom to contact. 

Board Member Chavez referred to Board Member Kniss’ inquiry and requested clarification. 

Mr. Cipolla stated that the benefit package includes health benefits, pension benefits, FICA, insurance, and others.   Mr. Cipolla noted that the range for most public sectors is between 50 to 70 percent over the hourly rate. 

Board Member Chavez stated that it is important to get factual information and suggested examining the base pay and benefit package of the County and other cities to get a good comparison to VTA’s.   Board Member Chavez expressed concern that in her opinion and based on VTA’s community, the wages are not outrageous.

Board Member Chavez suggested that the operation’s goal include a closer examination of the farebox strategy, technology, and how to be more flexible.   Board Member Chavez thanked staff for the memorandum entitled Responses to Budget Questions.  She referred Page 3 of #7, and stated that one of the VTA’s challenges is having so many types of transit embedded in the system and as a result, the farebox recovery ratios look different.  She noted that goals and benchmarks related to the actual type of transit should be looked at to become more strategic.

Board Member Kniss left her seat at 10:33 a.m.

Alternate Board Member Kerr highlighted Board Member Kniss’ comments on the operating portion of the Measure A funds and stated that the Board must be aware that it could be changed.   He stressed the importance of operating all the capital equipment and determining the best mix of future operating and capital budgets to better serve the public.

Chairperson Pirzynski thanked staff for the presentation. 

Board Member Kniss took her seat at 10:34 a.m.

On order of Chairperson Pirzynski, there being no objection, the Board reviewed the Recommended Biennial Budget for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007.

Draft Long-Term Transit Capital Investment Program

Staff distributed Exhibit A: Summary of Two Scenarios Modified from October 2004 Workshop Materials. 

Ms. Gonot provided an update regarding the comments and responses gathered from cities, the County, other agencies, and stakeholders.   Ms. Gonot stated that there was no strong countywide support for the ½ cent sales tax to fund local transportation projects.   The Town of Los Gatos and City of Gilroy expressed their concern on rising sales tax higher than the neighboring cities and this may push the retail sales outside of the County.  Some jurisdictions were interested in evaluating the ¼ cent sales tax scenario as the Silicon Valley Leadership Group’s poll states that voters would most likely approve a      ¼ cent sales tax.  There were also some concerns about the viability of federal and state funding.  Lastly, overall there was continued support for the BART Extension Project but not at the expense of other Measure A projects.

Yoriko Kishimoto, Palo Alto Council Member and PAC Chairperson, reported the results of the PAC Workshop in April 2005 regarding the TCIP and distributed the spreadsheet on PAC’s Rankings for 2000 Measure A Projects.   The 18 projects were ranked “must do,” “should do,” and “would like to see completed.”  Ms. Kishimoto noted that the spreadsheet does not weigh the votes by population but instead an indication of the prioritization of the cities.    The five highest ranked projects are:  Operating Assistance, Caltrain Service Upgrades, Bus Rapid Transit Corridors, Caltrain South County Service Upgrades and Mineta San Jose Airport People Mover.  The new rail corridors ranked last.  In the workshop, PAC also explored topics such as leveraging dollars through complementary revenues, alternatives to other projects, community bus system, and aggressive use of GPS and Internet technology.            

Ms. Kishimoto noted that in PAC’s meeting of April 14, 2005, the Committee voted to forward two recommendations to the Board of Directors:   1. conduct an evaluation of a    ¼ cent sales tax scenario and a no new tax scenario and, 2.  allow PAC the opportunity to participate in the development of future funding and prioritization scenarios. 

Board Member Cortese reported that the Santa Clara County Cities Association has come up with a comprehensive statement of guiding principles of how countywide sales tax proposals will be judged, measured, or evaluated. The document containing the principles and value statement is currently being finalized and will be distributed to different cities and stakeholders. 

Mr. Perry expressed concern that the Summary of Two Scenarios should have been distributed in advance.   He noted that the ½ cent would not be passed by voters.  He expressed concern that there may not be enough money to build BART.  He stressed the need to make a back-up plan to efficiently use the money.

Mark Brodsky, Monte Sereno Vice Mayor and PAC Member, noted that the Cities Association output on values and principles is a helpful document in evaluating projects.   He noted that the Council of Monte Sereno feels that it is important to work within our means and expect to phase in projects. 

