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

Board Minutes


BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

Thursday, May 4, 2006

Minutes

1.

CALLED TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA)Board of Directors was called to order by Chairperson Chavez at 5:39 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers, County Government Center, 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, California.

  
2.

ROLL CALL

Members Present                                                         
Jim Beall, Ex-Officio
Nora Campos
Cindy Chavez, Chairperson
Dean Chu, Vice Chairperson
Don Gage
Dennis Kennedy
Breene Kerr
Liz Kniss
John McLemore, Ex-Officio
Madison Nguyen
Greg Perry
Dolly Sandoval
Forrest Williams

Members Absent
David Cortese

Alternates Present    
Norman Kline, Alternate
Pete McHugh, Alternate

Alternates Absent
Jamie Matthews, Alternate
Al Pinheiro, Alternate
Ken Yeager, Alternate                                                                                   

* Alternates do not serve unless participating as a Member.

A quorum was present.

The Agenda was taken out of order.

  
6.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Chairperson Chavez requested that Agenda Item #7. Awards and Commendations be heard before Agenda Item #3. Adjourn to Closed Session.

Board Member Gage requested to add an In Memoriam Adjournment and would speak to it after Agenda Item #7. Awards and Commendations.

M/S/C (Campos/Williams) to accept Orders of the Day.

Board Member Kennedy took his seat at 5:41 p.m.

  
7.

AWARDS AND COMMENDATIONS

A.             Employees of the Month for May 2006

Chairperson Chavez presented awards to Kim Hurley, Secretary, Environmental Planning Administration; Bhupinder Bajwa, Guadalupe Division Operations; and Michael Crotts, Cerone Minor Maintenance, as VTA Employees of the Month for May 2006.

B.         Resolution of Commendation No. 06.05.07 for Senator Alfred E. Alquist

Chairperson Chavez reported that Kansen Chu, representing Senator Elaine Alquist, would be accepting the Resolution of Commendation for the late Senator Alfred E. Alquist.

Chairperson Chavez reported that Senator Alfred E. Alquist, a long-time leader in the California State Legislature and strong supporter of public transportation passed away on March 27, 2006 at the age of 97.  She indicated that the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority owes Senator Alquist a huge debt of gratitude for all of his tireless efforts in the area of public transportation during his many years of dedicated public service.

Chairperson Chavez reported that Senator Alquist would long be remembered for the legislation he authored that results in the creation and funding of a public transit system in Santa Clara County, the development of a multi-modal transportation network that we have today, and the evolution of VTA’s organizational structure.  His legacy in transportation will live on.

M/S/C (Gage/Sandoval) to adopt Resolution of Commendation No. 06.05.07 for Senator Alfred E. Alquist.

Ex-Officio Board Member Beall took his seat at 5:45 p.m.                     

Mr. Chu, on behalf of Senator Elaine Alquist and in honor of Senator                  Alfred E. Alquist accepted and thanked VTA for the Resolution of Commendation.

  
6.

ORDERS OF THE DAY (continued)

Board Member Gage requested that the Meeting adjourn in memory of Sean Merriman, a Caltrans employee who was killed on April 4, 2006, on Highway 101 in San Jose while filling potholes near the Hellyer Avenue exit.   Mr. Merriman was a very giving and generous person who always tried to help the underdog.  Mr. Merriman often stopped and talked to the homeless before reaching into his pocket for money.  From a very early age, Mr. Merriman followed his mother, Jackie Merriman’s footsteps and volunteered at Saint Joseph’s Family Center in Gilroy where his mother ran the food pantry for eight years.  As a young child, Mr. Merriman would find run away children living on the streets and would bring them home to stay at his parent’s Gilroy house for a night.  Mr. Merriman began working for District 4 Caltrans in January 2006, after nearly five years at Gilroy’s Public Works Department where he helped maintain the City’s parks, roads, sewers, and streets.  He was the 166th Caltrans worker killed in the line of duty since 1924 and the third in the last few months.  The accident occurred during “National Work Zone Awareness Week”, which recognizes the dangers of roadwork and urges motorists to use caution in work zones.  Mr. Merriman is survived by his mother and father as well as his fianc´┐Że, Maggie Moreno.  Mr. Merriman was only 32 years of age. 

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

  
3.

ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION at   5:50 p.m.

A.       Conference with Labor Negotiators

[Government Code Section 54957.6]

VTA Designated Representatives:

Roger Contreras, Chief Financial Officer

Bill Lopez, Chief Administrative Officer

Robert Escobar, Manager, Office of Employee Relations

Employee Organization:

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 715

B.       Conference with Labor Negotiators

[Government Code Section 54957.6]

VTA Designated Representatives:

Roger Contreras, Chief Financial Officer

Bill Lopez, Chief Administrative Officer

Robert Escobar, Manager, Office of Employee Relations

Employee Organization:

Transportation Authority Engineers and Architects (TAEA)

RECONVENED TO OPEN SESSION at 6:44 p.m.

  
4.

CLOSED SESSION REPORT

A.       Conference with Labor Negotiators

[Government Code Section 54957.6]

VTA Designated Representatives:

Roger Contreras, Chief Financial Officer

Bill Lopez, Chief Administrative Officer

Robert Escobar, Manager, Office of Employee Relations

Employee Organization:

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 715

There was no reportable action taken during Closed Session.

B.       Conference with Labor Negotiators

[Government Code Section 54957.6]

VTA Designated Representatives:

Roger Contreras, Chief Financial Officer

Bill Lopez, Chief Administrative Officer

Robert Escobar, Manager, Office of Employee Relations

Employee Organization:

Transportation Authority Engineers and Architects (TAEA)

There was no reportable action taken during Closed Session.

  
5.

Negotiations and Implementation of Amendments to the Labor Agreement between VTA and SEIU, Local 715     

Gwene L. Haywood, SEIU, Local 715-VTA Chief Steward, noted that Local 715 supports the item that the Board of Directors is considering and Local 715 wants to work out issues during contract negotiations without the pressure of the May 15, 2006 expiration date or the pressure of the June 2006 election, in which Local 715 is a very active participant.

Board Member Perry referred to the words contained in the first sentence of the recommendation, “Authorize the General Manager to amend the current labor agreement”, and noted that he did not see an attachment indicating what the amendments were.   Suzanne Gifford, General Counsel, reported that it means if the parties reach agreement by June 14, 2006, any changes to the new agreement, such as potential salary increase, would be effective on May 15, 2006.   The law enables the public entity to specify in advance of the effective date, what the effective rate will be.  This action taken by the Board of Directors tonight is what the Board of Directors will do in order to prevent a violation under the constitution that would prohibit retroactive pay increases.  The agreement declares what the new effective date will be if those conditions are met, therefore, it is not retroactive.

