HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 147-06TO:
C ty Manager’s Rep 1
HONOtL~BLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
AND COMMU2N’ITY ENVIRONMENT
FEBRUARY 13, 2006 CMR:147:06
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A LETTER TO SANTA
CLARA VALLEY TI~NSPORTATION AUTHORITY (VTA) RE
POSITION ON PROPOSED QUARTER CENT SALES TA~X BALLOT
MEASURE
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Endorse the position taken by Vice Mayor Kishimoto at the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting to "endorse
and recommend the Sales Tax Scenario to the VTA Board for approval with further
direction that the Board move BART back to 2018 so that other projects can move
forward in the next ten years including the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) to
Surmyvale/Cupertino and the Palo Alto Transit Center and that the Board seriously
review the Caltrain East Metro ali~tment for the BART project."
2.Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the VTA Board of Directors summarizing the
Council’s action on the above recommendation.
BACKGROUND
The City Council has considered the VTA’s long term capital expenditure plans for
comprehensive transportation improvements and the viability of various sales tax measures on
several occasions during the past two ?:ears. In each case, the Council expressed serious
concerns about the financial viabilky of the long term capital program, the lack of regional
equity and questionable cost-effectiveness.
Most recently, in March 2005, the Council reviewed the VTA 30-year Long-Term Capital
Investment Program and ½ cent sales tax measure and unanimously voted to oppose the
proposed new ½ cent County- sales tax intended to fund the proposed Valley Transportation
Authority Long-Term Capital Investment Program The Council further recormnended that the
Capital Investment Plan accelerate commencement of the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center
Measure A funding from 2030 to 2015, remove the BART Extension Project from the proposed
program until a cost effective, feasible, and financially sustainable alternative is developed and
only then consider a suitable sales tax measure to f~md the prouam.
CMR: !47:06 Page 1 of 3
DISCUSSION
During the past two years, the VTA Board has considered several options for a revenue and
expenditure plan for the implementation of the Measure A projects and other prioriD,
transportation projects in the county. Previously, both ¼ cen~ and ½ cent sales tax measures had
been considered, but no consensus had been reached to support them. In September 2005, the
VTA Board reviewed three new proposed ¼ cent sales tax scenarios and endorsed a sales tax
measure that would sunset in 30 years. The new sales tax would support Measure A projects as
well as a number of new projects and programs, including funding for pavement maintenance
and a people mover to the NO,Than Mineta Airport. The measure was expected to go before the
Santa Clara County voters in No~;ember 2006.
The plan has undergone additional revisions since September in response to concerns raised by
representatives of north county cities and other constituencies about the list of projects and
schedule for implementation. The Modified VTA Scenario (Attachment A) was presented to the
Board on December 1. 2005. This plan has been reviewed by the VTA Advisory committees and
the VTA Board is scheduled ~o take action on the proposal on March 2. The current proposal
includes a total of 25 projects, including the compte~ion of the BART extension to San Jose by
2016, people mover to the San Jose airport by 2018, initial phase of Cattrain electrification by
2018, completion of the Dumbarton Rail by 2011, and completion of ~he Palo Alto Intemaodal
Transit Center project in 2025.
The modified VTA ¼-cent sales tax scenario was discussed by the VTA Policy Advisory
Committee on January 12, 2006. (Excerpts from the minutes from this meeting are included as
Attachment # B.) There was considerable debate aa~aong the commi~ee members. Ultima~ely,
there was a majority in support of endorsing the measure.
Counci! Member Kishimoto expressed reservations about the volatility of future revenues and
the burden the BART extension project places on the counb~ for bonding costs, operating
subsidies, and capital costs if the project is advanced to 20t6 as proposed. Therefore, she
requested that the motion to endorse the VTA Scenario be amended to move the completion date
of the BART extension back two years from 2016 to 2018 and use the excess revenues to fund
additional projects in the next ten years, including the Pa!o Alto Intermodal Transit Center and
the Bus Rapid Transit project in Surm?wale/Cupertino and that the Board seriously consider the
Caltrain East metro alig-nment for the BART project. This motion was adopted by the PAC.
The Board of Directors is scheduled to take action on this matter on March 2nd.Staff
recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to info~Tn the Board of Council’s action.
A separate sales tax measure is currently being considered by the Santa Clara County Board of
Supervisors to fund count" services. Options include a ½ cent sales tax exclusively for county
se~wices or a ½ cent sales tax for combined coun)- services and the VTA expenditure plan. As of
this writing, a subcommittee of the Board has endorsed the ½ cent tax measure, but no firm
decisions have been made on the content of the measure. The Board of Supervisors will consider
the matter on February 28, the deadline for a decision if the t~x measure is to be placed on the
June 2006 ballot.
CMR: 147:06 Page 2 of 3
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation will amend Council’s previous stated policy with regard to the VTA sales
tax measures and is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy T-5: support continue
development and improvement of the University Avenue and California Avenue multi-modal
stations; Policy T-7: support for a quiet, fast rail system that encircles the Bay, and for intra-
county and transbay transit systems that link Palo Alto to the rest of Santa Clara County and
adjoining counties; and Goal T-9: an Influential Role in Shaping and Implementing Regional
Transportation Decisions.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This is not a project. No Palo Alto environmental review is needed for Council to take a policy
position on the proposed new county, vide sales tax.
ATTACHMENTS
A. VTA memorandum on Recommended VTA Sales Tax Scenario
B. Minutes of the VTA Policy Advisory Conm~ittee meeting of January 12, 2006
C. Draft Letter from Mayor Kleinberg to VTA Board Chairperson Cindy Chavez
PREPARED BY:
GA~kLLE LIKENS
Acting Chief Transportation Official
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
EMSLIE
Director of Planning and
Community Enviromnent
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY
Assistant City Manager
CMR: 147:06 Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT A~S A N T A C L A ~ A
Volley Transportation Authority
B O.M~,_D MEMOR.~NDUM
Date:
Committee Meeting Date:
Board Meeting Date:
ACTION X DISCUSSION
December 23, 2005
N/A
February 2, 2006
ENFO
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Board of Directors
Michael T. Burns
General Manager
Jack J. Collins ,~.)----7. ~___~_
Chief Construction Officer
SUBJECT:Recommended VTA Quarter Cent Sales Tax Scenario
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the VTA 2000 Measure A Transit Program with a Revenue and Expenditure Plan that
assumes a new 30-year, quarter-cent sales tax supporting the construction and operation of the
2000 Measure A Projects and some new projects and programs.
BACKGROUND:
In considering the recommended new 30-year, quarter-cent sales tax, the Board will recall its
adopted policy based upon the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Financial Stability Committee,
and the Administration and Finance Committee. The VTA Financial Stability Strategy,
presented by Ad-Hoc Committee co-chairs Don Gage and David Cortese, as approved on March
4, 2004, established (among others) the following as a Mid-Term to Long-Term Goal:
Work in partnership with community leaders to identify the most viable new or expanded
revenue source(s) for VTA. Continue public input and data gathering in parmership with
community leaders and stakeholders to help define the revenue source(s) and timing most
acceptable to the community.
