SANTA CLARA
VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
(V T A)
RECOMMENDED BUDGET
FISCAL YEARS
JULY 1, 2003 through JUNE 30, 2004 AND JULY 1, 2004 through JUNE 30, 2005

2003 Board of Director:
Jane P. Kennedy, Chairperson of V T A Board of Directors, Council Member of City of Campbell
Don Gage, Vice-Chairperson of V T A Board of Directors, Supervisor of Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Blanca Alvarado, Chairperson of Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Cindy Chavez, Council Member of City of San Jose
David Cortese, Council Member of City of San Jose
Pat Dando, Vice Mayor of City of San Jose
Ron Gonzales, Mayor of City of San Jose
John McLemore, Council Member of City of Santa Clara
Dena Mossar, Mayor of City of Palo Alto
Thomas Springer, Mayor of City of Gilroy
Manuel Valerio, Council Member of City of Sunnyvale
Forrest Williams, Council Member of City of San Jose

Board Member Alternates:
Patricia Dixon, Vice Mayor of City of Milpitas
Francis La Poll, Council Member of City of Los Altos
Pete McHugh, Supervisor of Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Joe Pirzynski, Council Member of Town of Los Gatos
Ken Yeager, Council Member of City of San Jose

Ex-Officio
James Beall, Junior, Chairperson, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (M T C)

General Manager, Peter M. Cipolla
General Counsel, Suzanne Gifford
Board Secretary, Sandra Weymouth
Chief Administrative Officer, Kaye L. Evleth
Chief Construction Officer, Jack Collins
Chief Development Officer, Michael P. Evanhoe
Chief Financial Officer, Scott Buhrer
Chief Operating Officer, Frank T. Martin
Controller, Jerry Rosenquist

Budget Department: 
Victor Chan 
Liza Chuapoco
Christine Huynh
Pauline Man
Jim McCutchen
Linda Schwartz

TABLE OF CONTENTS
General Manager's Budget Message
1. Introduction
Budget Resolution
Executive Summary
Vision, Mission, and Strategic Plan
Current Operations

2. Operating Budget
Operating Budget
Major Budget Assumptions and Explanations

3. Division Budgets
Fiscal Year 2002-03 Accomplishments & Fiscal Year 2003-04 Goals
Office of the General Manager
Office of the General Counsel
Operations Administration
Operations Transportation
Operations Maintenance
Administrative Services
Construction
Development & Congestion Management: Congestion Management Program and Highway Project
Development & Congestion Management: Development & Administration 
Development & Congestion Management: Planning & Development and Marketing & Customer Services
Fiscal Resources
Other

4. Capital Budget
Introduction
Capital Budget Schedule
Major New and Augmented Capital Projects 
1996 Measure B Transportation Improvement Program
2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program 
Other Programs 
Other Local Projects

Appendices:
A.  Employee Positions by Division and Pay Ranges
B.  Budgeted Positions by Division and Classification
C.  Population Data for Santa Clara County by City
D.  Ten Year Summary of Santa Clara County Employment Information
E.  Projects Closed or Scope Reduced by Capital Improvement Program Oversight Committee 
F.  Fiscal Year 2003-04 Capital Budget Summary 
G.  Additional Information on Non-Revenue Vehicle Purchase
H.  Fiscal Year 2003-04 ATU Pension Fund Expenditure Plan
I.  Proposed Fiscal Year 2003-04 Basic Fare Structure for Bus, Light Rail and Paratransit Services, and ECO Pass Pricing Information
J.  Fee Schedules
Glossary


GENERAL MANAGER'S BUDGET MESSAGE
Last year's budget message opened with the necessity for a service reduction, a fare increase and most disturbing, a reduction in our workforce. At that time I also stated "If we don't effectively address the situation over the next several months, we'll be faced with an even more critical issue next year at this time".

Here we are, one year later. The economy is showing no sign of recovery. We've just completed seven quarters of negative sales tax performance (unprecedented at any time during the past 25 years). And, in spite of a great deal of good intentions, discussion, discovery and dedication, we still don't have a viable solution. The result will come as no surprise to those who have been working closely with us this past year.

And once again, we are facing a service reduction, a fare increase and another reduction in our workforce. This time, however, the required service cut is so deep that it will take us back to l981 levels of service. Can V T A survive? We hope so, as do the thousands of customers we will impact, along with those talented, dedicated employees we will be forced to lay off as well as those who will remain.

The fare increase is designed to generate at least $4 million in necessary revenue, (before considering the effects of the proposed service reductions). Raising fares when we are also making significant service cuts is not an ideal approach, but we have little choice. In combination with several expenditure cuts and efficiency measures, this revenue will help us improve our farebox recovery ratio. In truth, that's secondary to the primary need to generate cash. Without this cash, additional services would have to be cut.

The loss of ridership with fare increases and service reductions is usually temporary. But these are unusual times and recently historical trends haven't exactly reflected what actually happens in the future. We can only hope our customers will understand and remain loyal to V T A during these extremely difficult times. We will continue to do everything we can to earn, and hopefully retain, their loyalty.

The loss of any employee through a layoff is difficult, but this one cuts very deep into the heart of this organization. These are highly skilled, well-trained and extremely loyal individuals who have served to energize V T A. This is not just a job to them. They believe in what they do and in the people they serve. It is incumbent upon those of us who can impact this financial crisis to resolve the issue of additional revenue, restore effective and efficient services, and get our people back to work as quickly as we can, serving the public, our customers, as only they can do.

Those who have taken the time to look carefully at V T A these past two years of economic turmoil should realize how skillfully this organization has been able to manage its way through this fiscal crisis up to this point. There are "fiscal hero's" everywhere. The multitude of individuals who have found ways to save V T A money...the two individuals who discovered a $750,000 error in diesel fuel billing...the review, re-review and subsequent deferral of over $120 millions of capital projects so that we can keep more service on the street...the series of unique (and often one-time) financial transactions that have or will serve to keep us going a bit longer...the effective use of V T A's reserves these past months, enabling us to keep funding as much service as possible. Some may recall that at one point, two years ago, V T A was criticized for having too much in our unrestricted reserves. While we acknowledged their comments, we're glad we retained our reserve program.

As a result of the above and much, much more from those within our organization and those affiliated with us (such as input and suggestions from our financial advisors) we have been able to protect our customers from major negative impacts until this past April. While to some, this may not seem like an accomplishment, I would say it is. In fact, I believe it is a major accomplishment and directly a result of the commitment of V T A employees.

While much of our focus has been on V T A's enterprise fund (that supports transit operations) this past year, the impact of the economy on the 1996 Measure B Program and State supported major capital projects has sent us "back to the drawing board" several times this past year. Through the judicious use of swap funds, Garvee bonds and other unique approaches, we have been able to keep the bulk of the major capital program moving ahead, most of which is forecast to be completed below budget and ahead of schedule.

As you look through this document, you will have the opportunity to review a short synopsis of the myriad of activities and accomplishments V T A has had or undertaken this past year. Please take the time to look them over. It is very easy and understandable for these to be overshadowed by our fiscal situation. They are, nonetheless, a critical piece of this past year's history and reflective of V T A's impact on our community.

In developing this budget effort, many are aware, we modified our normal approach and focused on developing a two-year financial plan for Fiscal Year 2003-04 and Fiscal Year 2004-05. We fully realize it will change, perhaps a great deal over the next two years, but we felt it critical to develop a financial program that would provide an opportunity to identify and implement a long-term financial strategy for V T A in concert with our stakeholders who reside and work within our county. It is, after all, really their transportation organization.

This budget scenario will help us buy a little time. We've deferred many programs and projects, many of which should not be deferred for long. Excess deferral will serve to the detriment of V T A, our customers and our community. We've consumed or are in the process of using up the last of the "unique" one-time financial transactions. Again, we can only buy a little time.
 
Signed by Peter M. Cipolla
General Manager
April 15, 2003

Resolution No.     
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (V T A)
ADOPTING A BIENNIAL BUDGET OF V T A
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 2003 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2005
(FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 AND FISCAL YEAR 2004-05)

WHEREAS, on or before April 25, 2003, the General Manager presented the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Recommended Budget to the Board of Directors and mailed a copy to each City Manager and Mayor in the County of Santa Clara and to the County Executive; and

WHEREAS, additional copies of the Recommended Budget were distributed to V T A's Advisory Committee membership, libraries in Santa Clara County, Santa Clara County's state and federal legislative delegation, senior and disabled groups, professional community organizations, and the news media, and were available for review on V T A's website w w w.V T A.org and at V T A's Downtown Customer Service Center, as well as libraries and city halls throughout the County; and

WHEREAS, the Recommended Budget includes all administrative, operational and capital expenses for the Congestion Management Program together with the apportionment of Congestion Management Program expenses by levy against the Managing Agency and each Member Agency to the extent necessary to fund the Congestion Management Program; and
	
WHEREAS, the Recommended Budget was reviewed by the Administration and Finance Committee on May 15, 2003, and on April 25 and June 5, 2003, by the Board of Directors at public meetings conducted throughout the County; 

WHEREAS, a list of employee position classifications and pay ranges is included in the recommended budget as Appendix A, and the amount of funds budgeted for wages, salaries and benefits for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 is based upon V T A's position classification and pay plan and is set forth in the Statement of Revenues and Expenses in the Recommended Budget; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors desires to adopt a biennial budget for the period of July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2005 (Fiscal Year 2003-04 and Fiscal Year 2004-05);

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority that the attached recommended budget for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (marked "Exhibit A" and incorporated herein as though set forth at length), is hereby adopted as V T A's budget for the Fiscal Year 2003-2004.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, effective July 1, 2003, positions may be authorized and filled, as required, by the General Manager and General Counsel, as appropriate, provided that total V T A-wide budgeted wages, salaries and benefits account is not exceeded.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, as necessary for efficient administration, position classifications may be added, modified, or deleted and salary ranges adjusted with the approval of the General Manager or General Counsel, as appropriate, provided that the changes are in accordance with applicable V T A personnel policies and procedures and are consistent with pay practices in the transportation industry.  Such changes shall include pay and classification adjustments arising from agreements between V T A and its recognized labor organizations.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that operating appropriations for major professional services for one time non-recurring programs or projects, which are not expended during the Fiscal Year, shall carryover to the successive Fiscal Years until the programs or projects are completed or terminated. Other operating appropriations shall lapse at year-end.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that capital appropriations, which are not expended during the Fiscal Year, shall carry over to successive Fiscal Years until the projects are completed or otherwise terminated.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the budget shall consist of five Funds: the Transit Enterprise Fund, the Congestion Management Program Fund, the 1996 Measure B Transportation Improvement Program Fund, the 2000 Measure A Transit Program Fund and the Highway Improvement Fund. The General Manager may reallocate appropriations between budget units and cost groups within each Fund up to the limits of each Fund's annual appropriation.  Any net increase in authorized appropriations to any Fund (including an allocation from reserves) shall require an affirmative vote of at least eight Directors.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Recommended Assessments of member agencies for the Congestion Management Program are hereby approved. 

