|
Proposed Quarter Cent Sales Tax Scenarios
Chairperson Pirzynski commented that staff has prepared a power point presentation that will review three scenarios. Chairperson Pirzynski continued that at the June 16, 2005 VTA Board of Directors Special Meeting, staff was directed to provide a ¼ Cent Sales Tax Scenario, Run #5 Current Scenario – BART to Silicon Valley by 2015, based on assumptions outlined in a memorandum from Board of Director Ron Gonzales. The Board of Directors requested staff to prepare the scenario for discussion at the September 16, 2005 VTA Board of Directors Workshop Meeting. In mid-July 2005, Chairperson Pirzynski provided a matrix of the underlying assumptions for the proposed scenario and asked for comments from VTA Board of Directors and community stakeholders. Chairperson Pirzynski commented that by late July and early August 2005 staff received comments from various stakeholders and those comments were provided to the Board at their August 4, 2005 Regular Meeting.
Board Member Campos and Ex-Officio Board Member McLemore
left their seats at 9:06 a.m.
Chairperson Pirzynski noted North County City Group and Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) both requested additional ¼ Cent Sales Tax Scenarios for VTA Board of Director’s consideration as a result of his request for feedback. The North Cities requested evaluation of a six-year delay to the BART Project and SVLG requested a scenario that better reflected its March 2005 polling, which tested a Pavement Management Program and a 30-year sales tax.
Board Member Campos and Ex-Officio Board Member McLemore
took their seats at 9:07 a.m.
Chairperson Pirzynski noted that he carefully weighed the requests and asked staff to prepare two additional scenarios: Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario, a 30-year sales tax with a Pavement Management Program, and Run #7 BART to Silicon Valley by 2018 Scenario. Run #7 BART to Silicon Valley by 2018 Scenario shows a three-year delay to BART, which is different from the six-year delay that was requested but staff’s evaluation concluded only a three-year push back was necessary.
Chairperson Pirzynski stated that the intent of VTA Board of Directors Workshop Meetings are to provide as opportunity for Board Members to study, learn, share, and provide a sense of Board orientation towards the proposals discussed. He clarified that VTA Board of Directors will take no votes today as this is the Board’s opportunity to give staff a sense of direction for development of a VTA Scenario.
Jack J. Collins, Chief Construction Officer, provided an overview on the Proposed Quarter Cent Sales Tax Scenarios and directed attention to the Additional 2000 Measure A Revenue and Expenditure Scenarios power point presentation.
Mr. Collins referenced Slide 3 – Current Scenario and commented on Run #5 Current Scenario – BART to Silicon Valley by 2015 noting a permanent ¼ cent sales tax, BART to Silicon Valley completed by 2015, builds all 2000 Measure A Projects listed in the original program, and follows VTA Board’s direction on June 16, 2005.
Chairperson Pirzynski clarified that Run #5 Current Scenario – BART to Silicon Valley by 2015 is the core scenario, which triggered discussion regarding the new perspectives and additional scenarios.
Mr. Collins referenced Slide 4 – New Scenario and commented on Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario noting a 30-year ¼ cent sales tax, reflects project priorities according to SVLG interpretation from their March 2005 poll results, completes BART to Silicon Valley no later than 2018, completes two light rail extensions - Capital Light Rail to Eastridge and Vasona Light Rail to Los Gatos Extension noting both projects have environmental approval to date, adds a “Local Streets and Roads” Program and “Bicycle and Pedestrian Path” component, and a new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project, which was not spelled out in the 2000 Measure A Program.
Mr. Collins referenced Slide 5 – New Scenarios and commented on Run #7 BART to Silicon Valley by 2018 noting that when staff evaluated the North County City Group request it was determined that staff could achieve moving up the projects by only delaying BART to Silicon Valley by three-years. Mr. Collins noted that the scenario includes a permanent ¼ cent sales tax, BART to Silicon Valley completed by 2018, builds all 2000 Measure A Projects, advances completion date for Caltrain Electrification by 2018, and Airport People Mover (APM) to open very close to BART to Silicon Valley opening, otherwise, Run #7 is very similar to Run #5.
Mr. Collins referenced Slide 6 – Comparison of ¼ Cent Sales Tax Scenarios on Capital Program and commented that most of the revenues for the Run Scenarios are similar but the expenditures and ending balances differ; however, all the Run Scenarios have a positive ending balance. Mr. Collins noted that Run #5 Current Scenario – BART to Silicon Valley by 2015 has an ending balance of $664 million, completes BART to Silicon Valley three-years faster and completes all the 2000 Measure A Projects; Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario has an ending balance of $1,908 billion, does not complete all the 2000 Measure A Projects, and substitutes some of the projects for the inclusion of Pavement Management Program; and Run #7 BART to Silicon Valley by 2018 has an ending balance of $1,519 billion, completes all the 2000 Measure A Projects, and completes BART to Silicon Valley by 2018.
Mr. Collins referenced Slide 7 – Comparison of ¼ Cent Sales Tax Scenarios on VTA Operations and commented on FY 2038 noting both Run #5 Current Scenario – BART to Silicon Valley by 2015 and Run #7 BART to Silicon Valley by 2018 have surpluses each year; however, Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario has a deficit due to the 30-year sales tax sunset and VTA quickly begins to go into deficit in the amount of $111 million per year. Mr. Collins noted that this is a projection; however, stressed the importance to replace the revenue when the 30-year sales tax sunsets or VTA moves into an operating deficit very quickly. Run #5 Current Scenario – BART to Silicon Valley by 2015 has an ending reserve of $422 million, Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario has an ending reserve of $120 million, and Run #7 BART to Silicon Valley by 2018 has an ending reserve of $538 million.