The Board of Directors has entertained a series of workshop meetings over the last two years
considering options for an expenditure plan that will meet the financial needs of VTA and the
2000 Measure A program of projects. At the June 2, 2005, Board Meeting, staffreviewed four
quarter-cent sales tax scenarios. Prior to the June 16th Board Meeting, Board Member Ron
Gonzales outlined assumptions in a memorandum that resulted in direction to staff to develop
3331 Nor’~h First Slreel ¯ SQn Jose, CA 95134-1906 ¯ Administration 408.321.5555 ¯ Customer Service 408.321.2300
a Quarter-Cent Sales Tax Scenario based on those assumptions. Throughout the summer, the
Board and community stakeholders provided input, and the North County City Group and the
Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) both requested additional scenarios. The SVLG
requested a run that better reflected its polling conducted in March 2005. The polling tested
a new Pavement Management Program and increases to bus, rail and senior/disabled services.
The Board, at its workshop meeting on September 16, 2005, reviewed three proposed
Quarter-Cent Sales Tax Scenarios and concluded that VTA is ready to go forward with a
Quarter-Cent sales tax that will sunset in 30 years. The Board further agreed that this
quarter-cent sales tax should include a Pavement Management Program, a re-scheduling of the
BART project for completion no later than 2018, completion of Dumbarton Rail by 2011, and
flexibility in terms of capital balance amounts for the 2000 Measure A program.
The VTA Scenario was originally scheduled for Board adoption at the November 3rd meeting.
Based on comments from community interests and local jurisdictions, staff recognized the need
for additional evaluation to allow for more analysis and open dialogue on this program of
projects. Specifically, we evaluated potential ways to advance the airport people mover into
the Initial Program by 2018, while keeping the Pavement Management Program in place.
On December 1, 2005, VTA presented a Modified VTA Scenario to the Board of Directors that
achieved the goa! of moving the airport people mover into the Initial Program. At that time, the
City of San Jose also presented a series of recommended changes to the Modified VTA Scenario.
The Board of Directors was concerned that the VTA staff and the City of San Jose
recommendations had not been evaluated or reviewed through the committee process. As a
result, the Board deferred action until February 2006, giving itself, the VTA Advisory
Committees, and the County Board of Supervisors an opportunity to discuss and weig~h VTA’s
modified plan and the recommendations submitted by the City of San Jose.
DISCUSSION
Annual Update to Sales Tax Forecast."
As part of an annual process that started in 2002, the Center for Continuing Study of the
California Economy (CCSCE) prepared updated projections of taxable sales for VTA, which
staff has been reviewing since the December 1st Board meeting. The revised projections, which
are independently derived, indicate an increase in projected sales tax revenues. These new
projections are critical to the Board’s deliberations and appropriately, staff has prepared yet
another scenario for the Board to consider.
The immediate result of using the new sales tax data is that allMeasure A projects can be
completed in the Initial Program, subject to a proposed quarter-cent sales tax passing in 2006.
The fact that these annual updates show an upward cycle in Silicon Valley economic activity
after a sustained downward cycle underscores the importance of an annua! review of the 2000
Measure A Revenue and Expenditure Plan, thereby allowing the Board to evaluate and revise
priorities as conditions change. It also illustrates the dynamic nature of both the revenue and
cost elements of the Expenditure Plan. An annual review" process has contributed to the
Page 2 of 7
successful completion of projects in the 1996 Measure B Transportation Improvement Progam
that, at one time, were not anticipated to be funded.
To remain consistent with previous expenditure plans submitted for Board consideration, VTA
has used the midpoint of CCSCE’s conservative and moderate levels of projections. The
projections for the Recommended VTA Scenario include FY 2006 and FY 2007 adopted
budgeted amounts for sales tax revenue, followed by annual gowth rates determined from
CCSCE’s latest projections through 2015. Beyond 2015, VTA has continued to use a 4.8%
annual gowth rate, which is consistent with VTA’s historical gowth, with adjustments for
abnormally large increases and decreases. The projections of taxable sales are based on:
Job ~owth
Population ~owth
Personal income ~owth
Retail spending as a share of personal income
Non-retail spending per job .
The average annual ~owth rate for taxable sales in the current forecast has increased from an
average annual growth rate of 4.8% to 5.8% between FY 2008 and FY 2015. The reason for the
increase is due to several key factors. According to CCSCE: (a) commuting from outside the
county has fallen, which increases the number of residents contributing to taxable sales within
the counV; (b) average eamings per job continue to reflect increases; and (c) there is a slight
increase in projections for the percentage of personal income that will be spent on taxable sales.
The following tabIe illustrates the change in sales tax revenue ~owth rates using the midpoint
of CCSCE’s previous 2004 projections (through 2010~) and CCSCE’s new 2005 projections
(through 20151).
Change in Midpoint Projected Growth Rates
200._...~4 2005 Chano~e
2008 4.9%5.7%0.8%
2009 5.0%5.7%0.7%
2010 5.0%5.8%0.8%
2011 4.8%5.8%1.0%
2012 4.8%5.8%1.0%
2013 4.8%5.9%1.1%
2014 4.8%5.9%1.1%
2015 4.8%6.0%1.2%
2016-2036~ 4.8%4.8%0%
The updated forecast of sales tax revenues increases 2000 Measure A sales tax projections by
$700 million over the life of the prog-ram. However, the updated projections also affect VTA’s
~ Beyond the end date of CCSCE’s projections (2010 in 2004 and 2015 in 2005), VTA utilized 4.8% as the
annum growth rate, based on historical gro~vth, and adjusted for abnormally large increases and decreases.
Page 3 of 7
existing half-cent sales tax, VTA’s Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds and the
projections related to the proposed new quarter-cent sales tax. Taking into consideration these
four sources of funds, there is an increase of over $ 2 billion, which has resulted in a significant
change to the proposed expenditure plan. While these new projections are auspicious, it is
important to note that the expenditure plan would have been revised downward if the new
projections were below the previously assumed 2004 levels.