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors on ___________, by the following vote:

AYES: DIRECTORS
NOES: DIRECTORS
ABSENT: DIRECTORS
 
JANE P. KENNEDY, Chairperson of Board of Directors

ATTEST: SANDRA WEYMOUTH, Secretary of Board of Directors

APPROVED AS TO FORM: SUZANNE GIFFORD, General Counsel


SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
FISCAL YEAR 2003-04/2004-05 BUDGETS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ridership (In thousands)
Bus:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 44,900; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 43,600; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 40,000; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 33,000; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 32,800.
Light Rail:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 7,790; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 7,900; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 6,200; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 5,260; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 5,760.
Total Ridership:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 52,690; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 51,500; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 46,200; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 38,260; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 38,560.
Service Miles (In Thousands)
Bus:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 22,044; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 21,174; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 20,402; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 15,698; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 14,633.
Light Rail:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 2,033; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 1,832; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 1,584; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 1,415; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 1,675.
Total Service Miles:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 24,077; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 23,006; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 21,986; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 17,113; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 16,308.
Service Hours (In thousands)
Bus:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 1,589; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 1,538; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 1,493; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 1,151; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 1,067.
Light Rail:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 137; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 122; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 109; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 96; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 101.
Total Service Hours:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 1,726; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 1,660; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 1,602; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 1,247; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 1,168.
Revenues (In thousand dollars)
Total Revenue:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 326,230; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 336,927; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 360,566; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 377,757; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 311,136.
Major Revenue Components:
1/2 Cent Sales Tax:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 144,218; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 155,000; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 133,000; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 135,000; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 139,000.
TCRP/Measure A Proceeds:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 0; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 0; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 0; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 81,945; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 0.
TDA:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 95,401; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 63,383; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 63,383; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 634,50; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 65,330.
Fares:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 31,282; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 38,011; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 32,887; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 31,495; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 36,429.
Federal Operating Grants:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 14,023; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 31,900; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 40,426; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 30,284; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 31,344.
Expenses (In thousand dollars)
Total Expense (excluding Contingency):  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 352,405; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 362,093; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 357,028; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 407,460; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 327,095.
Wages & Benefits:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 220,462; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 227,888; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 229,007; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 214,471; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 207,195.
ADA:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 33,122; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 32,452; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 30,556; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 31,797; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 32,751.
Debt Service:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 23,161; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 25,268; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 24,168; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 105,735; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 23,579.
Caltrain:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 20,630; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 16,605; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 18,146; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 14,105; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 14,387.
Materials & Supplies:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 14,715; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 16,048; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 14,217; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 13,200; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 13,385.
Security:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 9,909; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 9,473; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 9,383; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 7,904; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 8,499.
Other Service:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 8,551; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 7,883; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 7,457; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 6,584; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 6,380.
Fuel:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 4,809; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 5,964; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 6,091; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 6,161; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 5,143.
Operating Cost Recovery Ratio:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 13 point 4 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 14 point 5 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 14 percent; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 13 point 3 percent; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 14 point 8 percent.
Farebox Recovery Ratio:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 11 point 6 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 13 point 3 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 11 point 9 percent; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 12 point 6 percent; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 14 point 6 percent.
Number of Capital Projects:
New Projects: Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 12 projects; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 14 projects; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 12 projects.
Augmented Projects: Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 4 projects; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 23 projects; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 2 projects.
Carryover Projects: Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 90 projects; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 36 projects; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 71 projects.
Total Number of Projects: Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 106 projects; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 73 projects; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 85 projects.
Gross Project Expenditures (In thousand dollars)
New Projects:  Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 4,668; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 4,259; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 4008.
Augmented Projects:  Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 2,848; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 64,104; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 1,000.
Carryover Projects:  Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 944,904; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 922,660; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Budget 991,022.
Total Number of Projects:  Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 952,420; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 991,023; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Budget 996,030.


VISION, MISSION, AND STRATEGIC PLAN
In September 1995, the Board of Directors adopted a vision and mission statement for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (V T A).  This statement provides a framework for making future policy, planning and budgetary decisions. 

VISION STATEMENT
The vision of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (V T A) is to provide a transportation system that allows anyone to go anywhere in the region easily and efficiently.

This statement contains the long-range vision for V T A and portrays the desired future V T A seeks to achieve.  The vision is regional, including both the immediate areas of Santa Clara County and the bordering Bay Area to which the County is linked economically, socially, and culturally.

MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (V T A) is to provide the public with a safe and efficient countywide transportation system.  The system increases access and mobility, reduces congestion, improves the environment, and supports economic development, thereby enhancing quality of life.

The mission or core purpose of V T A is to provide a "safe and efficient countywide transportation system."  The emphasis is on an integrated transportation system that comprises the full range of mobility options, from cars, buses, and rail systems to walking and bicycle trips.  The system will allow members of the public to travel easily and comfortably to their destination by the most appropriate means.

POLICY DIRECTIONS
In adopting the vision and mission in 1995, the Board of Directors specified four key policy directions for V T A.   In March 1999, the Board adopted a fifth policy direction related to the 1996 Measure A transportation program of projects.

- Integrate transportation and land use
- Use all transportation options
- Create a safe, convenient, reliable and high-quality bus/rail operation
- Build a regional perspective
- In partnership with the County of Santa Clara, implement the 1996 Measure A transportation program of projects

STRATEGIC PLAN
The Strategic Plan serves as the umbrella policy document for V T A and drives the Recommended Budget and other documents for which V T A has responsibility, such as the Short Range Transit Plan (S R T P), the Congestion Management Program (C M P), and the Countywide Transportation Plan.  The goals set forth in the Strategic Plan are ambitious but attainable, and include mechanisms for measuring performance.

The Strategic Plan contains V T A's strategies for implementing the mission and achieving the vision.  Five broad goal areas form the basis of the plan:

- Enhance our customer focus
- Improve mobility and access
- Integrate transportation and land use
- Maintain financial stability
- Increase employee ownership

The divisional goals contained in this budget are consistent with the broad goals established in the Strategic Plan. 

The Strategic Plan also includes a 10-year Business Plan for V T A.  The Business Plan consists of a 10-year forecast of transit service levels, expenses, revenues, and specific performance measures with annual benchmarks for monitoring progress towards attaining our goals.  V T A's actual performance is analyzed each year against the performance measures, and the Business Plan is modified accordingly.  V T A's current Business Plan was released in 1998.

CURRENT OPERATIONS
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (V T A) is an independent public agency responsible for bus and light rail operation, A D A paratransit service, congestion management, specific highway improvement projects, and countywide transportation planning.  As such, V T A is both an accessible transit provider and a multi-modal transportation planning and implementation organization involved with transit, roadways, bikeways, and pedestrian facilities.

V T A provides transit services to the 326 square mile urbanized portion of Santa Clara County that is comprised of 15 cities and the County of Santa Clara with a total population of more than 1.7 million residents.  A historical summary of the county population by city is presented in Appendix C.  V T A operates 69 bus routes and two light rail transit (L R T) lines (Guadalupe and Tasman) within this service area.  In addition, V T A funds paratransit and privately operated shuttle services in the County and participates in providing inter-regional commuter rail and express bus services.  All of the bus and rail vehicles are accessible for individuals with disabilities.

In January 1995, V T A was designated as the Congestion Management Agency and changed from being exclusively a transit provider to an organization responsible for countywide transportation planning, funding, and congestion management within the County.

Map of Santa Clara County Transit Service Area -- Description
The map depicts the urbanized area of Santa Clara County. It shows the locations of the following cities: Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga and Sunnyvale. In addition, it shows the major highways such as 17, 85, 87, 101, 237, 280, 680, and 880 traversing the County and some major surface streets in the County.

V T A, in partnership with the County of Santa Clara, assumed the responsibility for implementing the 1996 Measure B Transportation Improvement Program of transit and highway improvement projects. In addition, V T A is responsible for implementing the 2000 Measure A Transportation Improvement Measure - an essential element of VTP 2020. 

The following section provides a summary of V T A's services:

BUS OPERATIONS
By the beginning of FISCAL YEAR 2003-04, V T A will have an active bus fleet of 433 diesel-powered buses, which includes 235 low-floor buses.  The average age of the active fleet is about 3.8 years and the buses range from new to over 11 years old.  There are approximately 4,700 bus stops and 700 shelters along the bus routes.  V T A also maintains 15 park & ride lots -- five owned by V T A and ten provided under a lease, permit, or joint use agreement with other agencies.  Buses are operated and maintained from three operating divisions and an Overhaul and Repair (O & R) facility: Cerone Operating Division, Don Pedro Chaboya Operating Division, North Operating Division and Cerone O&R Division.

LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (L R T)
V T A operates a 29.5-mile L R T system connecting the Silicon Valley employment areas of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, North San Jose and Milpitas to residential areas in South San Jose.  The L R T system has a total of 50 stations and 16 park & ride lots.  It operates on three routes: service between Santa Teresa and the Baypointe Station in North San Jose, service between Mountain View and the I-880/Milpitas Station in Milpitas and shuttle service between Almaden and Ohlone-Chynoweth Stations in South San Jose.  A fleet of new Kinkisharyo low floor light rail vehicles operates exclusively on the Tasman light rail line.  V T A will deploy a mixed fleet of Kinkisharyo low floor and U T D C high floor light rail vehicles on the Guadalupe line for part of 2003 until adequate numbers of the Kinkisharyo vehicles are commissioned and the interim platform retrofit project is complete.  All 79 (32 Kinkisharyo and 47 U T D C) light rail vehicles are stored and maintained at the Guadalupe Operating Division near downtown San Jose.

PARATRANSIT SERVICES
In 1992, V T A implemented a paratransit system, which operates throughout the County.  V T A contracts with Outreach and Escort, Inc., to serve as a broker and provide paratransit service through contracts with vendors. Eligible riders call Outreach to schedule their trips.  Outreach then assigns the trips based on the most appropriate mode that can meet the riders' needs: taxi, sedan, accessible van, or transfer to or from fixed-route.  V T A is in full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (A D A).  

In 2002, V T A began the development of the Paratransit Business Practices Improvement Plan.  This four-phased plan is designed to control increasing costs through a variety of methodologies, which will improve productivity, decrease vendor and broker costs and increase revenue.  Phases 1 and 2 have been implemented.  Phase 3 is scheduled for implementation in October 2003, and Phase 4 may be implemented later in the year.

CONTRACTED AND INTERAGENCY TRANSIT SERVICES
V T A is also a partner in various ventures that expand the transportation options for our customers.  These relationships include commuter rail, inter-county express bus lines, and rail feeder services.  They are operated either by contract or through cooperative agreements.

Caltrain/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (P C J P B)
Caltrain is the commuter rail service provided by the P C J P B, which is governed by representatives from San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties.  It operates between Gilroy and San Francisco.  Seventy-six trains operate between San Jose Diridon Station and San Francisco each weekday, with 67 of these trains extended to the Tamien Station in San Jose where a connection can be made to the V T A L R T system.  Connection to the L R T system can also be made at the Mountain View Caltrain Station.  Eight peak-hour weekday trains (four northbound in the morning and four southbound in the evening) extend Caltrain from Tamien station to Gilroy.  There are 34 stations along the line; 16 are located in Santa Clara County.  The system uses diesel-powered locomotives. The share of the operating costs apportioned to each member agency is based upon morning peak period boardings in each county.

Complete service planning information, budget and financial statements for P C J P B can be obtained from SamTrans at 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, California 94070.

Altamont Commuter Express Rail Service
The Altamont Commuter Express (A C E) rail service provides peak hour, weekday commuter rail service from the Central Valley to Santa Clara County (three morning and three afternoon commuter trains). V T A, the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, and the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency administer the service under a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement.  The 85-mile rail line includes ten stations located in Stockton, Lathrop, Tracy, Livermore (2), Pleasanton, Fremont, Great America, Santa Clara and San Jose Diridon Station. V T A provides free shuttles to transport ACE riders between the Great America and San Jose Diridon stations and nearby employment sites.  The share of the operating costs apportioned to each participating county is based upon the proportional share of total daily boardings and alightings that occur in each county.

Complete service planning information, budget and financial statements for A C E can be obtained from the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission at 5000 South Airport Way, Room 201, Stockton, California 95213.

Capitol Corridor Intercity Rail Service
The Capitol Corridor Intercity Rail service began in December 1991 and is a 170-mile train corridor from Auburn and Sacramento to San Jose, through Placer, Sacramento, Yolo, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda and Santa Clara Counties.  Operating on the Union Pacific railroad tracks, Capitol Corridor service consists of four daily round trips from Sacramento to San Jose and seven daily round trips from Sacramento to Oakland with connecting bus service to and from San Jose.  One round trip per day extends beyond Sacramento to Auburn. 