Mr. Collins referenced Slide 8 – Common Elements and commented that all
Run Scenarios look at phasing in BART to Silicon Valley. Mr. Collins noted that initially an environmental document was completed and approved, which assumed when BART Service opened in 2015 it would implement six-minute headways during peak hours. This is costly and the operating subsidy to operate that number of trains is expensive. Therefore, staff looked at the suggestion included in the June 2005 letter submitted by Mayor Ron Gonzales to phase BART Service and phase the vehicle procurements as well as implement 15-minutes headways. This results in a potential 16 percent savings in the operating subsidy and equates to about $150 million. Mr. Collins commented that the plan would be to initially phase BART Service for the first ten-years and then proceed to the optimum six-minute headways in 2025.
Mr. Collins referenced Slide 9 – Differences between Scenarios and commented on
Run #5 Current Scenario – BART to Silicon Valley by 2015, which completes BART to Silicon Valley the earliest and referred to as the optimum schedule, saves $500 million in escalation cost associated with three-year delay scenario, however, by delivering earlier, bond financing is increased as well as three additional years of operating subsidy offsets the savings. Total net bond proceeds required are $4.5 billion, which is the highest of all three Run Scenarios and has a positive Capital Program balance of $664 million with an annual operating surplus in FY 2038 of $164 million. Run #5 completes Dumbarton Rail by 2011, which is the current schedule for the project and Mineta San Jose APM opening is delayed to 2026; therefore, APM is out of sync with BART to Silicon Valley opening in 2015.
Mr. Collins referenced Slide 10 – Differences between Scenarios and commented on
Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario, which is a 30-year sales tax, completes BART to Silicon Valley by 2018, adds $717 million for Pavement Management Program, deletes single-car light rail on Santa Clara/Alum Rock and Capital Light Rail Extension to Nieman and substitutes a new BRT Project in Sunnyvale/Cupertino by 2021 by deleting some of the light rail projects from the original 2000 Measure A Program is primarily how the Pavement Management Program is implemented. Total net bond proceeds required are $3.1 billion with a positive Capital Program balance of $1.9 billion and a potential 30-year sales tax expiring in 2037. VTA has a projected Operating Deficit of $111 million in 2038; therefore, this scenario will require a renewal of a tax in 2036 to 2038 timeframe in order to keep VTA Operating Budget whole. Dumbarton Rail is completed by 2023, which is later than anticipated by the other partners on the Dumbarton Rail Program, which was 2011, and completes Caltrain Electrification by 2020 but reduces overall program funding on the Caltrain Electrification by ten percent.
Mr. Collins referenced Slide 11 – Differences between Scenarios and commented on Run #7 BART to Silicon Valley by 2018 noting a three-year delay, total net bond proceeds required for the program are $3.1 billion with a positive Capital Program balance of $1.5 billion and an annual operating surplus in FY 2038 of $227 million. This completes Dumbarton Rail Project by 2011, completes Caltrain Electrification by 2018, and completes APM by 2019, which is more in sync with the BART to Silicon Valley Project opening.
Mr. Collins referenced Slide 12 – Potential Savings (in Year of Expenditure $) and commented that potential savings are included in all Run Scenarios, which combine two downtown stations, which would result in a $100 million savings to the BART to Silicon Valley Project, includes additional BART Value Engineering (VE) savings, phasing in BART Service with an estimated 16 percent savings to operating subsidy between 2015 and 2025 with 15-minute headways; however, this requires further discussions with BART staff. Mr. Collins noted Capital Expressway Light Rail VE savings proposals have been presented to Downtown East Valley (DTEV) Policy Advisory Board (PAB) to look at implementing $53 million in savings and deleting New Rail Corridors phase two for a total of $1.387 million in all Run Scenarios. Mr. Collins noted that Run #5 Current Scenario – BART to Silicon Valley by 2015 still includes the Nieman Extension and the Vasona Extension; however, Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario deletes the Nieman Extension; therefore, light rail extensions still exist in this proposal but not all of the new corridors originally contemplated in the 2000 Measure A Program. Total potential savings of almost $1.4 billion have been factored into all Run Scenarios and other potential savings, which have not been implemented in all of the scenarios and deserve additional evaluation.
Mr. Collins referenced Slide 13 – Other Potential Savings (in Year of Expenditure $) and commented on DTEV mode options noting potential savings of $809 million if Enhanced Bus is selected, a potential savings of $141 million if single car light rail is selected, and potential savings of $400 million if a mix of both modes is selected; however, the savings with mix mode option needs to be verified. Mr. Collins noted that DTEV is still undergoing an environmental document and the final document for the Santa Clara/Alum Rock segment has not been circulated to the public. Mr. Collins noted potential savings of $307 million if defer Capitol Extension to Nieman included in Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario; however, Run #5 Current Scenario – BART to Silicon Valley by 2015 and Run #7 BART to Silicon Valley by 2018 have the Capitol Extension to Nieman in their scenario proposals.
Mr. Collins noted that there are Transit Oriented Development (TOD) opportunities or Joint Development (JD) opportunities in the BART corridor, which has potential to reduce the operating subsidy of the BART to Silicon Valley Project. Mr. Collins noted a recommendation to fund a study regarding potential TOD development around BART stations will be forwarded to the September 29, 2005 VTA Board of Directors Regular Meeting for consideration with the intent to estimate the potential annual revenue to VTA associated with development of optimum opportunities around BART stations and this revenue would offset some of the operating subsidy; however, staff has not factored any numbers into the Run Scenarios.