Board Member Perry referred to the words contained in the first sentence of the recommendation, “Authorize the General Manager to amend the current labor agreement on May 15, 2006 or thereafter”, and asked for an explanation, noting that the sentence seems very broad and unrestrictive in the authorization.  Board Member Perry asked if the sentence could be phrased so that it is clearer that the authorization is only to change the implementation date of the agreement if it is reached, rather than just broadly authorizing a change to the agreement.  Ms. Gifford stated “yes” it could be done.  She stated that only the Board of Directors can amend the actual terms of the agreement.  The Board of Directors is going to say “how much”, “what”, and “what have you”.  She explained that this item means that the Board of Directors is giving the General Manager the authority to do only the “when”, if the Board of Directors approves the “what” and “how” by June 14, 2006.  Michael T. Burns, General Manager, reported that the recommendation allows for the flexibility of going back to May 15, 2006, for any negotiated increases.  It does not require that those increases be effective on May 15, 2006; it just allows the General Manager the flexibility in the negotiations to have that capability.

Board Member Perry requested that the second sentence contained in the recommendation be changed to reflect the following language: “Approval of the recommendation is limited to enabling the General Manager to use his discretion as to the effective date for implementation of the contract as far back as May 15, 2006, provided that VTA and SEIU, Local 715 reach agreement on the full contract by June 14, 2006.”

Board Member Williams asked General Counsel if the wording change to the recommendation would change the intent of what needed to be done and if there would be any legal ramifications.   Ms. Gifford stated that “it was clear, we are fine”.

Board Member Kniss asked how does it change the intent, if at all.   Ms. Gifford stated “it does not”.

M/S/C (Perry/Kennedy) to authorize the General Manager to amend the current labor agreement on May 15, 2006 or thereafter.  Approval of the recommendation is limited to enabling the General Manager to use his discretion as to the effective date for implementation of the contract as far back as May 15, 2006, provided that VTA and SEIU, Local 715 reach agreement on the full contract by June 14, 2006.

  
8.

Hearing – Notice of Intention to Adopt Resolution of Necessity 

John Ristow, Deputy Director of Programming and Project Development, reported that Item #8 concerns property to be acquired for construction of the State Route 152/156 Improvement Project near Gilroy.   The need and necessity for acquiring this property is described in the Board Memorandum and Staff Report included in the Agenda packet.

Mr. Ristow reported that the Memorandum and Staff Report set forth the findings that need to be made by the Board to adopt the resolution.   As explained in the Memorandum and Report, the resolution will authorize the acquisition of fee and easement interests from the subject property.

Mr. Ristow reported that the owners of the property, the Lins, and their representative, have been notified of tonight’s hearing.   He noted that there was a speaker present and asked that the speaker come forward to address the Board of Directors.

Sylvester Heinberg, representing Thomas T. H. Lin, expressed concern regarding the offer of $122,000 made by VTA for the parcel of land owned by Thomas T. H. Lin.   He asked that the Board of Directors influence VTA to provide a better appraisal and offer on the parcel of land.

Board Member Kennedy queried if negotiations are still open.   Mr. Burns noted that this is just a step in the process and that VTA will continue to negotiate.

M/S/C (Gage/Kniss) to close Hearing and adopt Resolution of Necessity No. 06.05.08 determining that the public interest and necessity require the acquisition of fee and easement property interests from a parcel of land owned by Thomas T. H. Lin, et al, located near Gilroy, for the State Route 152/156 Improvement Project.

Property ID/Owner/Assessor’s Parcel Number

43005-1 & -2/Thomas T.H Lin, et al/APN: 898-23-002

  
9.

REPORT FROM THE GENERAL MANAGER

Mr. Burns invited the Board of Directors to VTA’s Cinco de Mayo Celebration honoring Cesar Chavez to be held on Friday, May 5, 2006 at 11:30 a.m. at VTA’s North Operating Division.  The event was planned by the Cinco de Mayo Committee, which is comprised of VTA employees and was formed with the goal of celebrating the Mexican-American culture and its contribution to the workplace.  The event is part of VTA’s Diversity Program, and the purpose of the Diversity Program is to provide education about other cultures and their contribution to our community and workplace environment.

Mr. Burns provided a report on two 1996 Measure B Projects.  He reported that VTA will be opening the River Oaks Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge, a 1996 Measure B Project, that spans the Guadalupe River and links new development areas in the City of Santa Clara to the north San Jose area and to the VTA light rail system.  The Opening Ceremony has been planned for Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 12:00 p.m.   The second opening is the 85/101 North Interchange Project in Mountain View and will be held on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. at the VTA North Operating Division.  This construction contract is the largest single highway construction project in the Measure B Program.  The ceremony will celebrate the opening of the north and southbound direct High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, the last of five new bridge structures completed as part of the project.  Mr. Burns extended an invitation to the Board of Directors.

Mr. Burns reported that two VTA Board of Directors and Committee Tours were held on April 14, 2006 and April 28, 2006.  Both tours were well attended, and participants had the opportunity to visit VTA’s Cerone Bus Yard and Guadalupe Light Rail Facility.  The participants also toured two of VTA’s construction projects, Communication Center, and Emergency Operations Center.  The response to the tour was overwhelmingly positive.  VTA received comments from members telling staff how impressed they were with VTA employees and the work they do on a day in and day out basis.  VTA staff believes that these tours proved an effective way of advancing Chairperson Chavez’ “Full Information, Full Participation” initiative, and VTA continues to extend the offer of personal tours to any Board Member who was unable to attend the tour.

Mr. Burns directed attention to the “2005 VTA Employee Survey Results” and noted that the survey results were mailed to all VTA employees.  He indicated that VTA received a good response rate, noting that 2100 employees were mailed the survey and about 800 completed the survey, a response rate of 37 percent.   Some of the key findings were as follows: 1) The majority of VTA employees feel appreciated by the riders they serve, 2) VTA employees value their jobs, and 3) VTA employees are proud of the work they perform.  There were some areas that needed improvement that were identified.  The most significant was better communication internally throughout the organization.  VTA is planning an event in a couple of weeks where 80 members of the staff will go off site, and one of the objectives of that one day off site meeting will be to review the results of the survey and to begin to develop the action plans for dealing with the areas that have been identified by the employees as problematic and needing improvement.  As soon as better action plans have been identified, staff will bring the action plans to the Board of Directors for information.

Mr. Burns reported that VTA’s system wide ridership for March 2006 for bus and light rail increased by 7.2 percent over March 2005.   He indicated that fare revenue for March 2006 was down 6.8 percent compared to March 2005, and part of this was due to VTA’s Senior and Disabled Free Fare Promotion.  VTA has not completed its analysis in determining what is actually happening between ridership and revenue, but one of the things VTA is seeing is an increased use of the ECO Pass and day passes.  VTA is seeing these additional riders due to the cost increase of gasoline. 