The train service parallels the Interstate 80 corridor between Sacramento and Oakland, and Interstate 880 between Oakland and San Jose.  Service includes stops in Roseville, Sacramento, Davis, Suisun/Fairfield, Martinez, Richmond, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, Hayward, Fremont, Santa Clara at Great America, and San Jose Diridon Station.  On July 1, 1998, the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (C C J P A), which is comprised of representatives from the eight counties served by the corridor, assumed responsibility for the service.  Under contract with the C C J P A, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) manages the service and Amtrak operates the service on tracks owned by Union Pacific Railroad. The funding is provided by the State of California.

Complete service planning information, budget and financial statements for the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority can be obtained from 1000 Broadway, Suite 604, Oakland, California 94607. 

Inter-county Bus Services
V T A co-sponsors two inter-county bus services through cooperative arrangements with other transit systems.  

The Dumbarton Express is a transbay express route operating between the Union City BART Station and the Stanford Research Park in Palo Alto.  It provides the only regularly scheduled public transit service over the Dumbarton Bridge.  A consortium comprised of representatives from the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (A C Transit), the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), the City of Union City, the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), and V T A underwrite the net operating costs of the service.  This service is contracted out to a private transit provider. SamTrans and V T A are responsible for 50percent of the net operating costs and the other East Bay transit operators are responsible for the rest. The remaining 50percent of the operating costs is apportioned based upon total daily boardings in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties.

Express service over Highway 17 between Santa Cruz and downtown San Jose is funded and operated through an agreement between the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District and V T A.  Santa Cruz Metro operates this service.  The two agencies share the net operating costs equally.  

Rail Shuttle Program
Under this program, V T A offers financial assistance to employers that wish to operate shuttle bus service between LRT stations and nearby employment centers.  The service is operated through private contractors provided by V T A or the employers.  Shuttles operate trips carrying employees from light rail in the morning to work and back again in the afternoon. Funding to operate this program is provided by the employers (minimum of 25percent), V T A, and grants from the Transportation Fund for Clean Air Act (A B 434).

D A S H and H P Pavilion Shuttle Programs 
V T A operates a free shuttle (D A S H) on weekdays between the downtown San Jose Transit Mall, San Jose State University, and the San Jose Diridon Train Station.  V T A, the Transportation Fund for Clean Air Act, the City of San Jose, and the San Jose Downtown Association fund this service.  

In addition, V T A operates a free shuttle service from the downtown San Jose Transit Mall to public events held in the HP Pavilion.  Recently, V T A staff met with the City of San Jose, San Jose Arena Authority, San Jose Arena Management and San Jose Downtown Association to develop a new funding scheme for this shuttle. All parties agree that the Sharks game service is worth continuing and funding is being pursued. V T A has requested that the other parties fund 50percent of the costs. If funding partners at this 50 percent level cannot be secured, this service will be discontinued. Service for other events will be discontinued due to low ridership and existing parallel bus service, effective May 9. 

San Jose Airport Flyer Service
V T A, in partnership with the City of San Jose, provides free Airport Flyer bus service connecting San Jose International Airport terminals and airport employee parking lots with V T A's Metro/Airport Light Rail Station and the Santa Clara Caltrain Station.  The City of San Jose and V T A equally share the operating costs for this service.

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT
V T A, as the Congestion Management Agency for Santa Clara County, is responsible for coordinating and prioritizing projects for state and federal transportation funds, administering the Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program, and coordinating land use and other transportation planning.

1996 MEASURE B TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (M B T I P)
In November 1996, the voters in Santa Clara County overwhelmingly approved Measure A, an advisory measure listing an ambitious program of transportation improvements for Santa Clara County.  Also approved on the same ballot, Measure B authorized the County Board of Supervisors to collect a nine-year half-cent sales tax for general county purposes.  Subsequently, the County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution dedicating the tax for Measure A projects. Collection of the tax began in April 1997; however, use of the revenue was delayed pending the outcome of litigation challenging the legality of the sales tax.  In August 1998, the California courts upheld the tax allowing the implementation of the Measure A transportation projects to move forward.

In February 2000, the V T A Board of Directors approved a Master Agreement formalizing the partnership with the County of Santa Clara to implement the 1996 Measure B Transportation Improvement Program.  With this partnership in place, the County and V T A are in a position to complete a transportation program valued at over $1.4 billion.  V T A is responsible for project implementation and management of the transit and highway projects and assists in the administration of the pavement management and bicycle elements of the program.  A more detailed description of the program elements can be found in Section 4 of this document.

To monitor the progress of the program, V T A and County staff update the Measure B Program Revenue and Expenditure Plan for each upcoming Fiscal Year in June. Any scope, schedule or budget changes are formally requested through this document, upon which the V T A Board of Directors and the County Board of Supervisors take action during a joint workshop.  In December, V T A and County staff prepare the Measure B Program Status Report, which describes the status of each project within the program.  The report is also presented to the V T A Board of Directors and the County Board of Supervisors for review and acceptance.

2000 MEASURE A TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
In August 2000, the V T A Board of Directors approved placing a measure on the November 7, 2000, General Election ballot allowing Santa Clara County voters the opportunity to vote on transportation improvements funded by a 30 year half-cent sales tax to take effect after the 1996 Measure B sales tax expires (March 31, 2006) in the county. More than 70 percent of the voters approved the 2000 Measure A.  

It was estimated that $6.8 billion (Fiscal Year 2000-01 constant dollars) would be collected. This amount will be revised to reflect the protracted decline in sales taxes. The revenue from this Measure may be used to finance the transit projects and operations specified in 2000 Measure A and listed in V T A's V T P 2020 Transportation Plan and Expenditure Program. V T P 2020 provides for a balanced transportation system consisting of transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian improvements. A more detailed description of the program elements can be found in Section 4.

Following is a description of V T A's organizational chart:
The Board of Directors is supported by the General Manager, Peter M. Cipolla, and the General Counsel, Suzanne Gifford. 

Under General Manager:
Operations, Chief Operating Officer, Frank T. Martin
Administrative Services, Chief Administrative Officer, Kaye L. Evleth
Construction, Chief Construction Officer, Jack Collins
Development and Congestion Management, Chief Development Officer, Mike Evanhoe
Fiscal Resources, Chief Financial Officer, Scott Buhrer

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 and FISCAL YEAR 2004-05 PROPOSED BUDGETS
STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES (In thousand dollars)
Fares:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 31,282; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 38,011; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 32,194; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 31,495; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 36,429.
One half Cent Sales Tax:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 144,218; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 155,000; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 133,000; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 135,000; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 139,000.
TDA:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 95,401; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 63,383; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 63,383; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 63,450; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 65,330.
STA:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 7,003; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 7,322; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 6,778; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 4,274; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 5,000.
State Operating Grants:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 1,066; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 1,766; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 1,159; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 1,177; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 1,177.
Investment Earnings:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 24,381; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 12,000; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 14,420; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 2,000; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 1,500.
Advertising Income:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 4,425; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 4,589; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 3,402; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 1,818; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 1,818
Measure A Refinancing Proceeds:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 0; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 0; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 29,263; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 14,595; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 14,566.
Other Income:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 4,319; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 1,636; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 1,632; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 1,375; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 1,375.
Ongoing Revenues:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 312,095; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 283,707; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 285,231; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 255,184; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 266,195.
Local Operating Assistance:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 112; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 0; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 4,042; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 0; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 0
Federal Operating Grants:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 14,023; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 31,900; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 40,426; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 30,284; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 31,344.
Financing Transactions:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 0; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 16,320; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 16,320; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 8,300; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 8,400.
Sale of Property:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 0; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 5,000; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 14,547; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 0; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 0.
Measure B Fund Swap:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 0; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 0; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 0; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 2,044; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 5,197
TCRP/Measure A Debt Proceeds:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 0; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 0; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 0; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 81945; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 0
One-Time Revenues:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 14,135; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 53,220; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 75,335; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 122,573; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 44,941.
Total Revenue:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 326,230; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 336,927; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 360,566; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 377,757; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 311,136.
Wages & Salaries:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 136,729; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 144,768; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 136,343; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 125,628;  Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 118,081.
Benefits:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 83,733; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 83,120; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 92,664; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 88,843; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 89,114.
Materials & Supplies:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 14,715; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 16,048; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 14,217; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 13,200; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 13,385.
Security:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 9,909; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 9,473; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 9,383; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 7,904; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 8,499.
Professional & Special Services:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 8,326; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 7,808; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 7,766; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 4,645; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 5,475.
Other Services:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 8,551; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 7,883; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 7,457; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 6,584; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 6,380
Fuel:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 4,809; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 5,964; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 6,091; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 6,161; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 5,143.
Traction Power:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 3,612; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 4,000; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 3,589; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 2,500; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 3,100.
Tires:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 1,034; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 1,049; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 977; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 916; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 938.
Utilities:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 2,161; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 2,353; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 2,279; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 2,470; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 2,518.
Insurance:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 3,199; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 4,262; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 4,111; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 3,461; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 4,438.
Data Processing:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 3,691; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 3,124; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 3,125; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 2,675; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 2,726.
Office Expense:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 745; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 787; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 703; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 662; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 671.
Communications:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 1,439; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 1,750; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 1,644; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 1,625; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 1,642.
Employee Related Expense:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 1,505; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 1,671; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 1,523; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 1,099; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 1,115.
Leases & Rents:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 674; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 739; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 651; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 630; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 639.
Miscellaneous:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 944; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 1,916; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 1,930; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 1,692; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 1,474.
Reimbursements:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual -17,219; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget -16,750; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget -17,400; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget -21,140; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget -15,631.
Operating Expense:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 268,557; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 279,965; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 277,053; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 249,555; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 249,707.
A D A:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 33,122; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 32,452; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 30,556; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 31,797; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 32,751
Caltrain:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 14,897; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 14,105; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 14,105; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 14,105; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 14,387.
Caltrain Capital Contribution:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 5,733; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 2,500; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 4,041; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 0; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 0.
Light Rail Shuttles:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 1,237; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 1,340; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 1,223; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 1,000; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 1,000.
Altamont Commuter Express:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 3,160; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 5,100; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 3,960; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 3,960; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 4,034.
Highway 17 Express:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 520; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 587; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 425; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 440; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 440.
Dumbarton Express:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 246; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 250; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 329; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 355; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 355.
Contribution to Other Agencies:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 436; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 440; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 435; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 466; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 470.
Debt Service:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 23,161; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 25,268; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 24,168; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 105,735; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 23,579.
Other Expense:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 1,336; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 86; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 733; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 47; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 372.
Other Expense:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 83,848; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 82,128; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 79,975; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 157,905; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 77,388.
Total Expense:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 352,405; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 362,093; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 357,028; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 407,460; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 327,095.
Contingency:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 0; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 5,000; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 1,927; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget 2,000; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget 2,000.
Surplus/(Deficit) to Reserves:  Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual -26,175; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget -30,166; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 1,611; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed Budget -31,703; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed Budget -17,959.

OPERATING BUDGET
The core of V T A's financial crisis is the fact that V T A has experienced significant reductions in local sales tax revenue for seven consecutive quarters.   Instead of growing at a rate that maintains pace with the growth of operating expenses, the local sales tax receipts are trending below the levels V T A received in 1997/98.  The magnitude and duration of the decline in sales tax is the most extreme ever experienced by V T A.  The chart below shows sales tax results for the last decade.