SummaTy of the Projects and Timelines in the Recommended VTA Scenario."
In using the new sales tax forecast from the CCSCE, many of the suggestions presented by the
City of San Jose for the VTA Expenditure Plan on December l, 2005, can be accommodated.
The following is a brief staff response to the seven recommendations presented by the City of
San Jose.
AcceIerate the construction schedule of BA_RT before 2018 but no sooner than 2015 by
making it the first funding priority if and when: a) Me,asure A and/or revenues from any
2006 tax measure exceed projections; b) new revenue’sources are identified; or c) there are
Measure A project cost savings.
in the Recommended VTA Scenario, the BART to Silicon Valley project is assumed to be
completed in December 2016, which is the current optimum schedule for final design and
construction.
2. Move the people mover into the initial pro~am regardless of when it may be constructed.
o
In the Recommended VTA Scenario, the people mover is in the h~itial Prog-ram and is
assumed to be completed by 2018 without City of San Jose assistance in financing. There is
a signifcant amount of work that still needs to be done prior to afinal decision on the people
mover technology and routing. This, too, will be considered during the annual reviews of the
Expenditure Plan.
After the public review processes have been completed, amend the expenditure plan to
include the fully funded preferred transit mode for the Alum Rock-Santa Clara corridor in the
initial program with a concurrent commitment to construct the project consistent with the
construction schedule for BART.
If Single Car Light Rail is selected as the preferred ~node and assuming a completion date
of 2021, this project can now be accommodated in the Initial Prog-ram using the new revenue
assumptions.
Commit to complete the construction of the Capitol Light Rail to Eastridge project by 2012.
Capitol Expressway Light Rail project to Eastridge can now be completed by December 2012
and Light Rail from Eastridge to Nieman by 2017.
Page 4 of 7
Retain funding for the Caltrain electrification project and re-allocate funding to other
Measure A projects throughout the region that are ready for construction --except BART - if
San Francisco and San Mateo counties have not secured their shares by 20!6.
Staff views this as a Board policy issue. However, with annual updates to the Revenue and
Expenditure Plan, it appears unnecessary for the Board to adopt a 2016 deadline at this
time. The Recommended VZ4 Scenario completes the initial phase of Caltrain
fmproveme~zts/Electrification by 2018 and restores the 10% budget reduction contemplated
in the previous scenario. The previously deferred Caltrain Electrification from Tamien to
Gilro.v is also included in ~he ~nitial Program by 2018.
6.Support the VTA proposal for an annual review of the Expenditure Plan to ailow flexibility
to strategically respond to chanNng circumstances, needs and priorities.
This is consistent with staff’s recommendation.
Develop a "reward policy" for local agencies tha~ use local and!or private development funds
to implement regional transportation projects and thereby ganting priority for such agencies
for other re~onal funding allocations.
Staff is supportive of this idea in concept. It is recommended that VTA staff work with the
Technical Advisory Committee to develop a policy for further consideration by the Board.
A summary of the capital and operating pro~am elements of the Recommended VTA Scenario
follows:
A new 30-year, quarter-cent sales tax
Maintains VTA’s operating reserves at 15% for 30 years
All projects are included in the Initial Program and the ending balance is $ 537 million
No deferred projects in the Completion Program
Provides operating assistance at 18.457% on annual 2000 Measure A sales tax revenue to
fund existing VTA bus, rail and paratransit service
Estimates total net bond proceeds required for the program at $ 6.1 billion
Completes BART by December 2016
Phases in BART revenue service and the purchase of BART vehicles in order to improve
cash flow and funding requirements. This phased service would start with 15-minute peak
headways from 2016 to 2025 at a 16% savings to the net operating subsidy. This
operating plan is preliminary and will require the review of BART and may require
adjustments for new ridership forecasts
Provides for an initial car order of 119 BART vehicles, with a second procurement of 47
vehicles by 2030 when 6-minute peak headways would begin
Includes $ 913 million ($ YOE or $ 450 million in $ 2005) in additional cost for BART
vehicIes, parking impacts and escalation associated with the new ridership forecast for
year 2030
Provides $ 2.7 billion in BA_RT to Silicon Valley operating subsidy through 2037
Completes Capitol Expressway Light Rail to Eastridge by December 2012
Page 5 of 7
Completes Capitol Expressway Light Rail to Nieman by 2021
Accommodates Single Car Light Rail on Santa Clara/Alum Rock by 2021, if that mode
is eventually selected as the preferred alternative
Completes the initial phase of Caltrain Improvements/Electrification by 2018 and restores
the 10% budget reduction contemplated in the previous scenario
Completes Caltrain Improvements/Electrification from Tamien to Gilroy by 2018
Provides for Caltrain Service Improvements in Santa Clara County
Provides for South County Improvements, and 8.4 miles of doubte tracking by 2010
Completes Dumbarton Rail by 2011
Provides for ACE Upgrades between 2014 and 2025
Extends ii~t rail to Vasona Junction by June 2012
Initiates Bus Rapid Transit Projects on Line 22, Monterey Road and Stevens Creek
Boulevard by 201 !
Initiates a Bus Rapid Transit Project in Sunnyvale/Cupertino by 2021
Completes the Mineta San Jose Airport People Mover as a direct connection from the
Santa Clara BA_RT station to a central point in the Airport Terminal by 2018. City of San
Jose financing is not required. However, the City will need to accommodate the future
people mover connection in its current airport expansion plans
Zero Emission Bus Program includes 80% federal funding and 20% VTA other funding
Adds $ 717 million for a program of local streets, county expressways, and bicycle and
pedestrian path improvement projects over 30 years
Provides for Senior/Disabled Programs from 2008 to 2036 at an estimated cost of $ 98
million
Provides for a gradual VTA service increase of 12.4 % by 2015, then gradual increases to
24% by 2020 for an estimated cost of $ 731 million over 30 years
Estimates an annual operating deficit of $ 75 million in 2038, with Measure A expiring
in 2036 and a potential 30-year, quarter-cent sales tax expiring in 2037. This scenario will
require a renewal of a tax during the 2036 -2038 timeframe.
The previous VTA scenario for the Measure A Capital Program is shown in Table 1 and is
compared to the recommended scenario. A more detailed analysis of revenues and expenditures
for the recommended 2000 Measure A Capital Investment Program is included in Attachment 1.
A comparison of VTA’s Operating Budget in FY 2038 is shown in Table 2.
Table 1.