Mr. Cipolla stated that the Summary of Scenario spreadsheet distributed at the meeting is only an update of the spreadsheet distributed in the October 2004 Workshop Meeting.   Mr. Cipolla reiterated that under a no tax scenario, we are still left with $80 plus million that will be flowing in.  Mr. Cipolla stressed that the spreadsheet only illustrates projections and not a prioritization of projects.            

Kimberly Koenig, Debt Administration Manager, briefly explained that Scenario 1 is the no new tax scenario and staff has not programmed Measure A projects.   Scenario 2 is the ¼ cent permanent sales tax proposal, which incorporates a reduced Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts Funding Dollar amount and spreading out of The State’s Traffic Congestion Relief (TCRP) and FTA New Starts money.   Scenario 3 is the permanent ½ cent tax proposal that updates FTA new assumptions and spread out TCRP. 

Ms. Koenig directed attention to Exhibit B – Scenario 1: No New Sales Tax/Maintain Current Service Levels and this incorporates the budget numbers from FY 06 and FY 07 and states that the current service levels can be maintained.   The bottom part of the exhibit depicts the 2000 Measure A funding and expenses. 

Ms. Koenig directed attention to Exhibit C-1 – Scenario 2:   New Permanent ¼ cent tax proposal and noted that this was originally discussed at the Board Workshop in  October 2004.  In the operating side of this scenario, staff included increased ZEB buses, BART subsidy, and Downtown East Valley (DTEV), and maintaining operating reserves at 15 percent.  This assumes that ZEB, BART, and DTEV get the funding needed in the capital side. 

Alternate Board Member Kennedy left his seat at 10:56 a.m.

Ms. Koenig directed attention to Exhibit C-2 – Scenario 2: Optimum Schedule and New Permanent ½ cent Sales Tax to VTA.   Ms. Koenig explained that in this scenario, the      ¼ cent scenario goes to VTA and whatever is left after funding VTA’s operations will be funneled into the Measure A Program.  Although this scenario adds some short-term financing to balance things, there will still be a $1.1 billion shortfall to get all the projects built.

Alternate Board Member Kennedy took his seat at 11:01 a.m.

On Exhibit D-1 – Scenario 3: New Permanent ½ cent Sales Tax VTA Potential Long range Operating Forecast, Ms. Koenig explained that under this scenario, 75 percent of the new sales tax will go to VTA and the remaining 25 percent will go to the cities.     This scenario has the same operating assumptions as the Scenario 2 such as BART subsidy, DTEV, increased ZEB operations, and maintenance of the reserves at 15 percent.  Also, added are the modest service increases.            

Ms. Koenig stated that Exhibit D-2 - Scenario 3: Optimum Schedule and New Permanent ½ Cent Sales Tax to VTA is consistent with previous publication and is still a viable option.   However, even though the FTA is reduced and TCRP funds are spread out, there is still an effect of having to issue a short-time debt. 

Upon query of Ex-Officio Board Member McLemore regarding Caltrain Electrification on Scenario 1, Mr. Cipolla responded that there are no Measure A projects included in the no new tax scenario.   The dollar amount is shown in Exhibit B and this money could be programmed.            

Chairperson Pirzynski stated that VTA could still provide the current service level without any enhanced revenue stream and there is an opportunity to choose one or two capital projects depending on circumstance but certainly not the VTP 2030 Plan as it is envisioned now.    

Mr. Cipolla stated that without a new tax, some projects can move forward but some will be halted.   Mr. Cipolla emphasized that the ¼ cent sales tax will not deliver all the projects.  Mr. Cipolla noted that the new sales tax should be permanent because some of tax revenues that VTA is receiving now will expire in the future.            

Alternate Board Member Kerr stated that Council of the Town of Los Altos is requesting that the Board develop a complete alternative to the new sales tax scenario.   He expressed concern that there is a need to go through the process of identifying which set of projects can be carried out in the VTP 2030 without the additional sales tax.

Board Member Cortese left the meeting at 11:11 a.m.

Mr. Cipolla noted that staff could run some scenarios that will shift projects around so that the Board could see the impact. 

Board Member Gonzales noted that it would be helpful to go back at the beginning of the process and use the specific criteria that the Board has created in evaluating the projects.    This will be very helpful in ranking projects that will benefit the public. 

Board Member Gonzales directed attention to Exhibit C-2, Lines 22 and 23, New Rail Corridors, Phases 1 and 2, and inquired if there are already projects that are identified to go in each phase.   Mr. Cipolla stated that only the dollar amount is included and not the projects itself. 