Mr. Burns directed attention to the Board Memorandum, dated May 2, 2006, “Review Status of Referrals from Board of Directors”.    He referred to the discussion held at the April 6, 2006, Board of Directors Meeting regarding the agreement reached between VTA and the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 265 to implement the Community Bus Program, noting that the Board of Directors approved the item.   Mr. Burns noted that he did not think that the item received a fair hearing and that there was a fair amount of discussion about the issue of VTA looking at the potential for paratransit operations to be performed by ATU employees.  The inference was that this was somehow done without full disclosure.  

Mr. Burns directed attention to the actual Board Memorandum dated January 8, 2004, that went to the Board of Directors when the agreement with ATU was approved.  He made reference to Page 5 of 6 of the Board Memorandum and noted that it contained some of the provisions of the agreement and, specifically, describes one of the areas to be explored as follows:  “VTA and ATU will explore the feasibility of using employees represented by ATU to operate small capacity vehicles on regular bus routes and to provide paratransit service.”  Mr. Burns noted that this was a historical achievement for VTA, and with the cooperation of ATU and in the negotiations with VTA, was a milestone for the organization.

Mr. Burns, once again, thanked the representatives from ATU who participated in the negotiations and recognized changing times with regard to service delivery and the need to become more cost effective with our service delivery.  VTA looks forward to the implementation of those services as soon as possible.

Chairperson Chavez asked if VTA was bringing in a different class of drivers.   Mr. Burns noted that it is an entirely new classification that is lower paid; it is about 70 percent of the cost. 

Chairperson Chavez queried if the Community Buses used regular gasoline.   Mr. Burns indicated “yes”.   Chairperson Chavez asked if VTA was looking at any other types of vehicles that use a different type of fuel instead of gas.  Mr. Burns indicated that VTA has looked at alternatives, but unfortunately at this point, there are not any good alternatives.   VTA will be replacing some of its 40-foot buses with the smaller buses.

Chairperson Chavez also acknowledged ATU, noting that it was a big step.

Board Member Williams noted that it is unusual for a bargaining unit to agree to lower wages and noted it was a landmark decision of cooperation.   He also thanked ATU.

Board Member Perry referred to the cost savings, noting that $100 per hour is still more than double what it was when VTA contracted out in Los Gatos.   By bringing the service in-house, VTA doubled its cost.

Chairperson Chavez noted it is important to be able to pay people decently.

Board Member Kniss noted that it is a step in the right direction.

Board Member Kennedy noted it was a major step and credits ATU.

Kurt Evans, Governmental Affairs Manager, reported that legislative leaders in the California State Senate Assembly have been working very diligently to try to cobble together a compromise on an infrastructure bond package that could be placed before the voters in November 2006.   The size of the bond package would be approximately $35 billion, which is smaller than what the legislature was talking about previously.  The following four areas are being focused on in the bond package: 1) levees, 2) education,  3) transportation, and 4) affordable housing.

Mr. Evans reported that the transportation component of the bond package would be approximately $19 billion, and the make-up of the transportation piece is very similar to what was talked about earlier.   Major new transportation programs to be funded with bond proceeds would be goods movement, corridor mobility, transit capital, and transit security.   Some of the bond proceeds would be used to augment existing transportation programs, such as the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), rehabilitation projects on the state highway system, local streets and roads, and State Local Partnership Program.  Mr. Evans noted that the Senate and Assembly are currently in session debating the package.

Board Member Kniss noted that one of the concerns that they had as a County was how the transportation package was going to be divided.  Mr. Evans noted that the transportation package would be divided as follows: 1) $3 billion for goods movement, 2) $4.5 billion for corridor mobility, 3) $4 billion for transit capital, 4) $1 billion for transit security, 5) $2 billion to augment the STIP, 6) $750 million for state rehabilitation projects in the state highway system, 7) $1 billion for local streets and roads allocated by the formula that was used for Proposition 42 monies, and 8) $1 billion for the State Local Partnership Program.

Ex-Officio Board Member McLemore queried if the $1 billion for high-speed rail still exists.  Mr. Evans indicated at present it is not included in the bond package.  He noted that there is a $10 billion bond measure that is currently on the November 2006 ballot for high-speed rail.

Board Member Sandoval referred to the $1 billion statewide for pavement management, local roads and surfaces, and asked what does this mean to Santa Clara County.  Mr. Evans noted that the Proposition 42 formula splits the money half for counties, half for cities, and then it is allocated to the jurisdictions by formula.  In the case of the cities, it is based on population; in the case of the counties, it is based on population and vehicle registrations.  Mr. Evans noted if the package is approved by the Legislature, he could probably try and get those specific numbers in terms of how that $1 billion translates to Santa Clara County for the county as well as the individual cities.

Bernice Alaniz, Deputy Director of Marketing and Customer Service, directed attention to the presentation entitled “Current VTA Marketing Efforts” and provided a report on VTA’s recent promotions.   She referred to the Gas Price Promotion and noted that VTA is currently running the “Do the Math!” Ad in local newspapers and is in the process of printing bus boards.  VTA has also had great coverage on radio stations.  VTA has been trying to leverage the high gas prices with taking advantage of public transportation. 

Ms. Alaniz referred to the Meet the Riders Campaign and noted that VTA launched the campaign on April 1, 2006.   VTA has held two Meet the Riders Contests, one at the Great America Station and one in the City of Mountain View.    Ms. Alaniz indicated that the contests have been very successful, noting that VTA has attracted new riders and increased website visits.  The next contest is May 13, 2006 at Eastridge Mall in San Jose.   

Ms. Alaniz referred to the Youth Summer Blast Pass and noted that VTA will begin selling the pass the week of May 8, 2006.   VTA is working with schools, youth employers, and youth agencies to promote utilization of public transportation throughout the summer. 

Board Member Campos requested that VTA also advertise on Vietnamese radio stations and requested a list of all of the radio stations and media that VTA advertises with. 

Chairperson Chavez referred to the Youth Summer Blast Pass and queried about the discounts offered to the youth.   Ms. Alaniz responded that upon purchase of the Youth Summer Blast Pass, the youth receives a coupon book with various discounts at malls, amusement parks, and other attractions.  

Board Member Nguyen noted that she has a complete list of all the radio stations and newspapers in Vietnamese and to contact her office for assistance.

A.         Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for January to         March 2006

Mr. Burns noted that the Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report is provided to all of the Board Members and is presented at the Congestion Management Program and Planning Committee (CMPP).   Staff was asked to put together a presentation describing how funds flow, how local jurisdictions are responsible for getting projects done, and how that intertwines with the report.  The presentation was provided at the April 20, 2006, CMPP Meeting, and CMPP requested that the presentation be provided to the entire Board of Directors.