A line and bar chart shows the quarterly half-cent sales tax receipts and percent changes from same quarter of pervious year:
V T A HALF CENT SALES TAX QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE
Data through second quarter FY 2002-03
FY92 Q1: Quarterly Sales Tax 22,388; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 2 point 1.
FY92 Q2: Quarterly Sales Tax 23,164; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year -2 point 2.
FY92 Q3: Quarterly Sales Tax 20,958; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year -2.
FY92 Q4: Quarterly Sales Tax 23,390; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 5 point 5.
FY93 Q1: Quarterly Sales Tax 21,713; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year -3.
FY93 Q2: Quarterly Sales Tax 24,382; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 5 point 3.
FY93 Q3: Quarterly Sales Tax 21,422; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 2 point 2.
FY93 Q4: Quarterly Sales Tax 23,141; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year -1 point 1.
FY94 Q1: Quarterly Sales Tax 23,967; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 10 point 4.
FY94 Q2: Quarterly Sales Tax 24,781; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 1 point 6.
FY94 Q3: Quarterly Sales Tax 22,790; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 6 point 4.
FY94 Q4: Quarterly Sales Tax 23,597; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 2.
FY95 Q1: Quarterly Sales Tax 23,735; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year -1.
FY95 Q2: Quarterly Sales Tax 26,198; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 5 point 7.
FY95 Q3: Quarterly Sales Tax 23,429; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 2 point 8.
FY95 Q4: Quarterly Sales Tax 27,276; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 15 point 6.
FY96 Q1: Quarterly Sales Tax 28,491; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 20.
FY96 Q2: Quarterly Sales Tax 31,808; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 21 point 4.
FY96 Q3: Quarterly Sales Tax 30,107; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 28 point 5.
FY96 Q4: Quarterly Sales Tax 31,867; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 16 point 8.
FY97 Q1: Quarterly Sales Tax 31,091; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 9 point 1.
FY97 Q2: Quarterly Sales Tax 34,167; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 7 point 4.
FY97 Q3: Quarterly Sales Tax 30,415; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 1.
FY97 Q4: Quarterly Sales Tax 33,296; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 4 point 5.
FY98 Q1: Quarterly Sales Tax 34,160; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 9 point 9.
FY98 Q2: Quarterly Sales Tax 37,995; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 11 point 2.
FY98 Q3: Quarterly Sales Tax 32,375; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 6 point 4.
FY98 Q4: Quarterly Sales Tax 33,899; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 1 point 8.
FY99 Q1: Quarterly Sales Tax 36,836; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 7 point 8.
FY99 Q2: Quarterly Sales Tax 34,925; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year -8 point 1.
FY99 Q3: Quarterly Sales Tax 34,661; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 7 point 1.
FY99 Q4: Quarterly Sales Tax 37,290; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 10.
FY00 Q1: Quarterly Sales Tax 37,898; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 2 point 9.
FY00 Q2: Quarterly Sales Tax 41,504; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 18 point 8.
FY00 Q3: Quarterly Sales Tax 41,143; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 18 point 7.
FY00 Q4: Quarterly Sales Tax 46,220; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 23 point 9.
FY01 Q1: Quarterly Sales Tax 48,170; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 27 point 1.
FY01 Q2: Quarterly Sales Tax 51,132; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 23 point 2.
FY01 Q3: Quarterly Sales Tax 41,913; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year 1 point 9.
FY01 Q4: Quarterly Sales Tax 42,326; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year -8 point 4.
FY02 Q1: Quarterly Sales Tax 37,818; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year -21 point 5.
FY02 Q2: Quarterly Sales Tax 38,597; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year -24 point 5.
FY02 Q3: Quarterly Sales Tax 32,752; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year -21 point 9.
FY02 Q4: Quarterly Sales Tax 35,051; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year -17 point 2.
FY03 Q1: Quarterly Sales Tax 34,552; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year -8 point 6.
FY03 Q2: Quarterly Sales Tax 34,656; Percent Change from Same Quarter of Previous Year -10 point 2.

The anticipated slow recovery of the economy has not materialized. Actually, the anemic recovery has stalled and the economy continues to deteriorate. Santa Clara County experienced its lowest unemployment rate ever, 1 point 3 percent, in December 2000. It was 7 point 7 percent in January 2002 when our last budget was prepared. It climbed to 8 point 9 percent by October 2002 and remains at 8 point 6 percent in February 2003. In excess of 190,000 jobs have been lost in our community. Organizations in the public sector at all levels, including the Federal, State and local, are now awakening to the financial crisis facing them. Announcements of huge deficits and implementation of painful cost saving and service reduction plans, including layoffs of personnel, by governmental agencies are ever increasingly common events. 

Last year we proposed a budget that included a 5 percent service reduction, incorporated a number of one time revenue enhancement strategies and projected that V T A would virtually exhaust the budget reserves by June 30, 2003.  Since that time we have taken several steps leading up to this budget.  We have implemented another 9percent reduction in V T A bus and light rail service hours. We have continued to review the capital budget and have over the last one and one-half years reduced or deferred over $120 million of capital projects. We have continued to aggressively seek out financial strategies that have enabled us to defer the depletion of our reserves for another two years.  Further, our proposed budget includes an additional 21 percent reduction in V T A bus and light rail services and another fare increase.  Yet still, as shown below, our on-going annual structural deficit is projected to be $62.9 million for Fiscal Year 2004-05. 

A table shows On-Going revenues and expenses, surplus/deficit, and beginning and ending reserves. (In thousand dollars)
On-Going Revenues: Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 283,707; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Estimate 285,231; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed 255,184; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed 266,195.
On-Going Expenses: Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 367,093; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Estimate 358,955; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed 327,315; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed 329,095.
On-Going Structural  Deficit: Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget -83,386; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Estimate -73,724; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed -72,131; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed -62,900.
Total One-Time Revenues: Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 53,220; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Estimate 75,335; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed 40,428; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed 44,941.
Surplus/(Deficit) from Operations: Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget -30,166; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Estimate 1,611; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed -31,703; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed -17,959.
Reserves Committed for Local Share of Capital Projects (FY 2002-03 Revised Estimate consists of $4,759 in new projects and $36,413 in capital project scope reductions and deferrals.): Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget -4,759; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Estimate 31,654; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed -4,717; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed -5,000.
Reserves Beginning of Fiscal Year: Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 42,121; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Estimate 42,465; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed 75,730; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed 39,310.
Reserves Ending of Fiscal Year: Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 7,196; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Estimate 75,730; Fiscal Year 2003/04 Proposed 39,310; Fiscal Year 2004/05 Proposed 16,351.

The Recommended Budget for the next two years merely buys us time.  The two years will get us to the November 2004 election. The November 2004 election is the last opportunity to gain voter approval for new revenues that could stave off further drastic reductions in V T A services.

The two years will be necessary for all the stakeholders to decide what kind of organization they want V T A to be, what kind of system they want, the kind of services the public wants V T A to provide, directly and indirectly, and what they are willing to pay for.  It is clear that V T A cannot do everything that everyone wants.  The V T A Board of Directors will need to take an ever-increasing role in influencing the goals, objectives and mission(s) of the various other organizations that V T A provides funding for, including Caltrain, A C E and our A D A service.

Similarly, as we reflected on the recommendations of the Business Review Team (which was convened by 2002 V T A Chair Gonzales, see page 36) and the consultants to the 2003 Ad Hoc Financial Stability Committee of the V T A Board, it is evident that fares are expected to cover a larger percentage of V T A's operating expenses.  Over the course of the summer we will be drafting a Fare Policy that will make recommendations as to the overall farebox recovery goals recognizing that a comprehensive farebox recovery strategy encompasses fare revenue, expenditure efficiencies and ridership. 

This is our first biennial (two-year) budget, which is authorized by subsection (d) of Section 11-2 of the Administrative Code. Although the Administrative Code permits adoption of the biennial budget at this time, and provides for one general mid-term review by the Board and amendment at that time upon the affirmative vote of at least eight directors, we are proposing that the Board adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2003-04 and approve in concept a budget for Fiscal Year 2004-05. The Fiscal Year 2004-05 budget will be presented to the Board for review and adoption next year at this time. 

We will also submit periodic budget reviews and updates over the next two years.  These reviews provide the Board and the public with an opportunity to evaluate V T A's actual performance after several months of operations. In addition, it presents a forum for V T A management to report to the Board any major differences between budgetary assumptions and actual results that have been occurred since the budget adoption and to request resource reallocations that are warranted due to changes caused by both internal and external factors.  

MAJOR BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS AND EXPLANATIONS

ONGOING REVENUES
Ridership and Fares
There is a clear and direct correlation between ridership and employment - ridership drops when employment declines.  If Santa Clara County continues to lose jobs, our ridership will likely continue to decline.  Conversely, a rebound in ridership should occur when the County's economy rebounds.  In order to compensate for the falling sales tax receipts and alleviate our operating deficits, the Administration and Finance Committee at the November 2002 meeting recommended that staff provide a proposal for a fare increase as soon as feasible. The Business Review Team (B R T) also recommended that V T A reduce fare discounts and increase multiples on monthly passes to levels more in line with peer transit agencies in the United States.  As a result, we have proposed fare increases for implementation in August 2003 with the goal of increasing the percentage of operating costs paid by patrons and the average fare revenue per boarding.  The proposed fare increase is estimated to cause an initial ridership decline of 5.8 percent with a gradual return over the next year. We anticipate the need of another fare increase in July 2004, which is estimated to result in an initial ridership loss of 4 point 8 percent with a gradual return over the following year.  Although every situation is unique, it is generally observed that lost patronage after a fare increase typically returns over a year to fifteen months with many riders returning in the first six months after the increase.

A line and bar chart shows the year to year percent changes for monthly ridership and employment from July 2000 through January 2003):

July 2000: Ridership 2 point 51; Employment 5 point 76.
August 2000: Ridership 11 point 08; Employment 5 point 66.
September 2000: Ridership 5 point 48; Employment 5 point 99.
October 2000: Ridership 4 point 84; Employment 5 point 91.
November 2000: Ridership 9 point 77; Employment 5 point 96.
December 2000: Ridership 5 point 81; Employment 6 point 09.
January 2001: Ridership 4 point 36; Employment 5 point 5.
February 2001: Ridership -3 point 51; Employment 4 point 87.
March 2001: Ridership 0 point 27; Employment 3 point 53.
April 2001: Ridership 0 point 05; Employment 1 point 48.
May 2001: Ridership -0 point 75; Employment 0 point 6.
June 2001: Ridership -4 point 87; Employment -1 point 05.
July 2001: Ridership -3 point 02; Employment -3 point 63.
August 2001: Ridership -6 point 15; Employment -4 point 93.
September 2001: Ridership -9 point 34; Employment -6 point 32.
October 2001: Ridership -4 point 15; Employment -7 point 59.
November 2001: Ridership -11 point 35; Employment -8 point 73.
December 2001: Ridership -14 point 74; Employment -9 point 52.
January 2002: Ridership -5 point 7; Employment -9 point 97.
February 2002: Ridership -0 point 83; Employment -10 point 11.
March 2002: Ridership -8; Employment -10 point 02.
April 2002: Ridership -1 point 97; Employment -9 point 96.
May 2002: Ridership -6 point 39; Employment -9 point 87.
June 2002: Ridership -7 point 99; Employment -9 point 37.
July 2002: Ridership -9 point 16; Employment -8 point 25.
August 2002: Ridership -12 point 12; Employment -7 point 48.
September 2002: Ridership -9 point 74; Employment -7 point 07.
October 2002: Ridership -10 point 28; Employment -6 point 26.
November 2002: Ridership -13 point 03; Employment -6 point 16.
December 2002: Ridership -12 point 13; Employment -5 point 88.
January 2003: Ridership -12 point 48; Employment -4 point 75.

In addition to the fare increase, the budget proposes a 21 percent reduction in overall service levels in October 2003. The reduction in service reduces projected reduced ridership to 40,000,000 for Fiscal Year 2003-04 and Fiscal Year 2004-05 before considering the impact of a concomitant fare increase.  Ridership for light rail is estimated to increase in Fiscal Year 2004-05 when the Tasman East/Capitol light rail extension to Alum Rock becomes operational in July 2004.

The combination of the fare increase and the service reduction reduces our total ridership projection to 38,260,000 in Fiscal Year 2003-04 and 38,560,000 in Fiscal Year 2004-05. This will generate fares of $29.2 million in Fiscal Year 2004 and $34.1 million in Fiscal Year 2004-05 assuming an additional fare increase in July 2004.  Without the currently proposed fare increase, Fiscal Year 2003-04 revenue would drop to an estimated $25.2 million due to reductions in ridership associated with the reduction in service.

We need to increase fares and reduce service levels at the same time because doing only one of them will impose greater and disproportionate hardship for those riders who depend on having V T A services available. We believe that our current proposal represents a balanced compromise.