Mr. Collins noted suggestion to use hybrid buses instead of Zero Emission Buses (ZEB) with a potential savings of $50 million since hydrogen fuel cell buses are at a very early stage and may not be available until 2010. Staff may have to look at some other technology that is more readily available such as diesel, electric, and hybrid, which are currently available and less expensive than hydrogen fuel cell buses. Mr. Collins noted potential savings to be determined if use direct bus to Mineta San Jose Airport instead of APM technology.
Mr. Collins referenced Slide 14 – Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting Comments and commented that TAC took no formal action since their respective city council’s have not taken a position on any of the scenarios. The TAC commented that a Local Streets and Road Program is an essential element, Dumbarton Rail Project timing is important to North County jurisdictions. The TAC also favored a sunset for any proposed sales tax.
Mr. Collins referenced Slide 15 – Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting Actions and noted the PAC recommended that Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario comes the closest to what PAC can support and requested the ability to comment on specific items such as Caltrain, APM, Dumbarton Rail Project schedule; however, noted some issues regarding the timing of some of the projects, recommended that Caltrain Service receive same high priority as BART to Silicon Valley Project; APM run directly from Airport to Santa Clara Caltrain station as a direct access service to the terminals, and recommended that VTA Board of Directors consider hybrid technologies as an alternative to ZEBs.
Mr. Collins referenced Slide 16 –SVLG Comments and noted SVLG would support postponing the BART to Silicon Valley Project by 2018 and no later, APM should come on line when BART to Silicon Valley Project opens but APM does not have to be a monorail; however, it should be a direct connection from Santa Clara Caltrain/BART station to airport terminals.
Chairperson Pirzynski expressed appreciation and thanked Mr. Collins for the presentation and noted the following points for Board consideration: support or oppose a ¼ cent sales tax, with a 30-year sunset, a Pavement Management Program that includes bicycle and pedestrian programs. Chairperson Pirzynski noted other considerations, such as phasing BART to Silicon Valley no later than 2018 to improve cash flow and funding requirements, APM in some format concurrent with BART to Silicon Valley Project completion, Dumbarton Rail Project by 2011 as contained in two of the three Run Scenarios, and a positive Capital Program balance of at least $1 billion.
Yoriko Kishimoto, PAC Chairperson, expressed appreciation to VTA Board of Directors and staff for the new Run Scenarios, which makes decision-making possible and brings everyone to a closer countywide consensus. Ms. Kishimoto referenced the September 8, 2005 PAC Meeting and noted nearly an unanimous vote on most of the items mentioned in Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario with the endorsement of ¼ cent sales tax, 30-year sunset on the sales tax, Pavement Management Program, and opportunity to comment on future specific items, such as Caltrain Service receiving same high priority as the BART Project. Ms. Kishimoto continued that the APM have direct access to the airport terminals, she noted the importance of Dumbarton Rail Project completion by 2011 since all funding is almost secured, and recommended considering hybrid technologies as an alternative to ZEBs.
Laura Stuchinsky, SVLG, commented that the intent and goal for Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario was to build a consensus in the County to move and maximize as many high priority projects identified by the voters in the 2000 Measure A Program forward and to accomplish BART to Silicon Valley Project as quickly as possible. Ms. Stuchinsky commented that if funds are not available for Caltrain Electrification or if the other counties are unable to come up with their share of funds then those funds should be used for other Caltrain Service Improvements in Santa Clara County for entire Caltrain system. Ms. Stuchinsky noted that SVLG believes that this Run #6 Scenario best reflects the consensus in the County for the highest priority projects that are most important to voters and will achieve the greatest benefit to commuters.
Alternate Board Member McHugh queried how the $717 million for Pavement Management Program Improvement Projects was determined and why the delay in completion for Dumbarton Rail Project by 2023. Ms. Stuchinsky responded that SVLG has supported and encouraged the Dumbarton Rail Project from the beginning; however, the recommendation to delay the project is to try and figure a way to make all the pieces fit together. Ms. Stuchinsky commented that essentially SVLG was trying to determine a similar amount of funding that was available in the 1996 Measure A Program, which was about $10 million a year for Local Streets and County Roads.
Board Member Williams referenced Run #6 – Potential New 30-Year ¼ Cent Sales Tax to VTA SVLG Poll with Pavement Management Program Expenditure Spreadsheet and asked why SVLG recommended BRT instead of the single car light rail as identified in the 2000 Measure A Program for DTEV Project. Ms. Stuchinsky responded that the single-car light rail project was not particularly popular in the polling of the project and BRT would be a more economical and timely way to provide enhanced service in the corridor to achieve greater service.
Ex-Officio Board Member McLemore expressed appreciation to SVLG for their diligent work related to the Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario. He noted concern by the partners in Alameda and San Mateo Counties regarding the issue to delay Dumbarton Rail Project to 2023. Ex-Officio Board Member McLemore expressed concern regarding SVLG recommendation to complete Caltrain Electrification by 2020 and grouping all Caltrain items together while reducing the overall Caltrain program funding by ten percent. Ms. Stuchinsky responded that electrification did not rank as high in polling and does not achieve as much ridership gain as other service improvements included in the South County service upgrade. Ms. Stuchinsky noted that SVLG supports service upgrades that achieve increased ridership sooner and greater than electrification; however, recognizes that air quality improvements would be achieved with electrification. Ms. Stuchinsky noted if the three counties do not have their share of funding than the entire Caltrain Electrification project does not proceed forward; therefore, SVLG recommended allowing earmarked funds for electrification to be used for other purposes. Ms. Stuchinsky responded that in order to make the pieces fit together in the best way meant moving Dumbarton Rail Project out; however, added that SVLG recognizes that there are some adverse consequences related to the delay in terms of other funding that has been lined up for the project.