Marcella Rensi, Transportation Planning Manager, directed attention to the presentation and provided a report, highlighting: 1) Planning Process; 2) Major Funding Sources; 3) Programming and Project Delivery Process; 4) How Projects Get Grants; 5) How Project Sponsors Claim Their Money; 6) Building the Projects; 7) The Federal Aid Process; 8) VTA’s Project Monitoring Program; and 9) a sample of the Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report.   Ms. Rensi noted that the report itself contains a summary sheet listing projects that have received funding, which will expire this fiscal year.  She indicated that the project summary sheet identifies projects in the following color coded categories: 1) Red – Projects at the risk of losing funds due to delivery difficulties; 2) Yellow – Projects that may need extra attention or will risk running into difficulties, and 3) Green – Project is progressing smoothly.

Chairperson Chavez requested that staff, from an information perspective, place the Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report in the back of the Board Members’ binders on a quarterly basis.

Chairperson Chavez asked that Mr. Burns provide a brief update on the new guidelines that Caltrans will be using related to the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program.

Mr. Burns referred to the lawsuit and legal entanglement with the DBE Program at the federal level.   He noted that VTA received notification from Caltrans that after careful analysis, they do not have sufficient data to satisfy the newly established evidentiary standards set forth by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to continue with a race conscious DBE Program.   This means that all agencies receiving federal money through Caltrans must establish a race neutral DBE Program pending the results of a more comprehensive study.  VTA is working with San Francisco Muni and BART to do a comprehensive disparity study for the region and the study will take several months.   As VTA proceeds with federal projects, such as the State Route 152/156 Interchange Construction Project, Route I-880/Coleman Planting Project, and the Route 87 North and South Landscaping Planting Project, the contracts would have to be issued with a race neutral DBE Program.  Mr. Burns noted that a memorandum will be provided to the Board of Directors explaining the issue.    

Chairperson Chavez requested that the issue be agendized at the Administration and Finance (A&F) Committee Meeting.   Mr. Burns noted that staff would provide full background information on the issue and it would be agendized at the next A&F Meeting. 

Chairperson Chavez noted that VTA needs to think about strategies for outreach to businesses.

Jerry Grace, Interested Citizen, noted that the General Manager’s Report was a very good report and that VTA’s Summer Youth Blast Pass Promotion was a great concept.

  
10.

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

Martin Bishop, N.E.E.D. Project, noted that VTA would be the first transportation authority in the Country to have mandatory mobility securement devices on all buses.  He requested that Michelle Garza, VTA Board Assistant, read the following statement into the record:

 “VTA Board of Directors,

I have the unfortunate duty to inform you that you have been led astray by VTA staff, County Counsel, or other departments into the adoption of mandatory securement of mobility impaired devices on VTA buses in an overreaction in response to a $2.1 million lawsuit, the only such lawsuit incurred over a 23-year period of non-mandatory restraints on buses.  There is no ADA, federal, state or local laws requiring mandatory restraints on buses, trains or light rail vehicles for mobility-impaired devices.  Now, today we are mandating mobility impaired devices that will only replace one liability with four liabilities that will add up to $3-4 million over a 3 to 5 year period in costs associated with workmen’s compensation to coach operators, costly repairs to damaged wheelchairs, and disruption of bus schedules, in addition to forcing early retirement of VTA coach operators.”

Mr. Grace referenced an article contained in the San Jose Mercury Newspaper, dated October 8, 2005, and provided the article to Chairperson Chavez. 

Zakhary Mallett, Interested Citizen, expressed concern that there is always a conflict with bicycles on light rail mainly due to the policy of how the bicycles are to be loaded on light rail.   All bicycles are to be loaded with the front wheel hanging, which creates a conflict with handlebars.  He indicated that he could almost always count on a bicycle either falling or at a high potential of falling due to the fact that the handlebars are colliding against each other.  In addition, bicycle traffic coming on and off light rail has a confliction with passengers on light rail due to the fact that seats are right across from where bicycles are hung.  Mr. Mallet asked that the Board of Directors direct staff to look into evaluating and eliminating the problem.  

Eugene Bradley, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Riders Union, noted that security issues at the park-and-ride lots at the Branham and Capitol Light Rail Stations were brought up at a previous Board Meeting.  He indicated that several speakers at the time had requested follow-up on the issue and noted that one of the speakers had indicated that VTA had not addressed the concerns.   Mr. Bradley requested that VTA staff properly address the appropriate persons who had concerns about security at light rail stations.

  
11.

Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Chairperson’s Report

Steve Glickman, PAC Chairperson, provided a report on the April 13, 2006 PAC Meeting, highlighting: 1) PAC received a presentation from VTA Board Chairperson Cindy Chavez. She noted that Board Members are striving to further improve communication between the VTA Board of Directors and the Advisory Committees and encouraged PAC members to provide her with ideas and feedback; 2) PAC received a presentation and provided input regarding the scope of work for the VTA Organization & Financial Assessment; 3) PAC received a presentation from the City of San Jose regarding the Coyote Valley Specific Plan; 4) PAC reviewed the following: a. Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report and b. FY 2007 Transportation Fund for Clean Air Manager Funds; and 5) PAC Members have been invited to present their cities transportation needs for discussion by PAC and results of discussion would be forwarded to the Board of Directors; and PAC is scheduled receive a City Transportation Presentation from the City of Palo Alto at the May 11, 2006 Meeting.

Chairperson Chavez referred to the extensive discussion held at PAC regarding the issue related to a quorum, noting the challenges of some of the smaller cities being able to serve on PAC and the possibility of replacing the elected officials with a staff person to serve on PAC.   She indicated that follow-up work needs to be done on the issue and requested VTA staff to work with PAC.

Mr. Glickman indicated that should the Board of Directors wish to change that ability to appoint, it would require a bylaw change.  Chairperson Chavez recommended that PAC work with staff to come up with some options, because she does not want the smaller cities not to be able to be included on a regular basis.

Mr. Glickman commented that as Chairperson it has been his effort to increase not just participation but the perceived validity and worthwhileness of participating on PAC.   He hopes that with some of the initiatives and activities to be undertaken it will solve the problem.

Board Member Kerr indicated that the actions that were undertaken last year to increase the requirements to pass a resolution on PAC were ill advised, due to the difficulty in getting adequate membership, not only to have a quorum, but also to have a majority of the membership, which is what is required to pass a motion.   Board Member Kerr noted that if smaller cities are unable to fill a position, the requirements for a motion to pass should be commensurately reduced.

Board Member Sandoval recommended that a full discussion be held by the Board of Directors regarding the consideration of changing the quorum.

Board Member Perry noted that it is difficult to get motivated to go to a meeting where you know that you are not going to be able to get something passed, and if you did, it will be ignored.

