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

Board Minutes


BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

May 5, 2005

Minutes

CALLED TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA)Board of Directors was called to order by Chairperson Pirzynski at 5:33 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers, County Government Center, 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, California.

  
2.

ROLL CALL

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

Member Absent
Jim Beall, Ex-Officio

Alternates Present                                                  
Dolly Sandoval, Alternate                                            

Alternates Absent
Dennis Kennedy, Alternate         
Breene Kerr, Alternate 
Pete McHugh, Alternate
Ken Yeager, Alternate 

* Alternates do not serve unless participating as a Member.

A quorum was present.

  
3.

ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION at 5:34 p.m.

A.             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

B.            PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
[Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957]

Position to be Filled: General Manager

C.            Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation

Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section
54956.9 of the Government Code.  One potential case.

RECONVENED TO OPEN SESSION at 6:03 p.m.

  
4.

CLOSED SESSION REPORT

A.             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

Suzanne B. Gifford, General Counsel, reported that this item was not taken under consideration during Closed Session.

 B.            PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
[Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957]

Position to be Filled: General Manager

Ms. Gifford reported that there was no reportable action taken during Closed Session.

C.            Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation

Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section
54956.9 of the Government Code.  One potential case.

Ms. Gifford reported that there was no reportable action taken during Closed Session.

  
5.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Chairperson Pirzynski noted that staff requested that Item #22., Consider additional 2000 Measure A Revenue and Expenditure Scenarios, be removed from the agenda.

Chairperson Pirzynski noted   that Vice Chairperson Chavez requested that the following item be deferred: Item #23., Discuss strategies for continuous improvement for VTA as we lay groundwork for a new General Manager (Vice Chairperson Chavez’ request from the March 3, 2005 Board of Directors Meeting.)

M/S/C (Gage/Chavez) to accept the Orders of the Day.

  
6.

AWARDS AND COMMENDATIONS

Employees of the Month for May 2005

Chairperson Pirzynski presented   awards to Mark Garcia, Guadalupe Operations; and Richard Jarosz, Guadalupe Light Rail Maintenance, as VTA Employees of the Month for May 2005.   Leslie Benton, River Oaks Administration, was unable to attend.

  
7.

Downtown East Valley Capitol Expressway Corridor Project Final Environmental Impact Report

Steven Fisher, Sr. Transportation Planner, provided a Powerpoint presentation on the Downtown East Valley (DTEV) Capital Expressway Corridor Light Rail Project, highlighting: 1) VTA Board Action Requested and 2) Project History, 3) Community Outreach Activities, 4) Community Outreach Materials, 5) Project Purpose, 6) Alternatives Analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR), 7) No-Project Alternative, 8) Baseline Alternative, 9) Light Rail Alternatives Studied, 10) Recommended Light Rail Project – Phase 1A, 11) Recommended Light Rail Project – Phase 1B, 12) Capitol Expressway Corridor Improvements, 13) Why the Final EIR only extends to Nieman Boulevard, and 14) Cost and Ridership Estimates.

While referring to the Project History of the Powerpoint presentation, Mr. Fisher acknowledged the following Members of the DTEV Policy Advisory Board: Vice Chairperson Chavez and Board Members Campos, Cortese, and Supervisors McHugh and Alvarado.      

Tom Fitzwater, Environmental Planning Manager, provided a Powerpoint presentation on the Downtown East Valley (DTEV) Capital Expressway Corridor Light Rail Project, highlighting: 1) Environmental Process, 2) Draft EIS/EIR, 3) Draft EIS/EIR Summary of Comments, and 4) Final EIR, 5) Environmental Findings Significant Unavoidable Impacts, 6) Environmental Findings Mitigated Impacts, 7) Areas of Concern-Noise, 8) Areas of Concern-Visual Quality, and 9) Project Benefits.

Board Member Campos referenced Page 9 of the slide presentation, Cost and Ridership Estimates, and noted for the public’s information that it is a cost estimate, taking into consideration that neither the DTEV PAB nor the Board of Directors has approved any funding for the extension.   She queried if that was correct.   Mr. Fisher indicated that is correct.