Kelly Fergusson, Menlo Park City Council Member, expressed support and urged
Santa Clara County to fully fund Caltrain at a high level of operating service.
Ms. Fergusson noted that San Mateo County has stepped up to the plate with San Mateo County’s Measure A to provide operating funds for Caltrain’s high level service. She requested that Santa Clara County do the same.
James Janz, City of Atherton Council Member, expressed support of high level for Caltrain service and stressed the importance to see Caltrain service in the City of Atherton. Mr. Janz commented that all transit run a deficit; however, noted that the problem with Caltrain is that there is no dedicated funding for the service. Mr. Janz noted that San Mateo County passed its Measure A Program, which provides
$240 million in funds for Caltrain and expressed support for Santa Clara County to proceed with the same approach. Mr. Janz noted PAC’s recommendation for Caltrain Service to receive the same high priority as BART to Silicon Valley Project.
Jim Bigelow, Redwood City, San Mateo, and Menlo Park County Chamber of Commerce, stressed the importance to implement Dumbarton Rail Project by 2011 in any of the Run Scenarios and urged VTA Board of Directors to be a strong and timely partner in delivering the Dumbarton Rail Project. Mr. Bigelow expressed appreciation to SVLG for the work to help expedite the Dumbarton Rail Project and noted TOD development projects funded by grants from Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) along the Dumbarton Rail line.
Ross Signorino, Interested Citizen, referenced Slide 10 – Differences between Scenarios and noted the deletion of the light rail car on Santa Clara/Alum Rock and Capital Expressway and queried about how much funding will be saved by deleting the light rail car. Mr. Signorino expressed support to see staff taking this route to find ways to conserve and save money.
Tom Fink, Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Political Director, referenced Slide 8 – Common Elements noting third bullet, “provides for a gradual VTA service increase of 12.4 percent by 2018, which includes services for senior/disable” and queried if the increase is based on the current levels of service or the levels of service that existed before the cuts in 2002. Mr. Fink commented that the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee worked to address the critical issue regarding the imbalance between capital and operating funds and queried how the various Run Scenarios address this imbalance.
Margaret Okuzumi, Bay Rail Alliance Executive Director, expressed concern regarding the fact that Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) did not have the opportunity to provide comments regarding the Run Scenarios and requested that input from CAC be received. Ms. Okuzumi expressed support for more rail service in the valley without implementing a new sales tax and stressed the importance to reconsider other possibilities since a sales tax would be difficult to pass.
Board Member Gage referenced the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee discussion regarding operations and maintenance of the existing VTA system without an additional source of revenue. Board Member Gage noted that at some time VTA would have to significantly reduce service levels as a result of not having enough funding to sustain operations and maintenance and queried why that issue is no longer discussed. Mr. Burns responded that staff sent out a memorandum on September 15, 2005 summarizing the activities that have taken place as a result of the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee recommendations and the results were that VTA conducted in-house measures to reduce costs, implemented fare increases, and other measures, which were sufficient for the current situation. VTA did not have to therefore, use Measure A money to support operations. Carolyn M. Gonot, Chief Development Officer, responded that the ¼ cent sales tax does draw toward operations and directed attention to all the Run Scenario operating spreadsheets referencing the ¼ cent sales tax line and noted that revenues are going to operations to meet VTA’s needs. If VTA does not receive an additional ¼ cent sales tax VTA will not have sufficient funds to maintain existing service or run future service. The first priority of the sales tax is to address VTA’s operations and whatever is left over goes towards completing projects in the
2000 Measure A Program. Board Member Gage stressed the importance to make sure that this issue is discussed and addressed to prevent the need of another sales tax beyond this to cover operations shortfalls.
Board Member Cortese expressed concern regarding past calculations of VTA operations versus VTA capital and noted issues that needed to be resolved legally to enable the Board to make modifications that will address VTA’s operating costs. Board Member Cortese noted that a provision needs to be implemented in any future sales tax measure that states that VTA Board of Directors have the discretion in cases of fiscal emergency in operating deficiencies to move funding from capital to operating to keep basic services going.