Eco Pass, Residential Eco Pass and San Jose State University's Transit Access Program continue to be popular with employers, residential communities and students.  Currently the V T A Eco pass program includes almost 150,000 employees, residents and students in the area.  The projected revenues for Fiscal Year 2003-04 are estimated at $2.5 million.  These revenues are included in the calculation of the revenues per boarding.

A table shows ridership for bus and light rail, total fare revenue, and average fare per boarding:
Bus Ridership in thousands: Fiscal Year 2000/01 Actual 47,238; Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 44,900; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 43,600; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 40,000; Fiscal Year 2003/04 33,000; Fiscal Year 2004/05 32,800.
Percent Change: Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual -4 point 9 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget -2 point 9 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget -8 point 3 percent; Fiscal Year 2003/04 -17 point 5 percent; Fiscal Year 2004/05 -0 point 6 percent.
Light Rail ridership in thousands: Fiscal Year 2000/01 Actual 9,237; Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 7,790; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 7,900; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 6,200; Fiscal Year 2003/04 5,260; Fiscal Year 2004/05 5,760.
Percent Change: Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual -15 point 7 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 1 point 4 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget -21 point 5 percent; Fiscal Year 2003/04 -15 point 2 percent; Fiscal Year 2004/05 9 point 5 percent.
Total Ridership in thousands: Fiscal Year 2000/01 Actual 56,475; Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 52,690; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 51,500; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 46,200; Fiscal Year 2003/04 38,260; Fiscal Year 2004/05 38,560.
Percent Change: Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual -6 point 7 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget -2 point 3 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget -10 point 3 percent; Fiscal Year 2003/04 -17 point 2 percent; Fiscal Year 2004/05 0 point 8 percent.
Total Revenue in thousand dollars: Fiscal Year 2000/01 Actual 31,724; Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 28,826; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 34,500; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 29,470; Fiscal Year 2003/04 29,231; Fiscal Year 2004/05 34,164. 
Percent Change: Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual -9 point 1 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 19 point 7 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget -14 point 6 percent; Fiscal Year 2003/04 -0 point 8 percent; Fiscal Year 2004/05 16 point 9 percent. 
Average Fare Per Boarding: Fiscal Year 2000/01 Actual 0.56 dollar; Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 0.55 dollar; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 0.67 dollar; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 0.64 dollar; Fiscal Year 2003/04 0.76 dollar; Fiscal Year 2004/05 0.89dollar. 
Percent Change: Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual -2 point 6 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 22 point 4 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget -4 point 8 percent; Fiscal Year 2003/04 19 point 8 percent; Fiscal Year 2004/05 16 percent. 

HALF CENT SALES TAX
Regional Economic Growth - Half-Cent Sales Tax and T D A
The half-cent local sales tax and a quarter-cent state sales tax (also known as the Transportation Development Act or T D A) are the two most important income sources to V T A. About 68 percent (more than 80percent in Fiscal Year 2000-01) of V T A's proposed operating revenues are generated from them. They are driven by the local economy. The quarter-cent sales tax is derived from the same tax base as the half-cent sales tax but it is collected by the State. The proceeds are administered and allocated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (M T C). The cash flow fluctuates differently from the half-cent tax because the annual receipts are based on forecasts, which are adjusted in subsequent years for over-funding or under-funding in prior years.

A pie chart shows the percentage of the major revenue sources:
Half cent sales tax, 45 percent
T D A, 22 point 5 percent
Fares, 11 point 2 percent
Federal Preventative Maintenance, 10 point 1 percent
Financing Transactions, 2 point 8 percent
S T A, 1 point 4 percent
Measure A or Refinancing Proceeds, 4 point 9 percent
Other, 2 point 2 percent

Our latest quarterly receipts in March 2003 experienced the seventh consecutive quarterly decline and were 10.2 percent less than the same quarter last year and 32.2 percent less than the quarterly amounts received for the quarter ended December 31, 2001. The total of the latest four quarters is 14.7 percent less than that of previous four quarters. We are no longer optimistic that the economy will turn around soon. As a result, we reduced our Fiscal Year 2002-03 estimate down to $133 million and are hoping for a slight 1.5 percent increase to $135 million in half-cent sales tax receipts in Fiscal Year 2003-04 from the revised Fiscal Year 2002-03 estimate and 3 percent in  Fiscal Year 2004-05 to $139 million. 

Actual and Estimated Sales Tax Revenue Performance (In thousand dollars)
FY 2001 Revenue: Q1 48,170; Q2 51,132; Q3 41,913; Q4 42,326; Total 183,540.
FY 2001 Change from Previous Year: Q1 27 point 1 percent; Q2 23 point 2 percent; Q3 1 point 9 percent; Q4 -8 point 4 percent; Total 10 point 1 percent.
FY 2002 Revenue: Q1 37,818; Q2 38,597; Q3 32,752; Q4 35,051; Total 144,218.
FY 2002 Change from Previous Year: Q1 -21 point 5 percent; Q2 -24 point 5 percent; Q3 -21 point 9 percent; Q4 -17 point 2 percent; Total -21 point 4 percent.
FY 2003 Revenue: Q1 34,552; Q2 34,656; Estimated Q3 31,487; EstimatedQ4 32,306; Estimated Total 133,000.
FY 2003 Change from Previous Year: Q1 -8 point 6 percent; Q2 -10 point 2 percent; Estimated Q3 -3 point 9 percent; Estimated Q4 -7 point 8 percent; Estimated Total -7 point 8 percent.
FY 2004 Revenue: Estimated Q1 33,203; Estimated Q2 35,445; Estimated Q3 31,960; EstimatedQ4 34,392; Estimated Total 135,000.
FY 2004 Change from Previous Year: Estimated Q1 -3 point 9 percent; Estimated Q2 2 point 3 percent; Estimated Q3 1 point 5 percent; Estimated Q4 6 point 5 percent; Estimated Total 1 point 5 percent.
FY 2005 Revenue: Estimated Q1 34,187; Estimated Q2 36,495; Estimated Q3 32,907; EstimatedQ4 35,411; Estimated Total 139,000.
FY 2005 Change from Previous Year: Estimated Q1 3 point 0 percent; Estimated Q2 3 point 0 percent; Estimated Q3 3 point 0 percent; Estimated Q4 3 point 0 percent; Estimated Total 3 point 0 percent.

T D A
Transportation Development Act funds (T D A) are derived from a quarter cent sales tax levied by the State on taxable transactions occurring in Santa Clara County. A portion of these funds is retained by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and approximately 94percent is returned to source, that is, Santa Clara County).

We have estimated the T D A funding on the same basis as our half-cent sales tax. For FISCAL YEAR 2003-04, we estimated $63.4 million ($135 million times 0.5 times 0.94) and for FISCAL YEAR 2004-05, we have estimated $65.3 million. According to the most recent M T C fund estimate, V T A's T D A funds are estimated to increase to $67.4 million in FISCAL YEAR 2003-04.  We expect the MTC estimate of T D A funding available to be revised downward. 

S T A
State Transit Assistance (S T A) apportionments to regional planning agencies (M T C in the Bay Area Region) are determined by two formulas: 
1) 50 percent of funds are distributed according to population and, 
2) 50 percent are distributed on a basis proportional to operator revenues in the region for the prior year. 

The Bay Area Region usually receives about 38 percent of State S T A funds.

According to M T C's most recent fund estimate, STA is estimated at $4.3 million in Fiscal Year 2003-04, a decrease of $2.5 million or 36 point 9 percent from the current year.

STATE OPERATING GRANTS
The state operating grants we have budgeted for Fiscal Year 2003-04 and Fiscal Year 2004-05 are from the A B 434 Program (Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program), which increased vehicle registration fees in the Bay Area by $4 to fund projects and programs that help reduce vehicle emissions. We request the grants to fund our LR shuttle operation. We only expect a small increase to $1.2 million in Fiscal Year 2003-04 and 2004-05 from Fiscal Year 2002-03 Revised Estimate.

INVESTMENT EARNINGS
The investment earnings are derived from three primary sources. First, are the funds which have been earmarked to underwrite operating deficits. These funds are invested by a money manager whose performance is evaluated by comparing actual results against the Institutional Money Market benchmark. The estimated earnings rate for Fiscal Year 2003-04 is 1 point 5 percent and for Fiscal Year 2004-05 is 2 point 5 percent.

The second source of earnings for the Enterprise Fund are from funds which relate to long-term liabilities for which V T A has set aside and restricted assets, (example, accrued vacation and sick leaves.) These funds are invested by a money manager whose performance is evaluated by comparing actual results against the Lehman Brothers U.S. Government Intermediate Bond Benchmark. The estimated earnings rate for Fiscal Year 2003-04 is 3 point 5 percent and for Fiscal Year 2004-05 is 4 percent.

The third source of earnings for the Enterprise Fund are from the funds which have been set aside to pay for the 70 new low floor light rail vehicles. The money manager has structured a series of investments that are scheduled to mature at intervals that coincide with the dates payments are due to the L R V manufacturer. Average rates of return for Fiscal Year 2003-04 are estimated at 1 point 5 percent and 2 point 5 percent for Fiscal Year 2004-05.

The composite average investable funds and rates of return are estimate at $108.9 million and 1 point 84 percent for Fiscal Year 2003-04 and $54.6 million and 2 point 75 percent for Fiscal Year 2004-05 resulting in estimated earnings of $2 million for Fiscal Year 2003-04 and $1.5 million for Fiscal Year 2004-05.

ADVERTISING INCOME
Advertising income is comprised of two components: advertising on buses and light rail vehicles, and bus shelter advertising. Advertising revenue for bus and light rail vehicles is projected at the minimum guaranteed amount of $1.5 million. We budget $318,000 for bus shelter advertising income.

MEASURE A REFINANCING PROCEEDS
We propose issuing debt to reimburse V T A operating funds for interest and principal that has been disbursed for the 2001 Series A Senior Lien Sales Tax Revenue Bonds.  The source of funds to repay this new debt is proposed to be the 2000 Measure A one half cent sales tax approved in November 2000.  The tax will start being collected on April 1, 2006.

The proceeds of the 2001 Series A Bonds were used to finance portions of Tasman East, Vasona, and Capitol 1996 Measure B Light Rail Projects.  Financing these projects for Measure B enabled the Measure B program to provide V T A with Measure B funds for the purchase of 70 low-floor light rail vehicles.  The acquisition of the low floor light rail vehicles was included in the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program and approved by the Board of Directors in 2001.

The new debt will provide proceeds to reimburse V T A approximately $29.3 million in   Fiscal Year 2002-03, and fund the payment of $14.6 million in Fiscal Year 2003-04 and $14.6 million in Fiscal Year 2004-05. In the absence of the new debt, the V T A operating budget would have been repaid in Fiscal Year 2005-06 and Fiscal Year 2006-07 when Measure A sales tax receipts become available.

OTHER INCOME
Other income includes fines and forfeiture, use permit fees, property rentals, proceeds from the disposition of equipment (example, buses) and, from time to time, small grants for special operating projects (example, Job Access/Reverse Commute Program). We expect a decrease of $257,000 to $1.4 million in both Fiscal Year 2003-04 and Fiscal Year 2004-05, mainly due to a lower expected receipts from the Job Access Program and other miscellaneous incomes.
 
ONE-TIME REVENUES
LOCAL OPERATING ASSISTANCE 
In consideration of the financial constraints V T A is facing, the County Board of Supervisors and the V T A Board of Directors approved the use of approximately $10.8 million of the 1996 M B T I P Caltrain Plan by V T A to fund V T A's share of local contribution to the Caltrain Capital Program for three years beginning in Fiscal Year 2002-03, at the June 7, 2002 Joint Board Meeting. As a result, V T A received $4 million of 1996 M B T I P funds in Fiscal Year 2002-03. In the December Semi-Annual Update to Revenue and Expenditure Plan, the County and V T A deferred the remaining 1996 M B T I P funds earmarked for Caltrain matching purpose. 