Board Member Cortese queried if there is any value as the project is built to phase in the installation of the pedestrian and bicycle improvements, leaving the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) in the right-of-way until levels of service can be further evaluated.  Mr. Fisher noted that one of the challenges VTA has on Capitol Expressway in terms of getting ridership into the corridor is to create a more pedestrian-friendly environment.  As recognized early on in working with the community and the Policy Advisory Board, a key to really making this project work is to introduce the pedestrian and bike improvements and landscaping to attract people to the corridor and stations.  In terms of phasing, it could be an unsuccessful light rail corridor, because people would have a hard time getting to the stations.  Mr. Fisher noted that the HOV lanes were built in the mid-1990’s and were built as part of the Evergreen Specific Plan. There is a whole history of discussions conducted that made it very clear that those HOV lanes were a temporary measure that would be used for light rail once the light rail project was built.  The policy decision has stood for years and as recently as 2003, in the Countywide Expressway Plan, it is explicitly mentioned that the HOV lanes would be removed from Quimby North to make way for light rail projects.  If VTA tried to maintain the level of landscaping, light rail project, and pedestrian improvements, it would require impacts to 87 additional properties from Eastridge north.

Ex-Officio Board Member McLemore left the meeting at 6:36 p.m.

Board Member Cortese queried if there is any hybrid worth looking at that would salvage HOV capacity north of Quimby Road, but still allow the segmenting or the boulevarding where there are commercial and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) opportunities south of Quimby Road.  Mr. Fisher noted that VTA reviewed that and there would be right-of-way impacts that VTA is trying to avoid.

Board Member Cortese queried if there would be right-of-way impacts north of Quimby through Story Road even if VTA does not improve the pedestrian/bicycle capacity in the right-of-way.   Mr. Fisher indicated “no”.

Board Member Cortese left the meeting at 6:45 p.m.

Board Member Chu queried about the estimated time construction would begin for Phase 1A and 1B.   Mr. Fisher noted that would be based upon the discussions that the Board of Directors is having on the Transit Capital Investment Program.  Right now the only funding that is approved for Capitol Expressway is to do the preliminary engineering and the environmental process.  Board Member Chu referred to the Transit Capital Investment Program and queried about the staging for Phase 1A and 1B.  Peter M. Cipolla, General Manager, noted that would depend upon which financial scenario the Board of Directors chooses.  He clarified that the Board of Directors took action several years ago that the DTEV route was the next highest priority route for VTA to pursue.

Board Member Williams queried if the noise analysis was conducted from Alum Rock to Neiman Boulevard.   Mr. Fitzwater stated that the noise analysis was conducted from Alum Rock to State Route 87.   The noise analysis did not show that the light rail was generating a lot of noise and it was not valid to consider soundwalls as part of the project based on crossing that threshold of impact.

Board Member Williams expressed concern about the noise level and noted that anytime rail is brought into an environment there is an issue about noise.   He queried about the decibel level at which VTA conducts the measure to say the noise level is okay.  Mr. Fitzwater noted that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) criteria looks at the existing noise level and then based on that there is a criteria that shows how much additional noise level would have to be generated by the light rail to cross a threshold.

Eugene Bradley, Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority Riders Union, expressed concern regarding the projected ridership, noting that there would be over 3,600 new riders as compared to how many of the current riders on Bus Line #70.   He expressed concern that this may not really be a good use of our tax dollars, noting that for every new rider expected on this line, that it would be over $118,000 per new rider.

Zakhary Cribari, Interested Citizen, referred to the East Valley portion of the project and noted he objects to removing the HOV lanes.  He noted that VTA funds are not adequate enough to support the cost of the project.  He noted that he does not want to see the pattern of VTA turning again to its passengers asking for higher fares and reduced service as a result of lower ridership than projected.  He noted that VTA buses will provide a greater and more cost effective service, noting that in July 2005, VTA will be implementing Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Line #522, which will provide service on a headway-based system.