Board Member Gage read a letter into the record from Blanca Alvarado, Santa Clara County Board Supervisor District #2, to VTA Board of Directors. Board Member Gage spoke on behalf of Santa Clara County Board Supervisor Blanca Alvarado and noted the subject to preserve the funding for DTEV Santa Clara/Alum Rock Single-Car Light Rail Project. “I urge you to support a funding scenario that funds single-car light rail along Santa Clara Street and Alum Rock Avenue, a route included in the DTEV Light Rail Program. Ensuring that funding is available for this project will implement the vision that began six years ago and honor the promises made to residents of Santa Clara County’s most transit dependent region. Even in the two scenarios that include this option, completion is not expected until December 2034. This is not acceptable. The community and Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) have been strong supporters for transit improvements along Santa Clara Street and Alum Rock Avenue. In August 2000, VTA approved a preferred investment strategy and completed the major investment study identifying light rail in the Santa Clara/Alum Rock corridor. This project is ranked highly compared to other Measure A Projects in customer benefits, land use, environmental equity, socio-economic equity, project readiness, and funding as identified by VTA staff. In fact, DTEV ranks the highest in socio-economic and geographic equity. When VTA staff held a community meeting in East San Jose to gauge support for VTA 2030 projects, the majority of the 140 residents attending the meeting supported light rail. In late 2004 and early 2005, at three community meetings and in 483 surveys conducted for San Jose’s Mayfair and surrounding neighborhoods, light rail along Alum Rock Avenue received strong support. At the April 7, 2005 DTEV PAB Meeting, Supervisor Pete McHugh, Vice Mayor Cindy Chavez, Council Members Nora Campos and Dave Cortese, and I, unanimously and formally recommended that the single-car light rail is the preferred mode for Santa Clara Street and Alum Rock Avenue. Taking away funds from economically stressed neighborhoods that continue to receive unreliable bus service is simply not acceptable. In the past, VTA has promised more bus service and cleaner shelters, but has failed to produce reliable bus service or newer transportation options. Importantly, the single-car light rail will help to revitalize the older neighborhoods on East Santa Clara Street and Alum Rock Avenue. Furthermore, this plan would offer our most transit-oriented dependent riders an opportunity to use a cleaner, better system that is less likely to face elimination during a budget crisis. I am leery of a poll conducted by the SVLG that claims to represent the viewpoint of East San Jose residents who have voiced their support for an East Valley light rail line in several community meetings. Relying on the results from a poll that interviews a handful of voters is unreliable at best and misleading at worst. In addition, we know that many of our hardest working, low income residents may not be voters but are frequent transit users and certainly pay sales taxes that fund transportation projects. Their voices deserve to be heard. In addition, construction of light rail generates thousands of jobs. According to VTA staff, the Tasman East and Capitol Light Rail lines generated over 1,900 jobs. Estimates show that planning and constructing light rail along Santa Clara Street and Alum Rock Avenue would generate between 933 and 1,066 jobs. I am still hopeful that one day we will finally fund and implement the best transit system for a community that is often neglected when it comes to true transit improvements. To ensure a rational and just transportation plan, I urge your support of funding the single-car light rail project along Santa Clara Street and Alum Rock Avenue. Sincerely, Blanca Alvarado, Santa Clara County Board Supervisor, Second District.”
Board Member Williams left the workshop at 9:50 a.m.
Board Member Gonzales suggested that when referring to the BART project, to refrain from using “delay”, “defer” or “postpone” and suggested that staff use “ a schedule completion date of…” instead, since a time schedule for completion of the projects has not been fully completed. Board Member Gonzales expressed support and noted consensus starting to form around both Run #5 Current Scenario – BART to Silicon Valley by 2015 and Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario. He recommended further study and discussion.
Board Member Gonzales asked what the Run Scenarios provide in terms of future light rail extensions. Mr. Collins referenced Attachment 1 – Comparison of Current ¼ Cent Sales Tax Scenarios with Additional Scenarios Run #5 Current Scenario – BART to Silicon Valley by 2015, noting Line 22 - DTEV Eastridge to Nieman, Line - 23 Vasona Light Rail (LRT) to Los Gatos, and Line - 11 DTEV to Eastridge with Enhanced Bus and Single Car LRT in terms of light rail extensions. Board Member Gonzales noted that Vasona Project is not a new light rail extension and asked about the corridors on the list that will be studied. Mr. Collins responded that Vasona Project is an extension of an existing line and noted that Vasona to Los Gatos, Nieman Extension, and DTEV were on the list of the seven corridors to be studied. Board Member Gonzales queried about the two new light rail extensions added or funded. Mr. Collins responded that Nieman and Vasona are the two new light rail extensions.
Board Member Gonzales noted that VTA Board of Directors are being asked to potentially make decisions and recommendation related to DTEV corridor before the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is complete. He referenced Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario, the DTEV single car light rail and queried if VTA Board of Directors could approve an expenditure plan that contradicts what is showing in the environment document. Board Member Gonzales commented that his understanding of the EIR process is that financial plan cannot be approved, which eliminates one of the options that was being considered in the EIR. Mr. Collins responded, “yes” and referenced Slide 12 – Potential Savings (in year of expenditure $), noting that VTA Board of Directors could make a recommendation regarding the mode on DTEV and defer the decision until the completion of the EIR. Mr. Collins noted that the EIR document is scheduled to be circulated around the end of this year for the Santa Clara/Alum Rock segment. Board Member Gonzales asked when the EIR document would be completed and presented to VTA Board of Directors for consideration. Mr. Collins responded that it might be sometime next year or mid next year before there would be an actual recommendation. Mr. Collins noted that it must go to DTEV PAB first then forwarded to VTA Board of Directors for consideration, which allows time for the environmental process to be completed. Mr. Collins referenced Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario, which shows a positive Capital Program ending balance of $1.9 billion and noted the reason for the higher ending balance is that the scenario does not include the single car light rail project. Therefore, it is possible to put a placeholder on the modality on DTEV in place before the EIR document is complete then VTA Board of Directors make the decision at a later date.
Board Member Gonzales queried what the ending reserve balance should be and asked if there was an industry standard or is it staff’s desire to have a specific ending reserve balance. He noted the wide range between each of Run Scenario ending reserve balances from $664 million to $1.9 billion and suggested staff provide information regarding the ending reserve balance at the next discussion. Mr. Collins responded that it is a range from four to ten percent and stressed the importance from Board deliberation to leave some contingency unallocated for variations in the sales tax. Mr. Burns responded that staff will provide information regarding the ending reserve balance. He concluded it would be desirable to have an ending reserve balance near the magnitude of ten percent.