FEDERAL OPERATING GRANTS
The federal operating grants we have budgeted for Fiscal Year 2003-04 and Fiscal Year 2004-05 are from the Preventative Maintenance Program, which is an eligible activity for F T A Section 5307 formula grant assistance.  Although the Section 5307 grant program is designed primarily to fund capital acquisitions, funds awarded for preventive maintenance essentially function to support the maintenance portion of the operating budget. In order words, grants which should be used to replace and refurbish our assets (example, buses) are converted into operating assistance. Currently, we treat all maintenance costs for revenue and non-revenue vehicles as eligible expenditure. 

It is important to note that we are now maximizing the use of preventive maintenance to reduce our operating deficits, with virtually no funds available for capital. This is a necessary strategy at this time, but one that cannot be sustained for a long period of time. Ultimately, we will need to replace and furbish our assets. 

$9.8 million of Federal Preventative Maintenance (example, federal operating assistance) was recognized in V T A's audited financial statements in Fiscal Year 2001-02. These funds were not included in V T A's budget process until Fiscal Year 2002-03. This is because we used Fiscal Year 2001-02 maintenance costs to justify the grant reimbursement, but did not expect to receive the reimbursement until Fiscal Year 2003-04. We actually received the funds in Fiscal Year 2002-03.

FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 Preventative Maintenance Program
For Fiscal Year 2002-03, V T A will receive a total of $40.4 million for preventive maintenance.  This consists of two grants.  The first one is a grant for $9.8 million of Fiscal Year 2001-02 formula funds that had been programmed for replacement buses.  The replacement bus project was cancelled and during Fiscal Year 2002-03, F T A approved the application of these funds against Fiscal Year 2001-02 maintenance operating expenses.  The second grant for $30.7 million is the amount of 5307 formula grants available to be applied against the Fiscal Year 2002-03 maintenance operating expenses.

FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 & FISCAL YEAR 2004-05 Preventative Maintenance Program
V T A is continuing to use the available Section 5307 to support the maintenance operating budget.  We anticipate receiving $30.2 million in Fiscal Year 2003-04 and $31.3 in Fiscal Year 2004-05.

FINANCING TRANSACTIONS
The financing transaction is associated with the new low-floor light rail vehicles.  The Board of Directors approved the transaction, (contingent upon a successful validation action) on April 13, 2003. The transaction consists of a Head Lease where V T A leases the vehicles to a trust and a Sublease where the trust leases the vehicles back to V T A.  The net benefit is highly dependent on equipment valuations (determined by appraisal) and remaining useful life of the assets, as well as prevailing interest rates at the time the transaction closes.  We anticipate that the first tranche, which is a specified part of a larger transaction, of the transaction will close before the end of Fiscal Year 2002-03 with a net benefit to V T A of approximately $11-$13 million.  V T A anticipates two additional "tranches" closing in Fiscal Year 2003-04 to generate a net benefit of approximately $22 to $25 million.  

SALE OF PROPERTY
The FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 Adopted Budget included the assumption that the Transit Program would sell a portion of the North Operating Division real estate to the Highway Program for $5 million. The Highway Program acquired the property for the 1996 M B T I P Route 85/101 (North) Interchange Project. The actual price paid, (based upon appraisal), was $4.9 million. 

We also sold the Winfield parcel for $1.1 million and the Evans Lane property for $8.6 million. These are no additional property sales assumed in the Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year 2003-04 and Fiscal Year 2004-05.

MEASURE B FUND SWAP
Due to V T A's existing financial condition, Staff completed a very detailed review of existing capital projects.  One of the projects that have been deferred is the downtown segment of the Guadalupe Corridor Platform Retrofit project. This project was financed in part by a $7.2 million FTA 5309 Rail Modernization grant.  V T A was able to reprogram this revenue to the Vasona 1996 Measure B Light Rail Project. In exchange for bringing the grant funding into the projects, the County agreed to provide an equivalent amount of 1996 Measure B sales tax funds to V T A. The 1996 M B T I P funds will be release to V T A as the grant funds are received. The swap proceeds are prepared to be used for operations.  It is anticipated that $2 million of the revenue will be received in Fiscal Year 2003-04 and $5.2 million in Fiscal Year 2004-05.  

TCRP/MEASURE A DEBT PROCEEDS
On October 10, 2002, the Board of Directors approved the issuance of Bond and Grant Application Notes (Notes) to fund the acquisition of a rail corridor from Union Pacific Railroad. The Notes were issued for the principal amount of $81.5 million at a stated interest rate of 3 percent, and mature in December 2003. Although we used our 1976 half cent sales tax to enhance the credit ratings of the Notes (thus reducing borrowing costs), it was, and is not, the intention to repay those notes with any funds other than the State Transportation Congestion Relief Program (T C R P) funds and 2000 Measure A Sales Tax. After the 2002 Notes were issued, the T C R P Program was suspended due to the current State budget crisis. We do not anticipate that TCRP funds will be made available until and if the State Legislature and the Governor agree to continue the T C R P Program. Additionally, V T A covenanted that prior to issuing any future debt, the repayment for these Notes would be provided for, or the Notes would be retired. Therefore, V T A must include in any transaction that advances 2000 Measure A Sales Tax, the refunding of these Notes. We anticipate receiving $81.9 million for repayment in Fiscal Year 2003-04.

EXPENSES

Service Levels 
The budget anticipates additional service reductions in October 2003. Details for the October reduction have not been finalized at this time, thus all Fiscal Year 2004-05 data should be viewed as approximate and preliminary. 

The service miles and hours in the table on the next page reflect only the partial impacts of the 9percent reduction in April 2003 (Fiscal Year 2002-03) the estimated 21 percent reduction in October 2003 (Fiscal Year 2003-04).  Fiscal Year 2004-05 reflects the annualized miles and hours of bus service after the two reductions.  The Tasman East and Capitol light rail extensions (to Alum Rock) will become operational in July 2004 (an additional 6.3 miles and 8 new stations). Light rail service is anticipated to increase in July 2004 (adding 300,000 service miles and 8,000 service hours).  However, overall miles and hours in Fiscal Year 2004-05 will still be reduced as a result of the full year effect of the October 2003 service reduction. 

Service Miles (In thousands)
Bus: Fiscal Year 2000/01 Actual 22,640; Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 22,044; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 21,174; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 20,402; Fiscal Year 2003/04 15,698; Fiscal Year 2004/05 14,633.
Percent Change: Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual -2 point 6 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget -3 point 9 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget -3 point 6 percent; Fiscal Year 2003/04 -23 point1 percent; Fiscal Year 2004/05 -6 point 8 percent.
Light Rail Train: Fiscal Year 2000/01 Actual 1,927; Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 2,033; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 1,832; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 1,584; Fiscal Year 2003/04 1,415; Fiscal Year 2004/05 1,675.
Percent Change: Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 5 point 5 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget -9 point 9 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget -13 point 5 percent; Fiscal Year 2003/04 -10 point 7 percent; Fiscal Year 2004/05 18 point 4 percent.
Total Service Miles: Fiscal Year 2000/01 Actual 24,567; Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 24,077; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 23,006; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 21,986; Fiscal Year 2003/04 17,113; Fiscal Year 2004/05 16,308.
Total Percent Change: Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual -2 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget -4 point 4 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget -4 point 4 percent; Fiscal Year 2003/04 -22 point 2 percent; Fiscal Year 2004/05 -4 point 7 percent.
Light Rail Car Miles: Fiscal Year 2000/01 Actual 2,885; Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 2,555; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 2,655; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 2,187; Fiscal Year 2003/04 1,931; Fiscal Year 2004/05 2,473.
Percent Change: Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual -11 point 4 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 3 point 9 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget -17 point 6 percent; Fiscal Year 2003/04 -11 point 7 percent; Fiscal Year 2004/05 28 point 1 percent.
Service Hours (In thousands):
Bus: Fiscal Year 2000/01 Actual 1,617; Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 1,589; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 1,538; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 1,493; Fiscal Year 2003/04 1,151; Fiscal Year 2004/05 1,067.
Percent Change: Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual -1 point 7 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget -3 point 2 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget -2 point 9 percent; Fiscal Year 2003/04 -22 point 9 percent; Fiscal Year 2004/05 -7 point 3 percent.
Light Rail Train: Fiscal Year 2000/01 Actual 137; Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 137; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 122; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 109; Fiscal Year 2003/04 96; Fiscal Year 2004/05 101.
Percent Change: Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 0 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget -10 point 9 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget -10 point 7 percent; Fiscal Year 2003/04 -11 point 9 percent; Fiscal Year 2004/05 5 point 2 percent.
Total Service Hours: Fiscal Year 2000/01 Actual 1,754; Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 1,726; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 1,660; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 1,602; Fiscal Year 2003/04 1,247; Fiscal Year 2004/05 1,168.
Percent Change: Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual -1 point 6 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget -3 point 8 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget -3 point 5 percent; Fiscal Year 2003/04 -22 point 2 percent; Fiscal Year 2004/05 -6 point 3 percent.
Light Rail Car Hours: Fiscal Year 2000/01 Actual 198; Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual 172; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 177; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget 147; Fiscal Year 2003/04 127; Fiscal Year 2004/05 152.
Percent Change: Fiscal Year 2001/02 Actual -13 point1 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Adopted Budget 2 point 9 percent; Fiscal Year 2002/03 Revised Budget -16 point 9 percent; Fiscal Year 2003/04 -13 point 6 percent; Fiscal Year 2004/05 19 point 7 percent.

The annualized savings (in thousand dollars) resulting from the 9 percent service reductions implemented April 2003 are:
Support Services: Fiscal Year 2003-04, $5,624; Fiscal Year 2004-05, $5,914.
Transportation & Maintenance: Fiscal Year 2003-04, $16,794; Fiscal Year 2004-05, $18,048.
Total: Fiscal Year 2003-04, $22,418; Fiscal Year 2004-05, $23,962.
The 21 percent service reduction proposed to be implemented in October 2003 will result in estimated savings for nine months of Fiscal Year 2003-04 and the annualized savings (in thousands) for Fiscal Year 2004-05 of:
Support Services: Fiscal Year 2003-04, $8,308; Fiscal Year 2004-05, $8,837.
Transportation & Maintenance: Fiscal Year 2003-04, $32,200; Fiscal Year 2004-05, $46,147.
Total: Fiscal Year 2003-04, $40,508; Fiscal Year 2004-05, $54,984.

We are continuing to work on developing the best service plan possible, given the resources available. We are also developing plans for reduction in support services. The total number of positions that will be eliminated will likely be between 300 to 400. Our ability to provide service of all types (example, bus, light rail, public information, and responsiveness to requests from the Board and the public) will be significantly and adversely affected. 

Wages & Benefits

A Table for Budgets for Salaries & Benefits (in thousand dollars) and Benefit Rates :
Salaries & Wages: Fiscal Year 2002-03 Adopted, $144,768; Fiscal Year 2002-03 Revised, $136,343; Fiscal Year 2003-04 Proposed, $125,628; Fiscal Year 2004-05 Proposed, $118,081.
Benefits: Fiscal Year 2002-03 Adopted, $83,120; Fiscal Year 2002-03 Revised, $92,664; v 2003-04 Proposed, $88,843; Fiscal Year 2004-05 Proposed, $89,114.
ATU benefit rate: Fiscal Year 2002-03 Adopted, 49 point percent; Fiscal Year 2002-03 Revised, 58 point 3 percent; Fiscal Year 2003-04 Proposed, 63.4 percent; Fiscal Year 2004-05 Proposed, 66 point 8 percent.
Non-ATU benefit rate: Fiscal Year 2002-03 Adopted, 39 percent; Fiscal Year 2002-03 Revised, 50 point 1 percent; Fiscal Year 2003-04 Proposed, 53 point 5 percent; Fiscal Year 2004-05 Proposed, 59 point 4 percent.