Board Member Gonzales referred to Exhibit C-2, Lines 24 and 19, ZEB Bus and Demonstration Program, and inquired about the funding sources.   Mr. Collins responded that the ZEB program is currently funded by Measure A funds and grant funds.   The funds that will be used to purchase the ZEB will solely come from Measure A.

Board Member Gonzales expressed concern on the “not very positive” performance of the ZEB, as presented to the Transit and Operations Planning Committee (TP&O).   He inquired at what point should staff determine if this is a practical project.

Mr. Cipolla stated that the ZEB program was a good demonstration and test project and there is a possibility that CARB will revisit the ZEB issue and may relent to a more hybrid type of program, which is more feasible.   Because of that, there may be a major change of allocation in the future years. 

Board Member Gonzales left the meeting at 11:23 a.m.

Alternate Board Member Kennedy stated that all cities should compromise to have consensus on which projects to prioritize and complete.   He referred to the model used for the 1984 Measure A where an initial plan and a completion plan were created to address the 1/3 budget shortfall.  In this model, the most critical project was completed and the other projects were completed when funding became available.  He expressed that the City of Morgan Hill supports the BART Extension project but not at the expense of projects that are critical to South County such as Caltrain Electrification.  He stressed the importance of finding mechanisms to achieve goals. 

Ex-Officio Board Member McLemore stated that the Caltrain Board of Directors will be voting on the proposal to reduce South County bound trains from four to three per day.   He referred to the PAC matrix and clarified that the City of Santa Clara supports the completion of the BART Extension project to Santa Clara.

Ex-Officio Board Member Beall and Board Member Kniss left the meeting at       11:30 a.m.

Board Member Williams stated that people voted for BART to come to San Jose and that the BART Extension project is key to the economic growth of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara.   He further stated that this is an opportunity to look into the future, be creative and, look for other means for funding such as land use and joint development. 

Alternate Board Member Kerr stated the importance of illustrating to the public the implications of a no new sales tax.    The ¼ sales tax may be approved provided that the scenario can work out toward the budget balances.  He stated that if there is a modest revenue enhancement along with the ¼ cent sales tax on affected areas of the BART Extension Project, there might be enough funds to complete some of the other projects that are included in the overall capital plan.  He requested that Board Member McLemore ask Caltrain to come up with a scenario that uses hybrid rail cars and include the financial effects.  He noted that the public supports Caltrain service and noted that there is a need to find a way to provide modest additional assistance and provide a leadership role in Caltrain so that the service could be upgraded and expanded. 

Board Member Chavez noted the challenge of aligning Caltrain improvement strategies to High Speed Rail (HSR).   She stated that staff should bring back information about a task force that the Board could put together which will discuss HSR, role of the County, and strategies that will be used for HSR.

Board Member Chavez stated that the Board should be disciplined about  defining affected cities and how these cities play in financing the projects.   She stated that strategies used should be applicable to all projects and not just  one or two projects.   She stated that the Board also has to be disciplined in refining projects and making decisions on which projects should be taken off the list.  She expressed concern that the TCIP’s DTEV plan only incorporated staff recommendations and not the recommendations of the DTEV Policy Advisory Board (PAB), clarifying the DTEV PAB recommends a single car light rail.  She noted that both recommendations (Single Car Light Rail and Enhanced Bus) should be in the TCIP.  She stressed the importance of completing the public process for both options.

Board Member Livengood left his seat at 11:45 a.m., the quorum was lost and the Committee of the Whole was declared. 

Alternate Board Member Kerr left the meeting at 11:50 a.m.

Ross Signorino, Interested Citizen, stated that hybrid locomotives should be examined further as generating energy for Caltrain Electrification might be a problem.

Alternate Board Member Kennedy recommended the use of a more informal facilitation process similar to that used in during the 1984 Measure A so that cities could discuss and have consensus in finding solutions. 

Board Member Livengood took his seat at 11:50 a.m.

Chairperson Pirzynski stated that staff should begin the modeling process to clearly illustrate the possible outcomes so that cities could begin discussion and arrive at a consensus.    Chairperson Pirzynski thanked staff for the presentations.  

On order of Chairperson Pirzynski, there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole reviewed the Draft Long-Term TCIP and received the Community comments regarding the program.

ADJOURNMENT

On order of Chairperson Pirzynski, there being no objection, the Board of Directors Workshop Meeting was adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Elaine F. Baltao, Board Assistant
VTA Board of Directors