Jim Zito, Interested Citizen, noted that there are many questions not answered in the E.I.R.   He noted that none of the E.I.R.’s 16 alternatives considered keeping the HOV lanes from Capitol Expressway to Eastridge.   He referred to the document he provided to the Board of Directors entitled Evergreen Specific Plan (ESP), July 2, 1991, City of San Jose, Page 10-5, and noted that the document specifically says that the HOV lanes are in addition to the ESP and that they are expecting 50,000 to 60,000 vehicles to use the HOV lanes.   He strongly suggested that the Board of Directors read the U.S. EPA comment, Volume 2, Pages 365-386, regarding HOV.  He strongly suggested that the HOV lanes be blocked off now and the impact studied on Districts 5 and 8 as far as traffic impacts.

Dan Gould, Interested Citizen, asked why was it important to install the HOV lanes in the early 90’s and what changed since then that allows their removal.

Jeri Arstingstall, V.E.P. Community Association, thanked the Board of Directors for deferring the south of Neiman Project.   She noted that it seems like there is no flexibility with the HOV lanes.    She noted that the users are being punished and indicated that cars sitting in traffic create pollution.  She queried about the use of VTA passes.

Board Member Gonzales noted that this is not the approval of the Project, it is the approval of the Environmental Impact Report, which says that the process has addressed all the issues required to under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Board Member Gonzales referred to the Capitol Expressway issue and requested that staff research the public record and pull out all the testimony, comments, and the recommendation made to go ahead and allow the HOV lanes to be installed.  

Vice Chairperson Chavez noted the importance of getting the information out to the communities, especially to the members of the Evergreen Visioning Team.

Vice Chairperson Chavez noted that the Downtown East Valley Policy Advisory Board (DTEV PAB) is still going through the process of their work and noted while the HOV lanes have been of some concern, there are also issues around phasing and what the timeline is on that and what the implications are for the Alum Rock component of this as well that have not been resolved. 

Vice Chairperson Chavez requested that the DTEV PAB receive the history regarding the HOV lanes and that staff present the information to the impacted neighborhoods.

Board Member Kniss noted the interest of knowing how the public feels on the HOV lanes issue.

M/S/C (Gonzales/Chavez) to approve the Downtown East Valley (DTEV) Capitol Expressway Corridor Light Rail Project (Project) through the following actions: 1.  Certify that the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR): a. Meets the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); b. Represents the independent judgment of VTA as the Lead Agency; and c. Was presented to the VTA Board of Directors for review and consideration; 2.  Adopt: a. Findings; b. Facts in Support of Findings; and c. Statement of Overriding Considerations; 3. Adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and 4. Adopt the Recommended Light Rail Alternative Project Description and approve the Project, which consists of: Phase 1A, from Alum Rock Station to Eastridge Transit Center, and Phase 1B, from Eastridge Transit Center to Nieman Boulevard.  These actions are consistent with the Statement of Overriding Considerations that indicate that the certification of the Final EIR as adequately addressing the environmental impacts. Adoption of Findings, Facts in Support of Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations listed as Attachment A in the Staff Report.  This acknowledges that traffic impacts at the following intersections remain significant and unavoidable but the Project benefits outweigh the impacts.  Those impacts are to Capitol Expressway/Story Road intersection, Capitol Expressway/Ocala Avenue intersection, and Capitol Expressway/Quimby Road intersection.  Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure that the mitigation measures in the Final EIR are implemented, and the approval of the Project, also referred to as the Recommended Light Rail Alternative in the Final EIR with a first phase to the Eastridge Transit Center and a second phase to Nieman Boulevard. 

  
8.

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

Mr. Bradley provided a letter that was listed in the Cupertino Courier to the Board of Directors regarding the way passengers were recently mistreated by a bus operator on VTA Bus Line #22 at approximately 3:00 a.m.   He noted that a visiting passenger from Texas had noted how the bus operator actually kicked a passenger off the bus for being three cents short on the $1.75 adult cash fare.  He noted that the bus operator did not allow the passenger to ask someone if they had any spare change.  He noted that the bus operator actually threatened anyone who bothered to complain with arrest from the police. 