The Recommended Budget assumes that the A T U top of scale wage rates will increase 5percent on February 2, 2004. There is no provision in the budget for wage rate adjustments for S E I U, C E M A, T A E A and non-represented employees. The Recommended Budget does include provisions for step increases for all employees who are in pay progression. The benefit cost increases are driven by: health care cost; pension costs due to non-performance of plan assets; and, workers' compensation costs.

A Table for Budgeted Position Changes By Classification:  
Details will be provided at a later time for Fiscal Year 2002-03 Adopted, Fiscal Year 2002-03 Revised, Fiscal Year 2003-04 Proposed and Fiscal Year 2004-05 Proposed.

Inflation Rate
The Consumer Price Index (C P I) is the gauge of inflation at the retail or consumer level. CPI reached an annual rate of 1 point 63 percent for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose region in 2002. It was the year that the rate for the Bay Area plunged from the height in 2001 - 5 point 38 percent. This low rate is expected to continue as the Bay Area remains in a recessionary environment.

A line chart shows the monthly consumer price index from January 1990 through February 2003 and their year-to-year percentage changes:
January 1990, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 128 point 5; Year over year percentage change 3 point 6; United States all items C P I 127 point 4; year over year percentage change 5 point 2.
February 1990, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 129 point 2; Year over year percentage change 4 point 2; United States all items C P I 128; year over year percentage change 5 point 3.
March 1990, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 130; Year over year percentage change 3 point 3; United States all items C P I 128 point 7; year over year percentage change 5 point 2.
April 1990, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 130 point 7; Year over year percentage change 4 point 2; United States all items C P I 128 point 9; year over year percentage change 4 point 7.
May 1990, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 130 point 8; Year over year percentage change 3 point 6; United States all items C P I 129 point 2; year over year percentage change 4 point 4.
June 1990, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 131 point 6; Year over year percentage change 4 point 3; United States all items C P I 129 point 9; year over year percentage change 4 point 7.
July 1990, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 132 point 3; Year over year percentage change 3 point 8; United States all items C P I 130 point 4; year over year percentage change 4 point 8.
August 1990, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 133 point 1; Year over year percentage change 3 point 9; United States all items C P I 131 point 6; year over year percentage change 5 point 6.
September 1990, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 134; Year over year percentage change 5 point 7; United States all items C P I 132 point 7; year over year percentage change 6 point 2.
October 1990, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 134 point 6; Year over year percentage change 5 point 6; United States all items C P I 133 point 5; year over year percentage change 6 point 3.
November 1990, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 134 point 7; Year over year percentage change 5 point 9; United States all items C P I 133 point 8; year over year percentage change 6 point 3.
December 1990, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 135 point 1; Year over year percentage change 6; United States all items C P I 133 point 8; year over year percentage change 6 point 1.
January 1991, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 136 point 7; Year over year percentage change 6 point 4; United States all items C P I 134 point 6; year over year percentage change 5 point 7.
February 1991, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 136 point 1; Year over year percentage change 5 point 3; United States all items C P I 134 point 8; year over year percentage change 5 point 3.
March 1991, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 136 point 3; Year over year percentage change 4 point 8; United States all items C P I 135; year over year percentage change 4 point 9.
April 1991, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 135 point 8; Year over year percentage change 3 point 9; United States all items C P I 135 point 2; year over year percentage change 4 point 9.
May 1991, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 136 point 2; Year over year percentage change 4 point 1; United States all items C P I 135 point 6; year over year percentage change 5.
June 1991, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 137 point 6; Year over year percentage change 4 point 6; United States all items C P I 136; year over year percentage change 4 point 7.
July 1991, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 138 point 2; Year over year percentage change 4 point 5; United States all items C P I 136 point 2; year over year percentage change 4 point 4.
August 1991, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 139 point 1; Year over year percentage change 4 point 5; United States all items C P I 136 point 6; year over year percentage change 3 point 8.
September 1991, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 139 point 7; Year over year percentage change 4 point 3; United States all items C P I 137 point 2; year over year percentage change 3 point 4.
October 1991, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 139 point 6; Year over year percentage change 3 point 7; United States all items C P I 137 point 4; year over year percentage change 2 point 9.
November 1991, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 139 point 8; Year over year percentage change 3 point 8; United States all items C P I 137 point 8; year over year percentage change 3.
December 1991, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 139 point 8; Year over year percentage change 3 point 5; United States all items C P I 137 point 9; year over year percentage change 3 point 1.
January 1992, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 140 point 3; Year over year percentage change 2 point 6; United States all items C P I 138 point 1; year over year percentage change 2 point 6.
February 1992, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 141; Year over year percentage change 3 point 6; United States all items C P I 138 point 6; year over year percentage change 2 point 8.
March 1992, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 141 point 9; Year over year percentage change 4 point 1; United States all items C P I 139 point 3; year over year percentage change 3 point 2.
April 1992, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 141 point 6; Year over year percentage change 4 point 3; United States all items C P I 139 point 5; year over year percentage change 3 point 2.
May 1992, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 141 point 9; Year over year percentage change 4 point 2; United States all items C P I 139 point 7; year over year percentage change 3.
June 1992, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 141 point 9; Year over year percentage change 3 point 1; United States all items C P I 140 point 2; year over year percentage change 3 point 1.
July 1992, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 142 point 2; Year over year percentage change 2 point 9; United States all items C P I 140 point 5; year over year percentage change 3 point 2.
August 1992, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 142 point 7; Year over year percentage change 2 point 6; United States all items C P I 140 point 9; year over year percentage change 3 point 1.
September 1992, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 143 point 7; Year over year percentage change 2 point 9; United States all items C P I 141 point 3; year over year percentage change 3.
October 1992, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 144 point 3; Year over year percentage change 3 point 4; United States all items C P I 141 point 8; year over year percentage change 3 point 2.
November 1992, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 144 point 2; Year over year percentage change 3 point 1; United States all items C P I 142; year over year percentage change 3.
December 1992, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 144 point 3; Year over year percentage change 3 point 2; United States all items C P I 141 point 9; year over year percentage change 2 point 9.
January 1993, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 145 point 1; Year over year percentage change 3 point 4; United States all items C P I 142 point 6; year over year percentage change 3 point 3.
February 1993, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 145 point 5; Year over year percentage change 3 point 2; United States all items C P I 143 point 1; year over year percentage change 3 point 2.
March 1993, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 145 point 7; Year over year percentage change 2 point 7; United States all items C P I 143 point 6; year over year percentage change 3 point 1.
April 1993, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 146 point 8; Year over year percentage change 3 point 7; United States all items C P I 144; year over year percentage change 3 point 2.
May 1993, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 146 point 9; Year over year percentage change 3 point 5; United States all items C P I 144 point 2; year over year percentage change 3 point 2.
June 1993, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 146 point 1; Year over year percentage change 3; United States all items C P I 144 point 4; year over year percentage change 3.
July 1993, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 146 point 1; Year over year percentage change 2 point 7; United States all items C P I 144 point 4; year over year percentage change 2 point 8.
August 1993, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 146 point 2; Year over year percentage change 2 point 5; United States all items C P I 144 point 8; year over year percentage change 2 point 8.
September 1993, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 146 point 5; Year over year percentage change 1 point 9; United States all items C P I 145 point 1; year over year percentage change 2 point 7.
October 1993, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 147; Year over year percentage change 1 point 9; United States all items C P I 145 point 7; year over year percentage change 2 point 8.
November 1993, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 147 point 2; Year over year percentage change 2 point 1; United States all items C P I 145 point 8; year over year percentage change 2 point 7.
December 1993, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 147; Year over year percentage change 1 point 9; United States all items C P I 145 point 8; year over year percentage change 2 point 7.
January 1994, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 147 point 5; Year over year percentage change 1 point 7; United States all items C P I 146 point 2; year over year percentage change 2 point 5.
February 1994, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 147 point 4; Year over year percentage change 1 point 3; United States all items C P I 146 point 7; year over year percentage change 2 point 5.
March 1994, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 148 point 2; Year over year percentage change 1 point 7; United States all items C P I 147 point 2; year over year percentage change 2 point 5.
April 1994, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 148; Year over year percentage change 0 point 8; United States all items C P I 147 point 4; year over year percentage change 2 point 4.
May 1994, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 148 point 3; Year over year percentage change 1; United States all items C P I 147 point 5; year over year percentage change 2 point 3.
June 1994, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 148 point 1; Year over year percentage change 1 point 4; United States all items C P I 148; year over year percentage change 2 point 5.
July 1994, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 148 point 9; Year over year percentage change 1 point 9; United States all items C P I 148 point 4; year over year percentage change 2 point 8.
August 1994, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 149 point 4; Year over year percentage change 2 point 2; United States all items C P I 149; year over year percentage change 2 point 9.
September 1994, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 149 point 4; Year over year percentage change 2; United States all items C P I 149 point 4; year over year percentage change 3.
October 1994, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 149 point 4; Year over year percentage change 1 point 6; United States all items C P I 149 point 5; year over year percentage change 2 point 6.
November 1994, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 149 point 8; Year over year percentage change 1 point 8; United States all items C P I 149 point 7; year over year percentage change 2 point 7.
December 1994, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 149 point 4; Year over year percentage change 1 point 6; United States all items C P I 149 point 7; year over year percentage change 2 point 7.
January 1995, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 150 point 3; Year over year percentage change 1 point 9; United States all items C P I 150 point 3; year over year percentage change 2 point 8.
February 1995, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 150 point 5; Year over year percentage change 2 point 1; United States all items C P I 150 point 9; year over year percentage change 2 point 9.
March 1995, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 151 point 1; Year over year percentage change 2; United States all items C P I 151 point 4; year over year percentage change 2 point 9.
April 1995, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 151 point 5; Year over year percentage change 2 point 4; United States all items C P I 151 point 9; year over year percentage change 3 point 1.
May 1995, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 151 point 3; Year over year percentage change 2; United States all items C P I 152 point 2; year over year percentage change 3 point 2.
June 1995, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 151 point 7; Year over year percentage change 2 point 4; United States all items C P I 152 point 5; year over year percentage change 3.
July 1995, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 151 point 5; Year over year percentage change 1 point 7; United States all items C P I 152 point 5; year over year percentage change 2 point 8.
August 1995, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 151 point 5; Year over year percentage change 1 point 4; United States all items C P I 152 point 9; year over year percentage change 2 point 6.
September 1995, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 152 point 3; Year over year percentage change 1 point 9; United States all items C P I 153 point 2; year over year percentage change 2 point 5.
October 1995, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 152 point 6; Year over year percentage change 2 point 1; United States all items C P I 153 point 7; year over year percentage change 2 point 8.
November 1995, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 152 point 4; Year over year percentage change 1 point 7; United States all items C P I 153 point 6; year over year percentage change 2 point 6.
December 1995, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 152 point 1; Year over year percentage change 1 point 8; United States all items C P I 153 point 5; year over year percentage change 2 point 5.
January 1996, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 152 point 9; Year over year percentage change 1 point 7; United States all items C P I 154 point 4; year over year percentage change 2 point 7.
February 1996, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 153 point 2; Year over year percentage change 1 point 8; United States all items C P I 154 point 9; year over year percentage change 2 point 7.
March 1996, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 152 point 9; Year over year percentage change 1 point 2; United States all items C P I 155 point 7; year over year percentage change 2 point 8.
April 1996, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 153 point 9; Year over year percentage change 1 point 6; United States all items C P I 156 point 3; year over year percentage change 2 point 9.
May 1996, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 155 point 1; Year over year percentage change 2 point 5; United States all items C P I 156 point 6; year over year percentage change 2 point 9.
June 1996, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 155 point 2; Year over year percentage change 2 point 3; United States all items C P I 156 point 7; year over year percentage change 2 point 8.
July 1996, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 155 point 9; Year over year percentage change 2 point 9; United States all items C P I 157; year over year percentage change 3.
August 1996, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 155 point 6; Year over year percentage change 2 point 7; United States all items C P I 157 point 3; year over year percentage change 2 point 9.
September 1996, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 156 point 3; Year over year percentage change 2 point 6; United States all items C P I 157 point 8; year over year percentage change 3.
October 1996, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 156 point 9; Year over year percentage change 2 point 8; United States all items C P I 158 point 3; year over year percentage change 3.
November 1996, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 156 point 9; Year over year percentage change 3; United States all items C P I 158 point 6; year over year percentage change 3 point 3.
December 1996, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 156; Year over year percentage change 2 point 6; United States all items C P I 158 point 6; year over year percentage change 3 point 3.
January 1997, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 157; Year over year percentage change 2 point 7; United States all items C P I 159 point 1; year over year percentage change 3.
February 1997, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 157 point 9; Year over year percentage change 3 point 1; United States all items C P I 159 point 6; year over year percentage change 3.
March 1997, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 159 point 2; Year over year percentage change 4 point 1; United States all items C P I 160; year over year percentage change 2 point 8.
April 1997, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 159 point 6; Year over year percentage change 3 point 7; United States all items C P I 160 point 2; year over year percentage change 2 point 5.
May 1997, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 159 point 8; Year over year percentage change 3; United States all items C P I 160 point 1; year over year percentage change 2 point 2.
June 1997, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 160; Year over year percentage change 3 point 1; United States all items C P I 160 point 3; year over year percentage change 2 point 3.
July 1997, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 160 point 6; Year over year percentage change 3; United States all items C P I 160 point 5; year over year percentage change 2 point 2.
August 1997, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 161 point 2; Year over year percentage change 3 point 6; United States all items C P I 160 point 8; year over year percentage change 2 point 2.
September 1997, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 161 point 6; Year over year percentage change 3 point 4; United States all items C P I 161 point 2; year over year percentage change 2 point 2.
October 1997, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 162 point 5; Year over year percentage change 3 point 6; United States all items C P I 161 point 6; year over year percentage change 2 point 1.
November 1997, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 162 point 6; Year over year percentage change 3 point 6; United States all items C P I 161 point 5; year over year percentage change 1 point 8.
December 1997, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 162 point 6; Year over year percentage change 4 point 2; United States all items C P I 161 point 3; year over year percentage change 1 point 7.
January 1998, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 162 point 9; Year over year percentage change 3 point 8; United States all items C P I 161 point 6; year over year percentage change 1 point 6.
February 1998, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 163 point 2; Year over year percentage change 3 point 4; United States all items C P I 161 point 9; year over year percentage change 1 point 4.
March 1998, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 163 point 9; Year over year percentage change 3; United States all items C P I 162 point 2; year over year percentage change 1 point 4.
April 1998, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 164 point 6; Year over year percentage change 3 point 1; United States all items C P I 162 point 5; year over year percentage change 1 point 4.
May 1998, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 165 point 05; Year over year percentage change 3 point 3; United States all items C P I 162 point 8; year over year percentage change 1 point 7.
June 1998, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 165 point 5; Year over year percentage change 3 point 4; United States all items C P I 163; year over year percentage change 1 point 7.
July 1998, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 166 point 05; Year over year percentage change 3 point 4; United States all items C P I 163 point 2; year over year percentage change 1 point 7.
August 1998, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 166 point 6; Year over year percentage change 3 point 3; United States all items C P I 163 point 4; year over year percentage change 1 point 6.
September 1998, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 166 point 9; Year over year percentage change 3 point 3; United States all items C P I 163 point 6; year over year percentage change 1 point 5.
October 1998, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 167 point 2; Year over year percentage change 2 point 9; United States all items C P I 164; year over year percentage change 1 point 5.
November 1998, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 167 point 3; Year over year percentage change 2 point 9; United States all items C P I 164; year over year percentage change 1 point 5.
December 1998, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 167 point 4; Year over year percentage change 3; United States all items C P I 163 point 9; year over year percentage change 1 point 6.
January 1999, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 168 point 4; Year over year percentage change 3 point 4; United States all items C P I 164 point 3; year over year percentage change 1 point 7.
February 1999, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 169 point 4; Year over year percentage change 3 point 8; United States all items C P I 164 point 5; year over year percentage change 1 point 6.
March 1999, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 170 point 8; Year over year percentage change 4 point 2; United States all items C P I 165; year over year percentage change 1 point 7.
April 1999, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 172 point 2; Year over year percentage change 4 point 6; United States all items C P I 166 point 2; year over year percentage change 2 point 3.
May 1999, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 172; Year over year percentage change 4 point 2; United States all items C P I 166 point 2; year over year percentage change 2 point 1.
June 1999, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 171 point 8; Year over year percentage change 3 point 8; United States all items C P I 166 point 2; year over year percentage change 2.
July 1999, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 172 point 65; Year over year percentage change 4; United States all items C P I 166 point 7; year over year percentage change 2 point 1.
August 1999, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 173 point 5; Year over year percentage change 4 point 1; United States all items C P I 167 point 1; year over year percentage change 2 point 3.
September 1999, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I not available; Year over year percentage change not available; United States all items C P I 167 point 9; year over year percentage change 2 point 6.
October 1999, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 175 point 2; Year over year percentage change 4 point 8; United States all items C P I 168 point 2; year over year percentage change 2 point 6.
November 1999, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I not available; Year over year percentage change not available; United States all items C P I 168 point 3; year over year percentage change 2 point 6.
December 1999, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 174 point 5; Year over year percentage change 4 point 2; United States all items C P I 168 point 3; year over year percentage change 2 point 7.
January 2000, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I not available; Year over year percentage change not available; United States all items C P I 168 point 7; year over year percentage change 2 point 7.
February 2000, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 176 point 5; Year over year percentage change 4 point 2; United States all items C P I 169 point 7; year over year percentage change 3 point 2.
March 2000, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I not available; Year over year percentage change not available; United States all items C P I 171 point 1; year over year percentage change 3 point 7.
April 2000, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 178 point 6; Year over year percentage change 3 point 7; United States all items C P I 171 point 2; year over year percentage change 3.
May 2000, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I not available; Year over year percentage change not available; United States all items C P I 171 point 3; year over year percentage change 3 point 1.
June 2000, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 179; Year over year percentage change 4 point 2; United States all items C P I 172 point 3; year over year percentage change 3 point 1.
July 2000, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I not available; Year over year percentage change not available; United States all items C P I 172 point 6; year over year percentage change 3 point 5.
August 2000, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 181 point 7; Year over year percentage change 4 point 7; United States all items C P I 172 point 7; year over year percentage change 3 point 4.
September 2000, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I not available; Year over year percentage change not available; United States all items C P I 173 point 7; year over year percentage change 3 point 5.
October 2000, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 183 point 4; Year over year percentage change 4 point 7; United States all items C P I 174; year over year percentage change 3 point 5.
November 2000, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I not available; Year over year percentage change not available; United States all items C P I 174 point 1; year over year percentage change 3 point 5.
December 2000, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 184 point 1; Year over year percentage change 5 point 5; United States all items C P I 174; year over year percentage change 3 point 4.
January 2001, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I not available; Year over year percentage change not available; United States all items C P I 175; year over year percentage change 3 point 8.
February 2001, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 187 point 9; Year over year percentage change 6 point 5; United States all items C P I 175 point 8; year over year percentage change 3 point 6.
March 2001, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I not available; Year over year percentage change not available; United States all items C P I 176 point 2; year over year percentage change 3.
April 2001, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 189 point 1; Year over year percentage change 5 point 9; United States all items C P I 176 point 9; year over year percentage change 3 point 3.
May 2001, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I not available; Year over year percentage change not available; United States all items C P I 177 point 7; year over year percentage change 3 point 7.
June 2001, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 190 point 9; Year over year percentage change 6 point 7; United States all items C P I 178; year over year percentage change 3 point 3.
July 2001, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I not available; Year over year percentage change not available; United States all items C P I 177 point 5; year over year percentage change 2 point 8.
August 2001, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 191; Year over year percentage change 5 point 1; United States all items C P I 177 point 5; year over year percentage change 2 point 8.
September 2001, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I not available; Year over year percentage change not available; United States all items C P I 178 point 3; year over year percentage change 2 point 7.
October 2001, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 191 point 7; Year over year percentage change 4 point 5; United States all items C P I 177 point 7; year over year percentage change 2 point 1.
November 2001, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I not available; Year over year percentage change not available; United States all items C P I 177 point 4; year over year percentage change 1 point 9.
December 2001, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 190 point 6; Year over year percentage change 3 point 5; United States all items C P I 176 point 7; year over year percentage change 1 point 6.
January 2002, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I not available; Year over year percentage change not available; United States all items C P I 177 point 1; year over year percentage change 1 point 1.
February 2002, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 191 point 3; Year over year percentage change 1 point 8; United States all items C P I 177 point 8; year over year percentage change 1 point 1.
March 2002, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I not available; Year over year percentage change not available; United States all items C P I 178 point 8; year over year percentage change 1 point 5.
April 2002, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 193 point 0; Year over year percentage change 2 point 1; United States all items C P I 179 point 8; year over year percentage change 1 point 6.
May 2002, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I not available; Year over year percentage change not available; United States all items C P I 179 point 8; year over year percentage change 1 point 2.
June 2002, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 193 point 2; Year over year percentage change 1 point 2; United States all items C P I 179.9; year over year percentage change 1 point 1.
July 2002, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I not available; Year over year percentage change not available; United States all items C P I 180 point 1; year over year percentage change 1 point 5.
August 2002, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 193 point 5; Year over year percentage change 1 point 3; United States all items C P I 180 point 7; year over year percentage change 1 point 8.
September 2002, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I not available; Year over year percentage change not available; United States all items C P I 181; year over year percentage change 1 point 5.
October 2002, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 194 point 3; Year over year percentage change 1 point 4; United States all items C P I 181 point 3; year over year percentage change 2 point 0.
November 2002, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I not available; Year over year percentage change not available; United States all items C P I 181 point 3; year over year percentage change 2 point 2.
December 2002, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 193 point 2; Year over year percentage change 1 point 4; United States all items C P I 180 point 9; year over year percentage change 2 point 4.
January 2003, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I not available; Year over year percentage change not available; United States all items C P I 181 point 7; year over year percentage change 2 point 6.
February 2003, San Francisco Oakland San Jose area C P I 197 point 7; Year over year percentage change 3 point 4; United States all items C P I 183 point 1; year over year percentage change 3 point 0.