Board Member Gonzales referenced Attachment 1 – Comparison of Current ¼ Cent Sales Tax Scenarios with Additional Scenarios, Line 14 Caltrain South County Improvements and asked what does Run #5 Current Scenario – BART to Silicon Valley by 2015 and Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario say about Caltrain upgrades to South County. Mr. Collins responded that it is a combination of Line 13 Caltrain Service Upgrades (VTA Share) and Line 14 Caltrain South County Improvements; however, noted that specific improvements on Line 14 Caltrain South County Improvements are looking at double tracking. Mr. Collins continued that currently in VTA’s budget VTA is moving forward with double tracking down to Morgan Hill programmed to be completed by 2010, which will be billed against Line 14 Caltrain South County Improvements. Mr. Collins noted as far as additional service that is really contemplated under Line 13 Caltrain Service Upgrades (VTA Share). Mr. Collins noted $374 million for service upgrades, which could include station improvements, parking improvement at stations, and specific improvements to the South County with additional trains and services down to Gilroy.
Board Member Gonzales referenced Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario, Line 27 New Program – Pavement Management & Others and queried about the distribution formula for the Pavement Management Program funds. Board Member Gonzales requested copies of the schedule of the distribution formula regarding the funds for the Pavement Management Program be provided to Board Members.
Board Member Gonzales queried about the 30-year sales tax sunset and the impact on non-monetary issues, such as full-funding grant agreement for bonding or other issues. Ms. Gonot responded that this is something that staff will be working on with the Federal Transit Association (FTA).
Alternate Board Member Kerr queried about Line 14 Caltrain South County Improvements. Mr. Collins responded that $45 million over the next five years has been programmed, which includes about 8.5 miles of double track from Bailey Avenue in San Jose to Morgan Hill as well as some crossing improvements and reconfiguration for the double tracking, as well as some train storage in Gilroy. Mr. Collins noted that it is contemplated that the work would be done with a combination of VTA and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) forces completed by 2010.
Alternate Board Member Kerr noted that he respectfully disagrees with Ex-Officio Board Member McLemore regarding Caltrain and expressed support for grouping all three Caltrain line items together without cutting the funding by ten percent and to examine electrification with an open mind including study of hybrid locomotives technology as a way to reduce air pollution along the line. Alternate Board Member Kerr expressed support to revisit how the money for all three Caltrain line items together would be spent; however, the total amount should be held at the higher amount. Alternate Board Member Kerr queried about where the increase regarding Caltrain operating funds comes from as service increases along the line. Roger Contreras, Chief Financial Officer, responded that in the operating worksheets there are increases to Caltrain as a result of different increases throughout the years. Alternate Board Member Kerr asked if the sales tax passes does Caltrain receive a commiserate increase in operating subsidy that reflects VTA’s increased operating revenues. Mr. Contreras responded, “no” that the increases are associated with our operating agreement with Caltrain. Alternate Board Member Kerr asked if there was additional funding available for VTA’s share of Caltrain operations from part of the ¼ cent sales tax and noted that it would be appropriate in order to achieve the goals identified for Caltrain.
Alternate Board Member Kerr referenced Supervisor Blanca Alvarado’s letter and noted that there has to be some compromise on all sides for this strategic process. He stressed the importance of VTA’s primary responsibility to develop cost effective transportation projects.
Alternate Board Member Kerr clarified PAC’s position on the APM and stressed the importance for the People Mover to provide service above and beyond a parking lot shuttle. Alternate Board Member Kerr referenced Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario showing Eastridge to Nieman portion of the light rail line as not an economic project and requested SVLG provide further comments regarding the issue. Alternate Board Member Kerr stressed the importance of the Dumbarton Rail and noted that any deferment of the Dumbarton Rail Project is not acceptable since it is currently scheduled for operating revenue service in 2011 with all of its funding partners in place. Mr. Collins responded that the deferment of the Dumbarton Rail Project was the recommendation from Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario proposal. Ms. Stuchinsky noted that the recommendation was a reflection of polling results and the intent was to make as many of the high priority projects possible with the amount of money available to provide the most ridership, services, and improvements that would generate more riders. Ms. Stuchinsky noted that the short extension to Nieman was not seen as generating as much service as the proposed light rail extension to Sunnyvale to Cupertino except by doing the BRT, which is a more economical way of providing greater transit improvements and ridership.
Chairperson Pirzynski commented that Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario shows a great deal of capacity in terms of bottom line and added that VTA Board of Directors orientation towards both the Nieman Extension and Dumbarton Rail projects would be significant. Chairperson Pirzynski queried if SVLG would be able to accommodate both items that we did not want to adjust down and asked if this was SVLG conclusion as well. Ms. Stuchinsky responded, “yes” and noted that VTA Board of Directors have authority over plan decisions; therefore, SVLG is only offering the poll results and best policy put together for consensus. Chairperson Pirzynski noted appreciation to SVLG for putting together Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario and assisting to frame the questions and answers. Chairperson Pirzysnki noted the issue is how much of a bottom line of what to preserve will be tempered by the needs of what is significant to the region.
Alternate Board Member Kerr stressed the importance of funding for Pavement Management as well as Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs to his town and expressed support to include Pavement Management Program in any of the Run Scenarios.