Board Member Gage left the meeting at 8:00 p.m. and

relinquished his seat to Alternate Board Member McHugh.

Board Member Williams applauded Mr. Glickman for his efforts on motivating PAC Members to attend meetings. He indicated that it should be a privilege to serve on any committee and one should hold that with esteem.   He noted that he is not in favor of modifying or changing the quorum to make it convenient.

Chairperson Chavez noted that she has been very pleased with the work of PAC and with PAC Chairperson Glickman.   She indicated that she thinks it is the role of the Board of Directors to help PAC be successful.  Chairperson Chavez noted that her opening of tonight’s discussion was to just ask Mr. Glickman to work with staff as he is working with the Board of Directors.  She noted that when she became Chairperson of the Board of Directors, one of the things she talked about was a way to do a better job of engaging all of the Committees. 

Board Member Kniss indicated that she represents a city that has 4,000 people and represents a county that has 932,000 people and that adds up to more than 60 Council Members.  They have very different lives and needs, and it is very difficult sometimes for someone from a small city to accommodate themselves to the needs of an Advisory Committee.  Board Member Kniss reiterated that one has to be realistic in how one serves and has to be realistic in what our expectations are.

Board Member Kennedy noted that he concurs with Chairperson Chavez’ comments with regards to PAC working with staff on the issue.

Mr. Glickman noted that he will review with staff the options and, in the meantime, he will re-double his efforts to encourage all the Member Agencies to be visible that there is an advantage to participating on PAC.

Mr. Grace expressed concern regarding attendance at meetings.

  

CONSENT AGENDA

Chairperson Chavez noted that a public speaker requested that the following Agenda Item be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda: Item #20. 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 $1,830,000, from the proposers offering the most advantageous terms to VTA. 

Board Member Kennedy requested that the following Agenda Item be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda:   Item #29. Authorize the General Manager to execute Memorandum of Understanding with the Council of San Benito County Governments regarding cooperation on development of transportation solutions for Santa Clara and San Benito Counties. 

M/S/C (McHugh/Sandoval) to approve the Consent Agenda, as amended.

  
12.

Minutes of the Regular Board of Directors’ Meeting of April 6, 2006

M/S/C (McHugh/Sandoval) to approve the Minutes of the Regular Board of Directors’ Meeting of April 6, 2006.

  
 

ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE COMMITTEE

13.

BART Warm Springs Extension Policy Advisory Committee Appointment

M/S/C (McHugh/Sandoval) to appoint VTA Board Ex-Officio Member John McLemore to the BART Warm Springs Extension Project Policy Advisory Committee to represent VTA. 

  
14.

BART Plus Ticket Program Agreement

M/S/C (McHugh/Sandoval) to authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement to continue the BART Plus multi-agency ticket program in cooperation with BART and eight other Bay Area transit agencies.

  
15.

Financial Audit Services Contract

M/S/C (McHugh/Sandoval) to authorize the General Manager to execute a three-year contract with Vavrinek, Trine, Day and Co. (Vavrinek) to provide financial and compliance audit services to Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority   (VTA) at a cost of $520,000 for the three-year period.  Further, authorize the General Manager to extend the contract for two additional one-year options at a price not to exceed $186,000 for the first year of renewal and $192,000 for the second year.  Total amount of the contract for the five-year period is $898,000. 

  
16.

Oracle Site License Renewal

M/S/C (McHugh/Sandoval) to authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Oracle Corporation for software licenses and maintenance support for Oracle products for a period of five years.  The contract amount will not exceed $1,626,702. 

  
17.

Telephone System and Voice Network Maintenance

M/S/C (McHugh/Sandoval) to authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Advantel to maintain VTA’s telephone system and voice network.  The term of the contract is for two years, with an option to extend the contract for one additional year.  This contract will not exceed $230,000 for the first year; $230,000 for the second year; and $239,200 for the optional third year, for a total contract value not to exceed $699,200 over a three year period. 

  
18.

Amend the Existing Agreement with Viscom Products to Provide 20 Additional Light Rail Vehicle Video Surveillance Systems

M/S/C (McHugh/Sandoval) to authorize the General Manager to amend the existing agreement with Viscom Products to provide and install video surveillance systems on 20 additional light rail vehicles and provide maintenance for three years, with an option to extend the contract on an annual basis for two additional years of maintenance.  The contract amendment will be in the amount of $381,546 for the first three years and $48,100 for two additional years of optional maintenance.  Including this amendment, the total contract value will be $2,199,676. 

  
19.

1996 Measure B Transportation Improvement Program (MBTIP) – Increase Route 237/880 Interchange Stage C, Phase II Construction Contract Amount

M/S/C (McHugh/Sandoval) to authorize the General Manager to execute the final and balancing contract change order with RGW Construction for construction of the Route 237/880 Interchange Stage C, Phase II project for a final contract amount of $27,550,030.79, an increase of $50,031 over the current Board of Directors authorized contract amount. 

  
20.

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

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 $1,830,000, from the proposers offering the most advantageous terms to VTA. 

 

  
21.

State Legislative Positions: SB 1812 (Runner)

MS/C (McHugh/Sandoval) to adopt a support position for SB 1812 (Runner), which would permit Caltrans to participate in a federal pilot program that allows certain states to assume the responsibilities of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for a limited period of time to see if this approach would speed up the delivery of capital improvement projects on the state highway system without a lessening of environmental protection.   Specifically, the bill authorizes Caltrans to consent to the jurisdiction of the federal courts with regard to the assumption of FHWA’s responsibilities under NEPA and waives the state’s Eleventh Amendment protection against lawsuits brought in federal court for as long as Caltrans participates in the pilot program.  SB 1812 has a two-year sunset. 

  
22.

Fund Transfer Agreements with Caltrans for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007 State Transportation Improvement Program Planning, Programming and Monitoring Program

M/S/C (McHugh/Sandoval) to adopt Resolution No. 06.05.09 authorizing the General Manager to execute fund transfer agreements with the State of California Department of Transportation for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 State Transportation Improvement Program Planning, Programming and Monitoring Program. 

  
23.

Cooperative Agreement with the City of Milpitas for State Route 237/Interstate 880 Interchange and Tasman East Light Rail Landscaping Projects

MS/C (McHugh/Sandoval) to authorize the General Manager to execute a cooperative agreement with the City of Milpitas that specifies the funding, project development and construction responsibilities for landscaping of State Route 237/Interstate 880 Interchange and Tasman East Light Rail Projects. 

  
24.

Contract Amendment with Parsons Transportation Group for Final Landscape Design and Design Support Services During Construction of the State Route 237/Interstate 880 Interchange Landscaping Project

M/S/C (McHugh/Sandoval) to authorize the General Manager to amend the contract with Parsons Transportation Group for final landscaping design and design support services during construction of the State Route 237/Interstate 880 Interchange Landscaping Project, increasing the approved contract value by $300,000 for a new total contract value of $6,055,139 and extending the contract term through December 31, 2007. 