Comparison of VTA Scenarios for 2000 Measure A Capital Program
R~venues
Expenditures
.... Initial ~rogram Ending Balan,ce, iCompletign’ Program Estimates
Previous Scenario
(Year of Expenditure $
in millions)
$ 2016~S
20,564
$ 94
$ . 1,279
Recommendation
(Year of Expenditure $
in millions)
$22,051
21,5!3
$ 538
N/A
Page 6 of 7
Table 2.
Comparison of VTA Scenarios on VTA’s FY 2038 Operating Budget
Fiscal Year 2038
....... (S inMillions)
Operating Revenues
Operat!ng Expenses .........................
Surplus (Deficit)
Beginning Reserve
Ending Reserve
Previous Scenario Recommendation
$1,206 $1,285
1,355 1,360
($ 149)75)($
S 352
$ 241
263
79
AL TE R~NATIVE S:
The Board can modify the Recommended VTA Scenario or choose to take no action on this
recommendation.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Recommended VTA Scenario maintains Operating Reserves at the Board adopted policy of
15%. This scenario has a positive ending balance of $ 538 million subject to a new quarter-cent
sales tax being passed in November 2006. If a new" sales tax is not placed on the November 2006
ballot, or if it were to fai! to pass by a supermajority of voters in Santa Clara County, it will be
necessary to prepare a revised 2000 Measure A Revenue and Expenditure Plan that would have
substantially less funding available for projects.
ATTACI-LMENT 1: Recommended VTA Scenario-December 2005 in Year of Expenditure $
ATTACHMENT 2: Recommended VTA Scenario-December 2005 in 2003 $
ATTACHMENT 3: Revenue Sources
ATTACHMENT 4: Recommended VTA Scenario-Detailed 30-Year Capital & Operating Spreadsheets
Page 7 of 7
~E
O~ U O~0
Attachment # 3 - Revenue Sources
Revenue Sources For Measure A Program
I~State ....
Federal New
Starts
Net Bond
Proceeds
[] Potential New
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
[] Other VTA
Revenue
Sources
2000 Measure
A 1/2-cent
Sales Tax
Other Project[]Partners
"-[] Other
Revenue Sources for Measure A Pro.qrarn
2000 Measure A 1/2-cent Sales Tax
Federal New Stads
State
Net Bond Proceeds
Potential New 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Allocated to Projects
Other VTA Revenue Sources
Other Project Partners
Other
0,582,278
750,000
795,852
6,117,048
1,713,720
311,089
1,746,422
34,438
Total Revenues $22,050,847
Proiected Allocation of Potential New 1/4 Cent Sales Tax
BART Subsidy $
Interest Expense/Cost of Issue - VTA Bonds For Measure A $
Operating Portion - 1/4 Cent Sales Tax
Potential New Proiects
Pavement Mangement, County Expressways, Bike/Ped Paths $
Increase Service From 12% to 24%$
Senior/Disabled Programs $
BRT: Sunnyvale/Cupertino $
Funding For Measure A Projects $
Measure A Portion - 1/4 Cent Sales "Fax
2,665,145
1,171,903
717,579
731,317
97,652
130,100
37,073
$ 3,837,048
$ 1,713,720
$ 5,550,769
o Recommended VTA Scenario
ATTACHMENT B
Excerpt from VTA Policy
Advisory Committee meeting
of January 12, 2006
Chairperson Glickman Gave a brief update on the VTA Scenario, and noted there is a
great deal of active discussion about the source of revenue for those expenditures. He
reminded PAC the task at hand is to assume the revenue is available ~hen considering
this scenario.
Mr. Lawson reported in 2000 Measure A was endorsed by the voters of Santa Clara
County. It was an all transit measure with a ½ cent sales tax, building upon the success
of prior measures. This measure was specifically presumed to address transportation
issues and did not include highway expenditures. This measure achieved over 66.66
percent voter approval. Looking back on 2000 Measure A the major projects listed on the
ballot initiative are: 1) BART, 2) Airport Comaector, 3) Vehicles for disabled and seniors,
4) Light Rail throughout the County, 5) Expansion and electrification of Caltrain, and
6) Increase Caltrain service. Noting the VTA Scenario document, Mr. Lawson reminded
PAC of the severe economic downturn and the negative impact on VTA, noting sales tax
revenue totals had dropped from $183.5. million in 2001 to $145 million in 2005
reflecting a loss of 21% in sales tax revenues.
An Ad-Hoc Financial Stability was formed in partnership with community leaders to
identi~, the most viable new or expanded revenue sources for VTA, and to meet the
commitments of 2000 Measure A. The Committee ageed to work in partnership with the
community leaders and stakeholders to help define the revenue sources and timing most
acceptable to the community. The Expenditure Plan, now known as the VTA Scenario,
was developed in VTA Board of Directors Workshops over the last two years. At the
June 2, 2005 Board Meeting the Board of Directors reviewed four scenarios for
consideration to raise the needed revenue to complete Measure A Projects. Additional
scenarios were requested by the North Counties City Group, City of San Jose, and the
Silicon Valley Leadership Group.
VTA employed the independent firm of Center for the Continuing Study of the California
Economy (CCSCE) to provide a neutral unbiased opinion of the sales tax ~owth over the
next ten years, utilizing the midpoint between conservative and moderate in their
estimates. The sole adjustments occur in 2008 through 2015, a window of eight years out
of the 30-year run. The cm-rent years are projected at the budgeted amounts because of
the slight increases was done to these projections impacts three different sources of
revenue. Those sources of revenue are: 1) The existing VTA ½ cent sales tax, 2) The !A
cent Transportation Demand Act monies, and 3) The 2000 Measure A ½ cent sales tax
that will begin distribution April 1, 2006 as well as the potential ~A sales tax that is
proposed. The net result at the conclusion of the 30 years is a $2 billion increase.
Jack Collins, Chief Construction Officer, presented an overview of the VTA Scenario.
Mr. Collins noted the Scenario presented to the Pac December 8, 2005 represented a
financially restrained plan with projects divided into Initial and Completion Procures. He
noted $1.3 million of projects relnained in the Completion Pro~am without revenue
sources to fund. With the new projections all projects in the Initial Pro~am and the
Completion Pro~am will be constructed and completed. There is no longer a need for a
PAC Minutes Page 5 of 17 January 12, 2006
Completion Program. The ending balance of the last proposal for the Initial Progam
previously rest at $94 million. The ending balance is now a positive $537 million for the
duration of the 30-years for all the projects. VTA continues to maintain reserves at the
Board adopted policy of 15 percent.