Alternate Board Member Kennedy queried how double tracking plan would allow for reverse commute to South County. Alternate Board Member Kennedy expressed support to incorporate funding from part of the ¼ cent sales tax into Caltrain service.
Alternate Board Member Kennedy referenced a letter sent from the North County City Group Meeting on Friday, September 9, 2005 noting the North County City Group support of ¼ cent sales tax, BART Extension to Santa Clara County, favor Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario with additional comments made regarding APM being in place at the same time with the start up of BART completed by 2018, and stressed the importance of Caltrain service to South County. Alternate Board Member Kennedy noted PAC’s comments related to Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario. He noted that PAC voted to recommend that Caltrain service receive the same high service priorities as BART, APM direct access from the airport to Santa Clara Caltrain Station, and consideration of hybrid technologies as an alternative to ZEBs. Alternate Board Member Kennedy expressed appreciation and noted the importance for everyone especially VTA Board of Directors to speak with one voice and reach out to all the cities, constituents to find common solutions, and come to a consensus that works for everyone.
Board Member Casas requested the actual spreadsheets in soft copy format associated with Run # 5 Current Scenario – BART to Silicon Valley by 2015 and Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario regarding the information presented to the Board Members. Mr. Collins responded that staff will provide the information. Board Member Casas queried about the plan to receive input from CAC on the scenarios. Ms. Gonot responded that CAC did not meet in September 2005; however, the information will be brought forward to all the committees in October.
Board Member Casas asked if VTA has considered being the managing agency for the implementation of Caltrain electrification project along the entire line, which would allow VTA to collaborate and take the lead on the project. Board Member Casas expressed support to increase Caltrain service and if it is possible to build in efficiencies by taking the leadership role.
Board Member Chu expressed appreciation and thanked SVLG for including a BRT in Sunnyvale, which replaces a rail corridor and stressed the importance to recognize that this is a corridor that needs to be addressed. Board Member Chu noted that Sunnyvale agrees in general with the comments made by PAC regarding direct access of the APM and stressed that the APM should be completed in the same timeframe as BART to Silicon Valley. Board Member Chu asked what the ending balance should be and if there is extra funding available, how could it be applied to the projects. Board Member Chu noted that throughout the Run Scenario Spreadsheets it notes what the capital expenditures are but mixed in there is outside funding. It is difficult to clearly see what VTA is spending on an annual basis for these projects.
Board Member Chu expressed support for Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario with revisions to include Caltrain and Dumbarton Rail obligations in the revised scenario. Board Member Chu referenced Supervisor Blanca Alvarado’s letter and noted that job development will take place within the County since transit funding will be spent in the County.
Board Member Kniss stressed the importance of Pavement Management Program in North County and requested information regarding how funding would be broken down by city and within the County. Board Member Kniss commented the excess of information provided to Board Members is stunning. Board Member Kniss noted the importance of the Dumbarton Rail Project to North County and stressed importance to move up the Dumbarton Rail project to completion in 2011.
Board Member Kniss asked why VTA does not conduct its own polling. She stressed the importance for the public to know how the polling questions are structured and put forth. Board Member Kniss noted that the polling needs to have sufficient input and discussion and stressed the importance to know who crafted the questions for the SVLG poll. Mr. Burns responded that in San Francisco a fair amount of polling was conducted on a number of issues and some polling was funded internally but polling that was conducted to inquire on a tax increase or ballot measure was funded through private sources.
Board Member Kniss asked if the same private source was used repeatedly or different sources. Mr. Burns responded that the most recent measure in San Francisco used the Chamber of Commerce. Board Member Kniss asked if SamTrans used them as well. Mr. Burns responded, “yes” and noted that they created a committee that included the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Bigelow noted that the polling was not conducted under the title of SamTrans because a public agency cannot spend money to promote a ballot measure. It is important to be careful with regard to legal matters to make sure that private sector money is funding ballot-related polling.
Board Member Kniss continued her query with regard to polling and
Chairperson Pirzynski noted that when the SVLG conducted its poll that they did it within the sole limits of the SVLG. Ms. Stuchinsky responded that it was a broad collision that funded the polling and that the SVLG took the lead in putting it together by working with a lot of organizations.
Chairperson Pirzynski inquired about the timing on a follow up poll regarding a potential ballot measure. Ms. Stuchinsky responded that SVLG is planning to conduct another polling late this fall/winter in order to get a sense of where the economy is at this point and whether voters are any more willing to support a ¼ cent sales tax.
Chairperson Pirzynski asked Ms. Stuchinsky the follow up poll will be provided to VTA Board of Directors, not only the summary information, but the full run on what was indicated from the poll. Board Member Kniss noted that she would appreciate the information and has never received it in the past. Board Member Gage commented that SVLG is not entitled to release the information as the poll is conducted and funded by the private sector.
Board Member Matthews expressed appreciation to fellow VTA Board Members for their questions, comments, and participation. Board Member Matthews expressed support to narrow down Run #5 Current Scenario – BART to Silicon Valley by 2015 and Run # 6 SVLG Poll Scenario, which appear to have a lot of consensus since it is easier for everyone to see the differences between the Run Scenarios. Board Member Matthews stressed the importance to determine whether or not a 30-year sales tax will be implemented as well as if the sales tax will be permanent or sunset after 30-years. Board Member Matthews expressed support of Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario.