  
25.

Contract Amendment with URS Corporation for Final Landscape Design and Design Support Services During Construction of the Interstate 880/Coleman Avenue Interchange Project

M/S/C (McHugh/Sandoval) to authorize the General Manager to amend the contract with URS Corporation for final landscaping design and design support services during construction of the Interstate 880/Coleman Avenue Interchange Project, increasing the approved contract value by $350,000 for a new total contract value of $9,267,505 and extending the contract term through December 31, 2007. 

  
26.

Sale of Parcel Located at 392 West San Fernando Street in the City of San Jose to Dwight and Roberta Centanne       

M/S/C (McHugh/Sandoval) to determine that approximately 1,390 square feet of vacant land located at 392 West San Fernando Street in the City of San Jose is surplus, and authorize the General Manager to execute all documents necessary to sell the parcel of land to Dwight and Roberta Centanne. 

  
 

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND PLANNING COMMITTEE

27.

FY 2007 Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program Manager Fund

M/S/C (McHugh/Sandoval) to approve the programming of FY 2007 Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program Manager (TFCA 40%) funds. 

  
28.

Amendment to Tier 1 Bicycle Expenditure Program Project: River Oaks Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge

M/S/C (McHugh/Sandoval) to approve an increase of $282,000 in the Bicycle Expenditure Program 1996 Measure B allocation for the River Oaks Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge for a total allocation of $1.92 million from the 1996 Measure B Bicycle Account. 

  
29.

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

Authorize the General Managertoexecute Memorandum of Understanding with the Council of San Benito County Governments regarding cooperation on development of transportation solutions for Santa Clara and San Benito Counties. 

  
 

TRANSIT PLANNING AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE

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

REGULAR AGENDA

  
20.

Annual Renewal of Property and Casualty Insurance Coverage

Mr. Bishop referred to the mandatory securement of mobility devices and expressed concern regarding possible incidental expenses pertaining to the submittal of workers compensation claims due to bus operator injuries and damage to wheelchairs.

Mr. Burns noted that the item applies to all of VTA’s insurance coverages.   VTA’s experience with regards to the wheelchairs and workers compensation is that there has not been any impact as a result of the new securement device.

 M/S/C (Kerr/Williams) 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 $1,830,000, from the proposers offering the most advantageous terms to VTA. 

  
29.

Memorandum of Understanding with the Council of San Benito County Governments

Board Member Kennedy indicated that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was not broad enough, noting that the MOU was heavily focused on State Routes (SR) 52 and 156.   Mr. Burns noted that the intent was to apply to any transportation project that had joint impact between Santa Clara and San Benito Counties.

Carolyn M. Gonot, Chief Development Officer, reported that Board Member Kennedy had made the following comments in regards to the MOU: 1) safety issues along the roadways in the earlier part of the MOU and 2) broaden the MOU to specifically mention all the roadways that were studied in the Southern Gateway Study, which was SR 152 and 156 as well as SR 25 and US 101.

Board Member Kennedy requested that the following language contained in the MOU, Item 5. “The parties will work together with Caltrans to develop consensus solutions to address long-range transportation needs within the area” be amended to reflect the following: “The parties will work together with Caltrans to develop consensus solutions to address long-range transportation needs within the area such as SR 25, US 101, SR 152 and SR 156.”

Ms. Gonot indicated that the Council of San Benito County Governments (COG) will take action on the MOU in June 2006, and noted that VTA staff would make the changes requested by Board Member Kennedy, forward the changes to the South County Highway Policy Advisory Board (PAB) and then forward to COG.

Board Member Perry noted that the MOU does not address the integration of land use planning across the two counties and wants to see the parties directly involved, including North County, to begin addressing the issue.

Board Member Kennedy indicated that perhaps it would be appropriate to also add some language broadening the scope of the MOU to include the recommendations of the Southern Gateway Study.

Board Member Sandoval asked who was involved in the Southern Gateway Study and has it been formally adopted by the VTA Board of Directors.   Mr. Burns indicated that the Southern Gateway Study was a presentation and was provided at CMPP.   It was suggested at the CMPP Meeting that staff provide the presentation with the Board materials.  The Southern Gateway Study and the Agreement with the San Benito COG are two separate items.  The MOU with the San Benito COG was strictly related to transportation issues and there was no provision for extending discussions to other issues. The MOU was specific to transportation impacts and was initiated out of the SR 152/156 process. 

Board Member Kennedy referred to the Guiding Principles for Study contained at the back of the Southern Gateway Study presentation and recommended that the principles be referred to in the MOU.

Board Member Kerr queried if the Agreement provides for the discussion of bringing San Benito County into the Caltrain operating authority or at least beginning those kind of discussions.   Mr. Burns noted that San Benito County is looking at extensions of Caltrain.  He directed attention to the MOU, Item #6. “The parties will incorporate mutually agreed upon transportation improvements for the area into their respective long-range countywide transportation plans” and noted that the words “including Caltrain” could be added.

Board Member Perry recommended that a letter also be drafted approaching the San Benito COG regarding land use planning.

Board Member Kennedy noted that perhaps that would be a separate issue that could be done as part of the South County Circulation Study.   It was the consensus of the Board to direct staff to write a letter requesting that the Study include land use planning.

Ex-Officio Board Member McLemore indicated that adding the comments about Caltrain are important long term for strategic planning.

Board Member Williams noted that the South County Highway PAB looked at population, land use, and projections for the future.   He indicated that preliminary work was done related to land use and transportation needs in Santa Clara County, which included the Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Santa Cruz and Monterey area.   He noted that San Benito attended the meetings. 

Ms. Gonot referred to the Southern Gateway Study and noted that an extensive review was conducted on land use policies, including growth population employment projections.   The South County Circulation Study identifies specific planned developments in Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Coyote Valley, and San Benito. There is a more detailed analysis of the land use and its impacts on transportation contained in the South County Circulation Study.

Chairperson Chavez requested that VTA staff draft a letter expressing an interest and continued support for the work of the South County Circulation Study, including its emphasis on the connection between land use and transportation.

M/S/C (Kennedy/Sandoval) to request that the MOU be amended to reflect the following: Item #5. “The parties will work together with Caltrans to develop consensus solutions to address long-range transportation needs within the area such as SR 25, US 101, SR 152 and SR 156 and Item #6. “The parties will incorporate mutually agreed upon transportation improvements for the area, including Caltrain, into their respective long-range countywide transportation plans.”

M/S/C (Kennedy/Sandoval) to authorize the General Manager to execute Memorandum of Understanding, as amended, with the Council of San Benito County Governments regarding cooperation on development of transportation solutions for Santa Clara and San Benito Counties. 