Mr. Collins. reported that BART had been advanced from 2018 to 2016 in the previous
scenario. Ti’~e Light Rail to Eastridge has been advanced by 6 years to 2012. Light Rail
to Neiman has been advanced to 2017,and to Los Gatos by 2012 whereas previously that
was projected to 2035. The Scenario accommodates single car Light Rail on
Santa Clara/Alum Rock by 2021which previously was in the Completion Pro~am. The
VTA Scenario with these new projections accomplishes: 1) Restores prior 10 percent
funding cut for Caltrain, 2) Completes Caltrain Electrification by 2018, 3) Provides for
Caltrain ser¥ice improvements, 4) Provides for 8.4 miles of Caltrain double tracking in
the South County by 2010, 5) Completes Dumbarton Rail by 2011, 6) Provides for
ACE upgrades between 20!4 and 2025, 7) Completes the People Mover by 2018,
8) Initiates Bus Rapid Transit projects on Monterey Road, Stevens Creek, and Line 22 by
2011.
Mr. Collins gave a brief overview of new projects included in the Scenario. The new
projects are: 1) Provide $718 million for local streets and roads, county roads and bicycle
and pedestrian path improvement progam, 2) Provide $130 million for Bus Rapid
Transit projects in Cupertino/Smm?~,’ale, 3) VTA service increase by 24 percent by 2020,
4) Provide new Senior and Disabled pro~ams, and 5) Provide $2.7 billion in BART
operating subsidy to 2038. Mr.Collins noted the Expenditure Plan was reviewed by the
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, VTA Advisory Committees, VTA Board of
Directors, and VTA Board of Directors Workshops. Mr. Collins added that several cities
in Santa Clara County requested VTA to provide a presentation on the Expenditure Plan.
Steven Levy representing CCSCE provided economic projections for VTA encompassing
the next ten years. Mr. Levy indicated CCSCE has provided forecasting projections to
VTA for the last four years. Mr. Levy reported that VTA has consistently selected a
midpoint betaYeen the moderate and conservative forecast. The analysis represents a
forecast projection of taxable sales. Factors considered in the projection are:
1) Job ~’owth, 2) Population ~owth, 3) Wage and income ~owth, 4) retail spending as a
share of personal income, and 5) Non-retail spending per job.
Mr. Levy noted the major changes from last year projections are slightly lower job
~m’owth, conservative wage ~owth assumptions, larger share of workers will live in Santa
Clara County, the share of income spent on taxable items will rise slightly, and
business-to-business spending per job will be slightly higher. Mr. Levy noted Santa
Clara County in comparison to other regions in California spends approximately
five percent less in retail sales as share of income.
Member Ke~medy inquired if the drop in retail sales could be attributed to a rise with
internet sales. Mr. Levy responded that internet sales would be a small factor but
automobile sales, building materials and household furniture are areas that indicate a
difference of spending between Santa Clara County and the remainder of California.
PAC Minutes Page 6 of 17 January 12, 2006
Chairperson Glickman introduced and welcomed the newly appointed PAC Members
representing the City of Los Altos Mayor David Casas and council Member I~’is Wang
representing the City of Cupertino.
Member Casas queried as to the data source information used to justify
the: 1) Conservative wage ~-owth assmnption being raised, 2) Larger share of workers to
live in the county, 3) Share of income spent on taxable items will rise slightly, and
4) Justification for business-to-business spending per jobs. Member Casas stated he is
seeking data for collaboration. Mr. Levy reminded his function is to interpret past data
and provide analysis for the future. Member Casas asked to obtain the data that was the
source of the historical data used by CCSCE to formulate the forecast assumptions.
Roger Contreras, Chief Financial Officer, said the support data and infom~ation was
provided to the Board and is available to PAC. Member Casas queried as to definition of
wage. Mr. Levy infon~ned PAC the reference source for wage compilation data is
average wage data published by United States Bureau of Labor and Statistics.
Member Kishimoto queried as to inflation-assumptions. Mr. Levy advised the average
inflation over the fourteen years used as a base in the data was indicated in the
2 to 2.5 percent range.
Member Spitileri asked if an assumption could be made that due to higher housing in
Santa Clara County less of the income share is spent in retail sales.
Member Kline noted the Board reflected their a~eement to a more conservative midpoint
~owth rate for taxable sales at 4.7 percent. Mr. Levy reflected that annual review
process that allows for the normal mid-term corrections is crucia! in forecasting
assmnptions.
Mr. Lawson noted that Mr. Levy’s contractual purpose is to provide figures that can be
interpolated to assist in formulating a reasonable approach. The message relates that this
is the precise methodology used in the past. Member Kline noted that Mr. Levy was not
hired to justify the new numbers.
Mr. Contreras clarified when the Scenario was presented to the Board of Supervisors a
misconception derived from Mr. Levy’s number of 5.8 percent for the years
2008 - 2015. Mr. Contreras noted for the next 30 years the average ~owth projected
number reflected should be 5 percent.
Member Kem~edy queried if VTA has historically chosen the midpoint projection.
Mr. Lawson indicated in the affirmative. Member Kelmedy suggested a more
conservative position is prudent. Mr. Contreras noted the midpoint projection was not
utilized until 2002. Member Kennedy queried as to what projections were used prior to
2002. Mr. Contreras indicated in - house projections were utilized.
PAC Minutes Page 7 of 17 January 12, 2006
Margaret Okuzumi, expressed concern in the Scenario that $1 billion that was indicated
in 2000 Measure A to build additional Light Rail lines has disappeared. Ms. Okuzumi
suggested a scenario with no new tax be formulated. Ms. Okuzumi noted that 2000
Measure A was not specific concerning projects and not rigid in the infrastructure.
Ms. Okuzumi noted many projects were unfinished.
Mr. Lawson noted that as Ms. Okuzumi provides informative data, an alternative to
BART is not possible with 2000 Measure A funds. Mr. Lawson assured Ms. Okuzmni
her recommendation will be folaYarded to the Board for consideration. The Board will
receive recommendations fiom PAC on the Expenditure Plan, following that they will
decide on a sales tax measure and that measure may occur this year or next or may never
occur. At that point we will again re-visit the Expenditure Plan.
Member Kishimoto recommended moving BART back to 2018 utilizing the excess
revenues to advance addition county projects such as Smm?~-ale/Cupertino BRT, and the
Palo Alto Transit Center, noting earlier completion of these projects is cost effective.
Member Kishimoto noted commitment to BART incurs elevated capita! costs, high fixed
bonding costs, and operating subsidies. Member Kishimoto expressed concern regarding
the volatility of the revenues particularly if VTA builds BART. Noting the VTP 2030
Plan Member Kishimoto referenced the outcome of the Measure A Expenditures as
related in the VTA model. Member Kishimoto noted by 2030 an increase of HOV trips
by 130,000, single occupancy vehicles by 500,000, and transit increase by 100,000.