He suggested that a note should be given to every bus operator indicating that they have no right to tell other people what their rights are in regards to compliments or complaints about service.

Mr. Cribari expressed concern regarding the Stop Annunciation and Date and Time Systems on VTA buses.   He noted that the Stop Annunciation System on a regular basis mentions the stops several stops before or after the actual stop.  He noted that the system is occasionally stated as though the bus is traveling in the reverse direction; therefore, the bus announces the stop after it passes the stop.  He noted that often the visual and/or verbal announcements are not announced or working, which primarily affects the hearing and visually impaired passengers.  He noted that several members on the Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority Riders Union have stated that the time on the VTA buses do not parallel one another. 

  
9.

Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Chairperson’s Report

Dolly Sandoval, PAC Member and former PAC Chairperson, provided a report on the April 14, 2005, PAC Meeting, highlighting: 1) Discussed the VTA Board’s approved changes to the PAC By-laws and will continue to discuss those at future PAC Meetings; 2) Discussed the status of SB 680, which would authorize a registration fee of $5 per vehicle to fund a range of local road improvements. The PAC voted to recommend that the VTA Board adopt a support position. The motioned passed unanimously with two members abstaining; 3) Unanimously approved a recommendation that the VTA Board approve the programming of FY 2005-06 Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program Manager funds (TFCA 40%) to projects, and approve a fund exchange with MTC whereby VTA would exchange TFCA 40% funds for CMAQ funds to be used to fund the Bicycle Expenditure Program projects; 4) Voted 12 to 1 to recommend that the VTA Board adopt the proposed criteria for programming federal STP funds to local streets and roads rehabilitation projects for FY 2005-06; 5) Discussed the results of the PAC Workshop and unanimously approved a recommendation that the VTA Board of Directors authorize PAC to be a part of the process to develop an alternative plan for the �-cent and no new sales tax scenario and to review the staff report; and prepare a recommendation for Board consideration; and 6) Items currently scheduled for the May meeting include: a. ACE Budget, b. Caltrain Budget, c. FY 2006-07 Recommended Biennial Budget, and d. Service Plan.

  

CONSENT AGENDA

Chairperson Pirzynski noted that there is a member of the public asking to speak to Agenda Item #11., Adopt a support position for SB 680 (Simitian), which allows the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to impose a surcharge of up to $5 on motor vehicles registered in Santa Clara County for an eight-year period to fund various transportation improvements, and requested that it be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda.

M/S/C (Gage/Matthews) to approve the Consent Agenda, as amended.

  
10.

Minutes of the Regular Board of Directors’ Meeting of March 30, 2005

M/S/C (Gage/Matthews) to approve the Minutes of the Regular Board of Directors’ Meeting of March 30, 2005.

  
 

ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE COMMITTEE

11.

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

Adopt a support position for SB 680 (Simitian), which allows the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to impose a surcharge of up to $5 on motor vehicles registered in Santa Clara County for an eight-year period to fund various transportation improvements. 

  
12.

Annual Renewal of Property and Casualty Insurance Coverage

M/S/C (Gage/Matthews) to authorize the General Manager to purchase insurance coverage for Excess Liability, General and Auto Liability, Public Officials Errors and Omissions Liability, Property/Boiler and Machinery, Inland Marine for Buses, Vans and Mobile Equipment, Inland Marine for Light Rail Vehicles, and Flood exposures, for the annual Operations Program insurance renewal for an amount not to exceed $1,800,000. 

  
13.

Preparation of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan

M/S/C (Gage/Matthews) to approve Work Program and Cost Share Principles for the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). 

  
14.

VTA FY 2005-2006 Transportation Development Act and State Transit Assistance Allocation Claim

M/S/C (Gage/Matthews) to adopt Resolution No. 05.05.05 authorizing the filing of an annual claim to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for allocation of FY 2005 – 2006 Transportation Development Act (TDA) and State Transit Assistance (STA) funds. 

  
15.

FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula and 5309 Fixed Guideway Transit Programming for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008

M/S/C (Gage/Matthews) to authorize the submittal of project applications to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for programming Section 5307 Urbanized Area (UA) Formula and Section 5309 Fixed Guideway (FG) funds in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008. Resolution No. 05.05.06

  
16.

Interest Rate Swap Policy

M/S/C (Gage/Matthews) to approve the Interest Rate Swap Policy, which establishes guidelines for the use and management of swap transactions in connection with the issuance of new debt or the management of outstanding debt. 

  
 

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

17.

Memorandum of Understanding for the Regional Transit Connection Discount Card Program

M/S/C (Gage/Matthews) to authorize the General Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to continue to administer the Regional Transit District Connection Discount Card Program for an additional five-year period with options for two one-year extensions. 

  
  
 Go to Top
  
  

REGULAR AGENDA

  
11.

SB 680 (Simitian) – Vehicle Registration Surcharge

Mr. Bradley expressed concern regarding the $5 vehicle license fee for the County of Santa Clara that will go towards various road improvements.   He noted that only seven percent of the money goes to Caltrain and the remaining goes to various road improvements, such as signal synchronization and landscaping.  He noted what SB 680 fails to ask is what happened to the money before Governor Schwarzenegger decided to dip into the transit funds.  He referred to the ongoing local and state fiscal crisis and noted that overall SB 680 is just another anti-business, anti-family sales tax.  He requested that the VTA Board of Directors oppose SB 680.

Laura Stuchinsky, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, asked that the Board of Directors support SB 680.   She noted that the Silicon Valley Leadership Group is very excited about the potential it has built to bring dollars into Santa Clara County, which we would not be able to receive otherwise.  She noted that the $5 vehicle registration fee is a very modest fee and is not a property tax.   She noted that this small amount of money will not take care of all of our transportation issues in Santa Clara County, but will allow us to move some of our very highest priority projects forward.

Carl Guardino, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, noted that the Silicon Valley Leadership Group hopes that the Board of Directors will support Senator Simitian’s bill to help our Valley and its residents with some of our highest priority transportation needs.   He noted that the California Transportation Commission and California Business Roundtable have both reminded Californians that we are $100 billion short of the State’s highest priority transportation needs.  He noted that for the past four years the Legislature and two different Governors have pulled the Proposition 42 sales tax on gasoline funds from going to transportation improvements.  He referred to VTA’s Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2030 work and noted that more than a billion dollars has been identified for the highest priority road needs.  He noted that the product to help address the problem, at least partially, is SB 680. This would provide roughly $56 million over the eight-year life of the bill for some of the high priority local traffic relief improvements.  He referred to the hand-out provided to the Board of Directors entitled SB 680 (Simitian), Santa Clara County Traffic Relief Legislation and provided an overview.

Board Member Matthews referred to the speaker who indicated that SB 680 was anti-business and queried about the benefit to businesses.   Mr. Guardino reported that the Silicon Valley Leadership Group’s Board and Members unanimously voted not only to support but to sponsor this Legislation as a way that is good for the economy and good for the employees.  Mr. Guardino noted that $1,160 is the average across the United States that each person loses in traffic as the motoring public in loss time and loss gas traveling below the speed limit.  He noted that all 15 cities and towns and the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors have voted to support the bill.

Board Member Matthews queried about the process to solicit support from all of the cities and the County of Santa Clara.   Mr. Guardino noted that the Silicon Valley Leadership Groups approached Senator Simitian and immediately reached out to the Mayors of all 15 cities and towns to brief them on the idea as well as the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, and followed up with a letter.  Then the Silicon Valley Leadership Group polled the Technical Advisory Committee Members of each of those cities, towns, County of Santa Clara, VTA, and Caltrain to help them shape what would be best for the citizens that they represented as well as the County as a whole.  After that deliberative process, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group came up with the language for the bill that Senator Simitian introduced.

Mr. Guardino thanked Board Members Gage and Kniss for their support.

Board Member Kniss noted that there will be real resistance to the bill in Sacramento.

Board Member Kniss congratulated the Silicon Valley Leadership Group.