  
 

ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT - (See Agenda Item #33.A.)

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

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND PLANNING COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT - (See Agenda Item #33.B.)

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

TRANSIT PLANNING AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT - (See Agenda Item #33.C.)

30.

Bus Mobility Device Securement Policy

Mr. Bishop apologized to Board Member Kniss for not keeping his one-year re-appointment commitment on the Public Authority Advisory Board and noted that he looks forward to working with Board Member Williams in making the funding needed to make VTA strong.

Mr. Grace referred to discussions held at Alameda County (AC) Transit regarding scooters on buses and sidewalks and their impact to safety.

Board Member Sandoval reported that the Transit Planning and Operations (TP&O) Committee discussed the proposed Bus Mobility Securement Device Policy in March and April 2006 and recommends to the Board, on an unanimous vote, to approve the proposed Bus Mobility Securement Device Policy to be effective in January 2007. 

Board Member Sandoval indicated that VTA’s current policy does not require a customer to secure their mobility device; the operator is required to offer assistance when requested.   The recommended new policy would require customers to secure their mobility device.  The operator would be responsible for verifying securement, and if a passenger refuses securement, the operator would then explain the policy and consult with the VTA Operations Control Center to determine the next steps.  VTA will not abandon a customer and refusals will be managed on a case-by-case basis.  Customers may end up riding unsecured or may be asked to disembark.   Each situation will be handled with consideration to its particular circumstances.  Board Member Sandoval noted that safety will continue to be VTA’s top priority. 

Board Member Sandoval reported that the proposed policy has been a result of extensive work done by the Committee for Transit Accessibility (CTA) and CTA established Task Force.  A substantial amount of public outreach has been done over the last year, including a public awareness campaign, participation in the Abilities Expo in November 2005, and five public meetings to solicit specific feedback on the proposed policy.

Board Member Sandoval indicated that with Board of Directors approval, VTA purchased and installed a new, easier to use, mobility device restraint system on all its buses, replacing the several different types of restraint systems previously in place.  She noted that all VTA buses will contain the same mobility device restraint system.  Board Member Sandoval noted that the project cost that the Board of Directors approved was upwards of $600,000.

Board Member Sandoval reported that in the Committee’s view point, she thinks that the benefits of the recommended policy is threefold: 1) to improve safety for all VTA customers, 2) to improve securement time, and 3) to reduce injury exposure to VTA operators.   The challenges include the wide variety of mobility devices in the marketplace, community acceptance, and operator compliance. 

Board Member Sandoval indicated that to implement the policy, VTA will proactively encourage securement of mobility devices, continue ongoing community awareness campaigns to stress the January 2007 implementation date, and provide ongoing training for all operators.  The CTA Task Force will continue to meet for an additional year to monitor the implementation of the policy, provide feedback to staff, and then forward the feedback to TP&O.

Board Member Sandoval directed attention to Mr. Bishop’s letter, dated May 4, 2006, addressed to the VTA Board of Directors regarding his concerns about the mandatory securement of mobility devices.   She noted that Mr. Bishop requested that the additional statement be read into the record:  “In addition, the VTA has not taken into account the cost of Workmen’s Compensation for injuries, especially for those drivers who live in the Sacramento and Salinas areas.  In addition, VTA has not taken into account the repairs to wheelchair and mobility devices.”  

Board Member Sandoval directed attention to Mr. Bishop’s letter, second paragraph, wherein Mr. Bishop asked that the VTA Board of Directors take up Supervisor Beall’s letter to VTA, requesting that VTA conduct more due diligence in exploring a new type of device and request through an RFP that VTA explore the roller coaster restraint.   Board Member Sandoval indicated this was the main discussion at the April 24, 2006, TP&O Committee Meeting.  She noted that the Committee decided that the VTA engineering staff does not have the capability nor the capacity to design and make sure that whatever design VTA comes up with for a roller coaster type of vehicle restraint will be effective.  Mr. Bishop’s design proposal does not currently meet the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. 

Board Member Perry asked what were some of the reasons that people are so reluctant to embrace the proposed policy.   Matthew O. Tucker, Chief Operations Officer, noted that VTA has never had a policy, so there is just a natural reluctance to not have a policy.  The biggest challenge is that this is a change in the way that VTA has done business over a significant period of time. 

Board Member Perry requested a memorandum from CTA outlining the pros and cons of the securement of mobility device restraints.  Mr. Burns noted that both the CTA Chairperson and Vice Chairperson and previous Chairperson endorsed the policy as well as the CTA.

Board Member Sandoval indicated that CTA, in conjunction with VTA staff’s help, has really been the driver in determining what was the best securement mobility device restraint system to be chosen.   She noted that CTA wanted to be involved in the assessment of the device.   CTA came to the TP&O Committee Meeting and recommended that TP&O adopt the Bus Mobility Device Securement Policy.

Ex-Officio Board Member McLemore noted his attendance at the Bus and Paratransit Conference hosted by American Public Transportation Association (APTA) in Anaheim, California.  While there, he toured the Orange County Transit Authority’s (OCTA) Paratransit Center and attended a couple of safety seminars.  As they are trying to implement their programs, one of their programs dealt with the availability of some  unique straps.  OCTA also makes available staff time to deal with each individual’s unique unit and pre-marks the portable chairs, so it is very quick for an operator to connect and secure it.  Ex-Officio Board Member McLemore asked what are some of the best practices VTA will implement.   Mr. Burns reported that VTA has gone through the process of looking at what existed in the industry and that the system described is the same system used by VTA.

Ex-Officio Board Member Beall referred to his letter addressed to VTA and indicated that his letter simply asked that the item be deferred until VTA studied the various options in the industry.   He indicated that based upon the information presented, he is satisfied with the steps that VTA has taken and supports the proposed Bus Mobility Device Securement Policy.

Board Member Perry queried about deferring the item for one month to find out what was the minority opinion on CTA.

M/S/C (Sandoval/Kniss) to adopt on a vote of 10 ayes, 1 noe, and 0 abstentions a proposed policy to require all mobility device users, such as wheelchair and scooter users, to ride with their devices secured on VTA buses.   This policy, if adopted, will have an effective date of January 1, 2007.  Board Member Perry opposed.

Chairperson Chavez requested that staff re-circulate the CTA Minutes addressing the mandatory securement of mobility devices to the Board of Directors.

Board Member Kerr referred to Mr. Mallett’s concerns regarding bicycle storage on light rail.   Chairperson Chavez noted it would be addressed under Item #31. Items of Concern and Referral to Administration.

Board Member Williams directed staff to write a letter to Mr. Bishop acknowledging the action taken by the Board of Directors.

  
  
 Go to Top
  
  

OTHER ITEMS

31.