Member Kishimoto expressed concern the current Expenditure Plan is not satisfactory to
meet those transit needs, and noted the base projections in the VTA analysis of expected
transit demand in all regions of Santa Clara County and gateways. Member Kishimoto
emphasized prudence must be utilized with the $20 billion expenditure plan assuring
sig-nificant funds are available for completion of all projects.
Member Kishimoto suggested staff and the VTA Board of Directors reconsider criteria in
project selection, overall system desiN~, fit with system demand, leveraging the
investment with benefit assessment district, tax increments, joint development, so that
San Jose can help pay for some of the big project costs; and to re-assess advantages of
standard gauge rail for the East Bay co~mection.
Member Brodsky stated the Quarter Cent Sales Tax Scenario is an "albatross around
everyone’s neck," for the next 20 years incurring additional tax now and a risky funding
plan, looking for additional tax in the future when we begin digging the tmmel under
San Jose. Mr. Brodsky explained the Scenario is bad transit for the valley, like an old
idea inappropriate to our job layout, liking it to Rip Van Wimkle taking BART 30 years
ago and waking up in San Jose now saying, "Let’s build a city here like in Oakland,
building a subway here being totally oblivious to what happened in the Golden Triangle
to all the commute patterns and what VTP 2030 says is where 80 percent of where the
other commuters are going.
PAC Minutes Page 8 of 17 January 12, 2006
Mr. Brodsky noted that his commute everyday in Silicon Valley is tedious and fln.~strating
and the backup on Highway 880/237 South is backed up to 280. Highway 85 is also
backed up, as is 10 North. Member Brodsky stated traffic is currently very congested,
and if the Expenditure Plan is approved and $20 billion we will have mm~itigated traffic
congestion for the key work areas. Mr. Brodsky expressed concern this plan is based on
ridership into new buildings that do not exist, and, what will happen when those
70 million square feet of office with Research and Development are filled? Member
Brodsky suggests the reason the tax measure dropped, because no one is occupying those
buildings at the present time but when those buildings do become filled those comrnuters
will be in areas not covered by BART? There will be far more transfers to the key ~oups
in the County who make the money and pay taxes. Member Brodsky noted it is better to
go back to the drav,;ing board rather than si~9: the entire valley with something that is not
good.
Member Caserta noted the passage of 2000 Measure A reflects the will of the voters and
infol-med PAC the City of Santa Clara City Council unanimously to support the Quarter
Cent Sales Tax Scenario. Member Caserta.reported the City of Santa Clara has a vested
interest and has purchased real estate to re-locate the Animal Control Center due to the
location of the BART testing track. Member Caserta recommends supporting the
Scenario noting the .~0-3 ear sunset and the Pavement Management Pro~am.
Member Oomez reported the Milpitas City Council xvill take action on the Scenario next
week, and anticipated that the Council will vote to support the VTA Scenario. Member
Gomez advised that city residents strongly support the BART project and oppose any;
heavy rail project that would be proposed though the City. Member Gomez informed
PAC that BART is the preferred transit mode in his region and the Scenario meets the
needs of that region.
Member Hernandez expressed support for the proposed Expenditure Plan because it
adequately accommodated the transportation needs in the region.
Member Kline expressed his appreciation to PAC members for their hard work over the
past two years in helping to develop the proposed Expenditure Plan, noting PAC
Members have labored extensively in meetings and workshops to provide suggestions
and recommendations to the Board. Suggestions and recommendations originated in
PAC have been reflected by the Board and incorporated into the Scenario. Member
Kline reported 2000 Measure A reflected a half cent sales tax to connect BART to
Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara, to build rail com~ection from San Jose Airport to
BART, Caltrain, and light rail, purchase vehicles for disabled access, senior safety, clean
air buses, provide light rail ttv’oughout Santa Clara County. Expand and electri~,
Caltrain, and increase rail, bus service. He noted the focus of 2000 Measure A was
BART. Light Rail from downtown San Jose was fifth and sixth was Caltrain. Very little
of 2000 Measure A focused on Caltrain. Mr. Kline noted he used Caltrain service for two
years and it provides incredible value for the 280/101 Comdor, whereas BART pertains
to the 880/680/280 Corridor. This issue involves bringing mass transit to sections of the
community where it was not available before. Caltrain can’ies 34,000 riders a day,
PAC Minutes Page 9 of 17 January 12, 2006
BART ridership numbers 345,000 a day. Using the best-case scenario it may be possible
to double Caltrain ridership, whereas the BART Extension will increase BART ridership
to over 800,000 riders. The Bart Extension represents a significant amount of mass
transit dollars bringing riders to the system. The transit business focuses on riders and
how many dollars are needed to bring a rider onboard. BART, by far is the most cost-
effective method of doing that.
Mr. Kline advised the Scenario reflects the work of PAC and the will of the voters, and
stated 2000 Measure A is law and cam~ot be thrown out and re-thought from scratch
again. Member Kline noted if policy makers wish to change the law, funds must be
raised and a new measure must be introduced to the voters. He expressed concern and
cautioned over turning the will of the people. Mr. Kline re-affirmed his support to VTA
Scenario aligning support with the will of the voters and transit needs of Santa Clara
County.
Alternate Member Spitileri conm~ented that the City of SulmD~-ale anticipates BRT along
Mathilda Avenue as the preferred mass .transit mode. He requested the project be
retained in the plan. He is in the process of obtaining direction fiom the Mayor of the
City of Smmyvale on the direction to vote on the proposed VTA Scenario.
Alternate Member Kennedy indicated the City of Morgan Hill City Council has not taken
a forn~a! position on the proposed Expenditure Plan; they have discussed the alternatives "
at length and met with VTA General Manager Michael Burns and his staff. Member
Kennedy noted the importance for PAC to reach a unified, and meaningful decision to
present to the Board.
The Cities of Morgan Hill, Gilroy and Milpitas have sent a letter to the Board
concentrating on expanded Caltrain service, additional major arterial funding in South
County, and restoring services and community busing. Member Kem~edy noted his
support of a qualified motion of the proposal, qualifying it conditionally with South
County projects addressed in the motion. Member Kennedy encouraged PAC Members
with reser~’ations and concerns to consider a qualified motion.