Board Member Chu noted that he was in Sacramento the week of April 25, 2005, lobbying for the bill, and at the time, State Senator Simitian informed him that the San Mateo County bill passed by one vote in the Assembly.

Mr. Guardino noted that all seven members of our State Assembly delegation that represents any part of our County are not only supporting the bill, but are co-authors.   Three of our State Senators representing this County are also co-authors.

M/S/C (Gonzales/Williams) to adopt a support position for SB 680 (Simitian), which allows the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to impose a surcharge of up to $5 on motor vehicles registered in Santa Clara County for an eight-year period to fund various transportation improvements. 

  
 

ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT - (See Agenda Item #25.A.)

18.

Refunding of 2001 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds

Roger Contreras, Chief Financial Officer, reported that VTA is proposing to refund the 2001 bonds with new variable interest rate bonds in an amount not to exceed $185 million.  Simultaneously, with that transaction, VTA will enter into an interest rate swap with several financial institutions.  The result of putting all the transactions together will create a synthetically fixed interest rate payment on the bonds.  Mr. Contreras noted that the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and New York MTA have done this type of transaction numerous times.  He noted that the benefit of approximately $10 to $12 million will accrue to Measure A. 

Mr. Contreras noted that the Administration and Finance Committee was so impressed with the transaction that the Committee directed staff to place the item on the Consent Agenda.   However, Bond Counsel informed VTA that it would be more appropriate to place the item on the Regular Agenda to give the Board of Directors an opportunity to ask questions.

Board Member Kniss commended staff on a job well done.

Board Member Williams noted the need to be very diligent in the risks to be taken.

Board Member Williams recommended that staff provide periodic status reports on the item.   Mr. Contreras noted that the Swap Policy approved earlier tonight will require an annual report.

M/S/C (Williams/Gage) to adopt Resolution No. 05.05.07 authorizing the General Manager or Chief Financial Officer to take all necessary actions, enter into agreements and execute documents for VTA to issue refunding bonds in a par amount not to exceed   $185 million, the proceeds of which will refund a portion of VTA’s 2001 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds and pay the cost of issuance; and further authorize the General Manager or Chief Financial Officer to enter into one or more interest rate swap agreements, provided the net present value savings of the refunding bonds together with, the interest rate swap agreements, equals or exceeds 5 percent of the refunding bond size. 

  
19.

Valley Transportation Plan – Augment Route 87 (North) HOV Project Construction Contract Amount

M/S/C (Gonzales/Gage) to authorize the General Manager to amend the Route 87 (North) HOV contract with RGW Construction by $2,115,280 for a new contract amount of $24,106,242, and affirm that change order authority delegated to the General Manager is based on the new contract amount. 

  
 

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND PLANNING COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT - (See Agenda Item #25.B.)

20.

Proposed Process and Criteria for Programming Additional Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) Funds to Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation Projects in Fiscal Year 2005-06

M/S/C (Campos/Gage) to adopt the proposed process and criteria for programming Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) Funds to Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation Projects in FY 2005-06. 

  
21.

FY 2006 Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program Manager Fund Program

M/S/C (Chavez/Chu) to approve the programming of FY 2006 Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program Manager (TFCA 40%) funds to projects, and further approve a fund exchange with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) whereby VTA would exchange TFCA 40% funds for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to be used to fund the Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) projects.

  
 

TRANSIT PLANNING AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT - (See Agenda Item #25.C.)

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

OTHER ITEMS

22.

(Removed from the Agenda.)       

Consider additional 2000 Measure A Revenue and Expenditure Scenarios. 

  
23.

ITEMS OF CONCERN AND REFERRal TO ADMINISTRATION

 (Deferred)

Discuss strategies for continuous improvement for VTA as we lay groundwork for a new General Manager (Vice Chairperson Chavez’ request from the March 3, 2005 Board of Directors Meeting.) (Deferred from March 30, 2005 Board of Directors’ Meeting.)