ITEMS OF CONCERN AND REFERRal TO ADMINISTRATION

Chairperson Chavez requested that staff follow-up on Mr. Mallett’s concerns regarding bicycle storage on light rail.

Board Member Kerr referred to comments made concerning security issues involving VTA Operators and requested that staff look at how VTA’s network capabilities could be enhanced to have direct video feed on light rail and bus and to provide a report back in August 2006.

  
32.

LEGISLATIVE REPORT

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

  
33.

SUMMARY MINUTES FROM STANDING COMMITTEES

A.             Administration and Finance Committee

On order of Chairperson Chavez, there being no objection, the
Administration and Finance Committee Report was accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

B.             Congestion Management Program and Planning Committee

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

  
34.

REPORTS FROM AD HOC COMMITTEES

A.             Ridership Initiative to Develop Energy-Efficiency (RIDE) Task Force 

Board Member Campos reported that she was unable to attend the April 26, 2006 RIDE Task Force Meeting and noted that Alternate Board Member Jamie Matthews chaired the meeting.  Board Member Campos indicated that at the April 26, 2006 meeting, the RIDE Task Force discussed ideas related to better information for riders.  Staff presented information on changes that are planned for the following: 1) website improvements, including a review process using focus groups of riders, non-riders, and people with disabilities to provide input on how the website works; 2) other electronic communication methods such as trip planning, rider alerts, and emailing transit service updates; and 3) new printed materials, redesigns of maps, and more information posted on VTA property about service.  The Task Force also discussed the July Service Improvements, which should improve ridership, since these improvements transfer resources to areas where they are needed and will be utilized.

Board Member Campos noted that the next RIDE Task Force Meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. at San Jose City Hall, Rooms W118 and W119.

Board Member Perry expressed concern regarding customers not being able to transfer between bus and light rail. He requested that the Management Performance Audit include the review of VTA’s fare structure to make it more efficient and seamless for the customer, specifically concerning transfers.

Mr. Bradley expressed concern that the RIDE Meeting Minutes of April 26, 2006, were not included in the May 4, 2006 Board of Directors Agenda Packet.  Mr. Bradley also expressed concern about VTA Operators not announcing bus stops and noted that according to Federal ADA Law every stop is supposed to be announced.

Chairperson Chavez noted the interest of a San Jose State University student who wishes to participate in the RIDE Task Force.

On order of Chairperson Chavez, there being no objection, the Ridership Initiative to Develop Energy-Efficiency (RIDE) Task Force Report was accepted.

B.         Project Advisory Committee (formerly referred to as the Project Priority and Revenue Advisory Committee)

Vice Chairperson Chu reported that the Minutes of April 3, 2006, contained in the Board Agenda Packet indicated the former Committee name, “Project Priority and Revenue Advisory Committee”.   He noted that the Committee has recently been renamed as the “Project Advisory Committee”. 

Vice Chairperson Chu referred to the April 27, 2006, Project Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes and noted the Minutes were not included in the Board Agenda Packet, because the Minutes occurred after the Board Agenda Packet distribution deadline.

Vice Chairperson Chu reported that the Project Advisory Committee held its third meeting on April 27, 2006.   He noted that Directors Gage, Kniss, Sandoval, Williams and himself were in attendance. 

Vice Chairperson Chu provided a report on the April 27, 2006 Meeting, highlighting: 1) Committee reviewed staff responses to questions raised at the April 3, 2006 Meeting; 2) Committee received a report on the costs and impact of
double tracking Caltrain the entire distance from Tamien in San Jose to Gilroy as compared to the 8+ miles proposed in the current VTA Scenario; 3) Staff presented a detailed overview of the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project (SVRT) or BART.  The presentation involved a review of the planning process and the community involvement to date.  The Committee then heard a description of the project itself describing both the alignment and the specific station areas proposed; 4) Staff from the Cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara presented information on their city’s planning efforts in the areas impacted by the project.  Also, during the Public Comment period, the City of Fremont presented their BART plans to Warm Springs.  Members questioned the staff concerning the presentations; and 5) Committee reviewed the Work Plan and decided that the following modifications were required: a) scheduled a presentation on the Airport People Mover; b) moved presentation on Bus Service to the meeting scheduled for May 25, 2006; c) advanced consideration of the VTA Scenario to the May 11, 2006, which was held at VTA headquarters; d) asked staff to establish a North County Meeting; and e) asked staff to find an additional meeting date in June 2006.

Vice Chairperson Chu noted that staff has established a June 8, 2006 Meeting, but has not found another available meeting date in June 2006 to accommodate completion by the June 15, 2006 Special Board Meeting.   The next Project Advisory Committee Meeting is scheduled for May 11, 2006, at 5:30 p.m. at VTA River Oaks Campus in the Auditorium.  This meeting site was selected, so that the Members of the Policy Advisory Committee could attend the Project Advisory Committee Meeting immediately after their meeting. 

Board Member Kniss queried if there were any specific requirements about where the North County Meeting should be held and offered her assistance.

On order of Chairperson Chavez, there being no objection, the Project Advisory Committee Report was accepted.

  
35.

REPORTS (UNAPPROVED MINUTES) FROM ADVISORY COMMITTEES

A.             Committee for Transit Accessibility (CTA)

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

  
36.

REPORTS FROM JOINT POWERS BOARDS (JPBs) & REGIONAL COMMISSIONS

Chairperson Chavez 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 Chavez, there being no objection, the Peninsula Corridor JPB Report was received.

B.             Capitol Corridor JPB

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

C.             Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Committee

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

D.             Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)

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

 

  
37.

REPORTS FROM VTA POLICY ADVISORY BOARDS (PABs) & TASK FORCE

A.Vasona Light Rail PAB

There was no report from the Vasona Light Rail PAB.

B.Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor PAB

Mr. Grace requested that a notice be placed at the meeting location to indicate that the meeting has been cancelled.

On order of Chairperson Chavez, there being no objection, the
Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor PAB Report dated March 22, 2006 and Cancellation Notice dated April 26, 2006, was accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet.

C.Downtown East Valley PAB

There was no report from the Downtown East Valley PAB.

D.             Highway PAB – South

There was no report from the Highway PAB – South.

 

E.          I-680 Sunol SMART Carpool Lane Policy Advisory Committee

There was no report from the I-680 Sunol SMART Carpool Lane Policy Advisory Committee.

  
38.

REPORT FROM CHAIRPERSON

There was no report from the Chairperson.

  
39.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no Announcements.

  
40.

ADJOURNMENT

On order of Chairperson Chavez, there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m. in memory of Sean Merriman, a District 4 Caltrans worker and resident of Gilroy who was killed April 4, 2006 on Highway 101 in San Jose while filling potholes near the Hellyer Avenue exit.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Tracene Y. Crenshaw, Board Assistant
VTA Board of Directors

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

  
  
 Go to Top