Member Pinheiro noted the City of Gilroy meets January 28, 2006 to discuss the VTA
Scenario. Member Pinheiro noted that he gave consideration to matters
Member Kline noted at the December 8, 2006 PAC. Noting those comments concerning
each of us wants our "bacon," adding the City of Gilroy strives to play a part in the
regional approach, but South County’s transit needs are dissimilar than the transit needs
of North County. Member Pinheiro advised PAC that South County needs should be
recognized and given consideration. Member Pinheiro stated he cannot support the VTA
Scenario, unless he receives that direction from the Gilroy City Council.
Member Pinheiro noted additional time is needed to consider the issues at hand and
supports conservative rather than moderate financial projections.
Member Wang commented that the City of Cupertino meets January 30, 2006 to discuss
the VTA Scenario. Member Wang recommends the City of Cupertino take a
conservative approach to mass transit and noted BART will not benefit Cupertino transit
PAC Minutes Page 10 of 17 January 12, 2006
needs. Member \Vang stated she aggress with Member Kishimoto’s comments and urged
the Scenario be sent back to the Board for consideration to allow more time to conduct a
better benefit assessment of the proposed proj ects.
Member Casas stated that he could not support the VTA Scenario. Member Casas
suggested the Scenario must include additional long-range planning to ensure the
well- being of the services provided. The plan sends the wrong message to the broader
community, which is "don’t live within ?.’our means" or "spend like you hope to have
money, that is the path to bankruptcy." He added the proposed plan is based on a revenue
stream that is faulty in its assumptions and believes it is convenient in its revision.
Member Casas referenced the 2000 Measure A and drew the Committee’s attention to
that ali~m~ent and noted the Initial Pro~am expenditures are exactly aligned with 2000
Measure A. Member Casas advised he could not support something that is predicated on
faulty thi~ing and added the plan continues the logic in the wrong direction.
Member Casas reported that City of..Los Altos votes on the VTA Scenario
January 24, 2006. Member Casas noted the City of Los Altos is a conservative
community from a fiscal, prudence standpoint. Many valley leaders reside in Los Altos
and those residents expect VTA to provide a govermnent service that is not only well
thought out but measured with logic and reason.
Chairperson Glicl, nnan recommended supporting the Scenario, advising to approach the
Scenario from a regional not city standpoint. Member Glic "krnan noted in this case there
is a convergence. The question is not" Does this particular transit system serve
Los Gatos directly." The question continues to expand to, "does it create the jobs that
employ the people who live in my town." The question remains can Silicon Valley
become more successful with or without the transportation options as outlined in the
Scenario. Chairperson Glickman responded in the affirmative, and noted additional PAC
Members spoke eloquently expressing the opinion the Scenario does not fulfill their
regional transit needs. Chairperson Glic~kman noted to that extent he is cognizant,
understanding, and appreciative of those concerns, and if those convnunities were not
directly served by BART would they not benefit by BART. Chairperson Glickman
advised the revenue projections are presented as assumptions and represent forecasts of
revenue. He concluded his remarks stating the Scenario provides for the regional transit
needs of Santa Clara County.
Noel Tebo, a concerned citizen, representing The Modem Transit Society strongly
supports BART and light rail to the South Bay. Mr. Tebo expressed concern regarding
BART’s proposed route to San Jose. Mr. Tebo suggests alternate modes of transit and
reali~m~ent of routes be considered.
Member Brodsky noted the financing of this plan is tenuous, and described the sales tax
as dangerous. Member Brodsky noted the 300 thousand daily BART riders mentioned by
Member Kline reflect 150 thousand riders tltrough the trans-bay tube. Member Brodsky
advised PAC the financing of the Scenario is based on the San Jose portion being three
PAC Minutes Page 11 of 17 January," 12. 2006
quarters the carrying capacity of the trans bay tube line, and noting that particular line has
no fi’eeways nearby except the San Francisco Bay Bridge with a bridge toll of $3.00.
Member Brodsky expressed concern VTA is attempting to transport three quarters the
amount of people through that Fremont Conidor with twelve available freeways lanes,
boulevard lanes and no toll roads. Mr. Brodsky said it seems absurd to project the amount
of dollars received in farebox recovery using that type of projection.
Member Brodsky noted the Scenario does not keep faith with the will of the voters.
There has been a geat of discussion about 2000 Measure A, but referencing the 1982
Measure A passed by 82.9 percent of the voters, noting a balance mix of projects stated in
Jane Ke~medy’s ballot argument. Member Brodsky noted the recovery of high fixed
capital and bonding costs is dependent upon a volatile sales tax base, and noted operating
subsidies will rise as tax base drops endangering basic VTA services, and a 1 percent
difference in sales tax projection results in swings of billions of dollars.
Member Brodsky noted he read that BART had to spend millions of dollars for a rail
grinder custom made in Germany due tothe specialized rail width. Member Brodsky
indicated in Hong Kong the train at the airport is the same gauge as the subway train and
regional rail.
Member Brodsky opposes the project selection criteria stating a 5 percent weighting for
funding and thus biased project selection. Mr. Brodsky noted, "Don’t won’y about
money, BART will be fine, and added we have also gone into such a political mode you
can’t talk about phasing with BART; you can’t talk about alternatives with BART."
Member Brodsky suggested the Scenario focuses 80 percent of funding into a single line
that will only one of the four commute patterns.
Member Brodsky reported the Antioch eBART co~mection to standard gauge rail
co~mection was chosen for Contra County BART, CalTrain Metro East option utilizes
standard parts, costs less with ~eater utility, better commute patterns, and the standard
gauge solution for East!South Bay funds more projects in
Valley Transportation Plan 2030 (VTP 2030) and increases ridership.
Member Kishimoto noted she does not agree with all the whereas’ in the motion per se,
a~d appreciated the comments of Mr. Tebo. Member Kishimoto added she is more
inclined to believe a compromise from this group might suggest a review and
re-examination of BART along the Caltrain East Metro aligmnent by the Board of
Directors. Member Kishimoto expressed her inclination support BART if it came along a
more direct line to San Jose, and with the intent to re-open the discussion without
rejecting any project but to improve the overall performance of the system.
Member Kem~edy added that after weighing the pros and cons of heavy rail, as an
alternative to Bart his conclusion is that BART is the best solution.
PAC Minutes Page 12 of 1"7 Januar~ 12, 2006
M/S/F (Brodsky/Casas) on a vote of 5 Ayes to 6 Noes, to 1 Abstention
Aye: Kishimoto Brodsky Wang, Pinheiro, and Casas
Opposed: Caserta, Gomez, Hemandez, Kem~edy, Kline, and Glicl~nan
Abstention: Spitileri
Whereas financing of this scenario is tenuous because:
Recovery of high fixed capital and bonding costs is dependent upon an il~herently
volatile sales tax base.