Vice Chairperson Chavez referred to a letter addressed to the VTA Board of Directors from City of San Jose Council Member Chuck Reed regarding the proposed Hyundai Riverfront Housing Site (River Oaks Park-1).  She requested that the item be agendized at the June 2, 2005 Board of Directors’ Meeting.

M/S/C (Chavez/Gage) to request that the letter from City of San Jose Council Member Chuck Reed regarding the proposed Hyundai Riverfront Housing Site (River Oaks Park-1) be agendized at the June 2, 2005 Board of Directors’ Meeting.

Board Member Gonzales left the meeting at 7:30 p.m.

  
24.

LEGISLATIVE REPORT

Board Member Campos referred   to AB 1112 (Cohn) – Loitering: Transit Facilities and queried if there were any updates.

Kurt M . Evans, Government Affairs Manager, noted that the bill is currently pending before the Assembly Public Safety Committee.  There have been some constitutional issues that have been raised, so the sponsors of the bill, the California Transit Association, have made it a two-year bill.  That means that the Assembly Public Safety Committee will not consider the bill until the year 2006.

On order of Chairperson Pirzynski, there being no objection, the Legislative Report was accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet. 

  
25.

SUMMARY MINUTES FROM STANDING COMMITTEES

A.             Administration and Finance Committee

Administration and Finance Committee Chairperson Williams reported that the Committee met on April 21, 2005, and provided a report, highlighting the Recommended Biennial Budget for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007.

On order of Chairperson Pirzynski, there being no objection, the
Administration and Finance Committee Report was accepted.

B.             Congestion Management Program and Planning Committee

On order of Chairperson Pirzynski, there being no objection, the
Congestion Management Program and Planning Committee Report was accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

C.             Transit Planning and Operations Committee

On order of Chairperson Pirzynski, there being no objection, the
Transit Planning and Operations Committee Report was accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

  
26.

REPORTS FROM ADVISORY COMMITTEES

A.Committee for Transit Accessibility (CTA)

On order of Chairperson Pirzynski, there being no objection, the
Committee for Transit Accessibility (CTA) Report was accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

B.Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)

On order of Chairperson Pirzynski, there being no objection, the
Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Report was accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

C.Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)

On order of Chairperson Pirzynski, there being no objection, the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Report was accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

D.Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

On order of Chairperson Pirzynski, there being no objection, the
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Report was accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

E.Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)

On order of Chairperson Pirzynski, there being no objection, the
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Report was accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

  
27.

REPORTS FROM JOINT POWERS BOARDS (JPBs) & REGIONAL COMMISSIONS

Chairperson Pirzynski advised the Board Members that the Reports from the Joint Powers Boards (JPBs) & Regional Commissions were placed in front of them on the dais.

A.             Peninsula Corridor JPB

On order of Chairperson Pirzynski, there being no objection, the Peninsula Corridor JPB Report was received.

B.             Capitol Corridor JPB

On order of Chairperson Pirzynski, there being no objection, the Capitol Corridor JPB report was received.

C.             Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Committee

On order of Chairperson Pirzynski, there being no objection, the Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Committee report was received.

D.             Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)

On order of Chairperson Pirzynski, there being no objection, the Metropolitan Transportation Committee (MTC ) Report was received.

  
28.

REPORTS FROM VTA POLICY ADVISORY BOARDS (PABs)

A.Vasona Light Rail PAB

There was no report from the Vasona Light Rail PAB.

B.Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor PAB

On order of Chairperson Pirzynski, there being no objection,   the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor PAB Report and Cancellation Notice was accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

C.Downtown East Valley PAB

There was no report form the Downtown East Valley PAB.

D.             Highway PAB – South

There was no report from the Highway PAB – South.

E.            Community Oriented Design Enhancements (CODE) Committee

On order of Chairperson Pirzynski, there being no objection, the Community Oriented Design Enhancements (CODE) Committee Cancellation Notice was accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

  
29.

REPORT FROM CHAIRPERSON

There was no report from the Chairperson.

  
30.
REPORT FROM THE GENERAL MANAGER

There was no report from the General Manager.

  
31.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no Announcements.

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

  
  
 Go to Top