We used 1 point 5 percent as the inflation factor to develop our Fiscal Year 2003-04 budget and 2.0percent for Fiscal Year 2004-05. Generally, we escalate the budget for non-labor cost items by the appropriate inflation factor to derive the budget number for the next year. However, most divisions chose not to do so. 

Contingency
In order to maintain a more efficient budgeting process, an individual division does not budget for contingency within its own budget.  An organization-wide contingency fund is established within the Office of the General Manager to fund urgent and unexpected programs or projects. During development of the Fiscal Year 1997-98 Budget, the Administration and Finance Committee recommended that V T A's budget policy should include the establishment of a contingency fund (that is, the General Manager's unallocated fund) at 3.0 percent of the operating budget. Most of the fund has been used to fund new capital projects. However, due to the current financial situation, we do not believe that we will launch any non-critical new capital projects and new programs in Fiscal Year 2003-04. Consequently, we should need only $2 million for contingency purposes. We will re-institute the 3 percent policy once our financial conditions improve. 

Reimbursements
This item is used primarily for two completely different purposes. The Maintenance Division mostly uses it to record internal repair cost transfers; the Development/Congestion Management, Construction and other support Divisions and Operations departments use it to accumulate capitalized labor costs for project cost monitoring and grant billing purposes. Total reimbursements budget in Fiscal Year 2003-04 is $20.3 million, an increase of $2.9 million from the Fiscal Year 2002-03 Revised Budget.

The Maintenance reimbursement budget was based upon an estimate of the amount of labor that is going to be capitalized into rebuilt parts in Fiscal Year 2003-04.  It is estimated that the net reimbursement for maintenance labor will be $4 million. This is about 30 percent below the current year trend and is line with the projected service reduction. 

For the Development/Congestion Management, Construction and other support Divisions and Operations departments, their reimbursement budgets were developed based upon estimated capital project acti