Board Member Cortese expressed appreciation for the spirit of the dialogue as well as the direction to move forward. Board Member Cortese commented that the Nieman Extension Project is a multi-million dollar Evergreen/East Hills vision process scheduled to wrap up in late spring next year. Board Member Cortese continued that the project is an economic development package, which includes 5000 - 6000 housing units as well as $230 million in infrastructure over half of which is committed to regional highway projects. He stressed the importance of local officials to champion economic development projects as well as determine what else the project does in terms of meeting objectives set forth by VTA.
Board Member Campos queried about the universe of the polling as well as the number of the individuals surveyed. Ms. Stuchinsky responded 1000 individuals were surveyed and noted that SVLG doubled the number normally surveyed to get greater validity in the smaller geographic areas than just broad countywide. Board Member Campos asked if portions of San Jose were polled. Ms. Stuchinsky responded that residents from all of San Jose were polled. Board Member Campos noted that area between Alum Rock to Great Mall continues to be one of the highest light rail ridership areas in the County. Board Member Campos queried about the potential ridership for the Great Mall/Alum Rock/Eastridge/Nieman Light Rail Extension if the line continues to Nieman and noted that ridership is crucial in these different corridors with high ridership levels.
Alternate Board Member Kerr left the workshop at 10:50 a.m.
Ex-Officio Board Member McLemore pointed out that he did not disagree with Alternate Board Member Kerr’s position relating to Caltrain and expressed support to combine Caltrain three line items together as well as not cutting the funding by ten percent since the intent is to maintain and improve Caltrain service to the South County.
Alternate Board Member McHugh referenced Attachment 1 – Comparison of Current
¼ Cent Sales Tax Scenarios with Additional Scenarios and asked about Line 2 –
New ¼ Cent Sales Tax available for Measure A. Mr. Collins responded that a ¼ cent sales tax in raw terms should yield about half of Line 1 – 2000 Measure A ½ Cent Sales Tax; therefore, about $4.5 billion over the 30-year sales tax. Mr. Collins noted that the amount shown is what is available for Measure A, other sources, or uses for funds for bonding costs and noted that amounts are higher on different scenarios. Alternate Board Member McHugh requested an analysis on how the 15 percent operating reserves compares to other operations. Mr. Collins noted that staff will provide and forward the information to Board Members. Alternate Board Member McHugh queried if there might be merit in reducing or freeing up some of the operating reserves.
Board Member Livengood expressed support for grouping all three Caltrain line items together and to look at different technologies for Caltrain that will accomplish the same environmental benefits that electrification might have. Board Member Livengood noted the importance to look at the entire issue of DTEV corridor and stressed the importance to have a breakdown of how the Pavement Management Program funds will be allocated.
Vice Chairperson Chavez expressed appreciation for the diligent work to move forward and work together and stressed importance to look at how to combine Run #5 Current Scenario - BART to Silicon Valley by 2015 and Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario in a way that provides the Board of Directors flexibility to respond to the economy and funding opportunities. Vice Chairperson Chavez noted the importance of comprise and a need to provide support to fellow Board Members regarding projects in the South and North County.
Vice Chairperson Chavez commented that the polling numbers negatively impact poor areas and stressed the importance that the Board of Directors are comfortable with decisions in order to move forward. Vice Chairperson Chavez expressed support of a ¼ cent sales tax with a 30-year sunset, and inclusion of a Pavement Management Program with back-up numbers. She noted the importance to be fair in terms of Dumbarton Rail. Vice Chairperson Chavez queried about how VTA is embedding contingencies into each of the line items and queried about what the delta is between contingencies and ending balance in each of the columns.
Chairperson Pirzynski expressed appreciation and thanked everyone for their participation and effort to listen to one another as well as realize that the only way to move forward is to move forward regionally. Chairperson Pirzynski noted VTA Board of Directors support Run #5 Current Scenario - BART to Silicon Valley by 2015 and
Run #6 SVLG Poll Scenario as the basis to develop a VTA Scenario.
Chairperson Pirzynski continued that a lot has been done by staff in the course of this last year and VTA is ready to go forward with a ¼ cent sales tax that sunsets in 30-years, a delineated Pavement Management Program, a three-year rescheduling of BART to Silicon Valley Project completed no later than 2018, which allows to the public the full service promised, Dumbarton Rail Project completed by 2011, and flexibility in terms of the capital balance amounts in each of the projects.
Chairperson Pirzynski continued that the Board of Directors have to allow the DTEV PAB to conduct their job as the working organization to consider options and make recommendations regarding modality. Restore the ten percent cut to Caltrain, but group the projects together; and the People Mover completion concurrent with the BART to Silicon Valley project, and while the modality may be an express bus to the terminals at the front end, as to not leave a gap in service.
Chairperson Pirzynski noted the importance to continue to look for other ways to fund these programs and encouraged VTA to tap into resources that are not available through normal financial opportunities. Chairperson Pirzynski noted that Board of Directors will approach the macro with the idea that the micro is subject to changes based on a myriad of circumstances. Chairperson Pirzynski directed staff to provide a new run that incorporates these new items. He indicated he would work with staff to develop next steps in this process.
On order of Chairperson Pirzynski, there being no objection, the Proposed Quarter Cent Sales Tax Scenarios were reviewed and discussed.
Chairperson Pirzynski announced that staff has tentatively scheduled Friday, October 21, 2005 at 8:30 a.m. for VTA Board of Directors Workshop Meeting for further discussion regarding the Proposed Quarter Cent Sales Tax Scenarios if necessary with the meeting location to be determined.
| 
Rider's Links 