Operating subsidies will go up just as tax base drops, endangering a basic VTA
ser~dces.
A one percent difference in sales tax projections results in swings of billions of
dollars.
The forecast farebox recovery is dependent upon new Santa Clara se~nents carrying
75% of Oakland to San Francisco Transbay volume once completed.
Whereas the scenario does not keep faith with the ~’will of the voters" because:
82 % of voters approved Measure A in 2000 for valley wide transit improvement.
Jane Kem~edy’s ballot argument is for" balanced mix of projects".
This scenario focuses 80% of funding onto a single line that will service only one of
the four commute patterns, and much of the funds are for a San Jose Subway Tmmel.
Whereas transit advocates and BART expansion itself suggest a better rail plan:
Antioch eBART connection to standard gage rail extension was chosen for Contra
Costa County BART.
Caltrain Metro East-uses standard par~s, costs less, with ~eater utility, and no new tax
and better services commute patterns.
Standard gauge solution for East/South Bay funds more projects in VTP2030 and
brings in more riders for VTA using continuously evolving transit teclmology.
Whereas analysis of VTA Scenarios has been flawed because:
Project selection criteria used 5% weighting for funding and thus biased project
selection.
Be it resolved that the PAC rejects the current scenario and recommends the Board
reopen the Measure A project selection process using a new and financial realistic criteria
appropriate for a volatile sales tax revenue base,
Member Kline noted the voters in 2000 overwhehningly supported
Measure A specifically identi~dng the extension of BART to Milpitas, San Jose and
Santa Clara, as the major transit project. Member Kline expressed that the primary
PAC Minutes Page 13 of!7 January 12, 2006
responsibility of elected officials is to endeavor to the best of their ability to fulfill the
voters expressed desires. Member Kline advised that the reduction in projected sales tax
revenues has resulted in VTA staff and policy makers struggling for over two years to
assure that projects and programs keep faith with the intent of the voters. Member Kline
reminded PAC the VTA Scenario assumes a 30-year quarter cent sales tax, and without
that tax or.equivalent revenue the plan would need to be reviewed and modified. He
noted the VTA Scenario is consistent with the Measure A ballot language and arguments
that the voters overwhelmingly supported in 2000. Member Kline advised PAC all polls
to date show continued support for projects in Measure A therefore the PAC recommends
the VTA Scenario for Board approval.
Member Kline proposed the following motion that was seconded by Caserta.
Member Kline advised he would modify the rnotion to obtain a majority vote.
Whereas the voters in 2000 overwhelmingly supported Measure A that
specifically funded the extension of Bart to Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara,
and included additional transportation project which are also important and should
be completed, and
Whereas, elected officials primary responsibility is to try, to the best of their
ability, to fulfill the voters expressed desires, and
Whereas, reduction in sales tax projected revenues has meant staff and policy
makers have spent over tow years struggling to make sure that the pro~am keeps
faith with the intent of the voters, and
Whereas, we understand that the prod’am will need to continue to be adjusted
based on changes in costs a~d revenues
Whereas, we understand that the plan we are viewing today assumes a 30 year
additional quarter cent sales tax and without that tax, or equivalent revenues,
Whereas, the plan under discussion in general and most details is consistent with
the Measure A ballot language and argmnents that the voters ove~avhelming
supported in 2000, and
Whereas, all polls to date shows continued support for projects in Measure A.
Therefore, the VTA PAC endorses and recon~nnends this plan to the VTA Board
for approval.
Member Ke~cnedy requested an amendment to the motion under the fourth whereas
adding: ~*in some cases programmatic changes address issues that are raised by different
city groupings."
PAC Minutes Page 14 of 17 Januar? 12, 2006
Member Kline and Caserta agreed to Member Kennedy’s requested amendment to the
motion.
Member Kishimoto requested an amendment to add to the motion that the Board be given
direction to: " move BART back to 2018 to move other projects fo~avard in the next ten
?;ears including the BRT to Sunny~..aleiCupertino and the Palo Alto Transit Center; and
recommend that the Board seriously review the Caltrain East metro alignment for the
BART Project.
Members Kline and Caserta agreed to Members Kisihimoto’s proposed amendment.
Member Casas noted he does not assume the quarter cent sales tax will prevail. The
previous opposition to 2000 Measure A was light in nature, whereas organized activity
currently in pro~ess is robust with various city council’s taking positions in opposition a
to the sales tax. Member Casas indicated that his decision must consist of prudent,
financial decision making and this isn’t it.
Mr. Lawson stated that, the voters passed 2000 Measure A, and at the present VTA does
not possess an approved Expenditure Plan. The goal is to obtain an approved plan at the
Februa-y 2006 Board of Directors Meeting. One of the assumptions of the plan assumes
certain revenue sources and that is what PAC is asked to convnent on.
Member Kline noted the importance of providing to the Board input on the VTA
Scenario as was requested. Member Kline implored PAC to come together to obtain a
majority of votes of a~-eement to present to the Board and willingly agreed to
compromise and amend the motion.
Member Casas suggested if a majority vote is not received then each member will have
the opportunity to individually present their opinions to the Board. Member Casas
advised that the premise is not to ~ cobble together something for the Board."
Chairperson Glicl~nan reminded the Committee that the Board is seeking a consensus
opinion from PAC regarding the VTA Scenario.
Mr. Lawson noted that comments from PAC would be forwarded to the Board of
Directors. Member Brodsky closed with a quote from Ivana Trmnp, "I rant a better
deal."
M/S/F (Kline/Caserta) on a vote of 7 Ayes to 4 Noes, to 1 Abstention
Aye: Caserta, Glicl~nan, Gomez, Hernandez, Kennedy, Kishimoto, Kline
Opposed: Brodsky, Casas, Pinheiro, Wang
Abstention: Spitileri
PAC Mhmtes Page 15 of 17 January 12, 2006
Whereas the voters in 2000 overwhelmingly supported Measure A that
specifically funded the extension of Bart to Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara,
and included additional transportation project which are also important and should
be completed, and
Whereas, elected officials primary responsibility is to try, to the best of their
ability, to fulfill the voters expressed desires, and
Whereas, reduction in sales tax projected revenues has meant staff and policy
makers have spent over tow years struggling to make sure that the prodam keeps
faith with the intent of the voters, and
Whereas, we understand that the pro~’am will need to continue to be adjusted
based on changes in costs and revenues and in some cases progan’Lmatic changes
suggested by city groupings.
Whereas, we understand that the plan we are viewing today assumes a 30 year
additional quarter cent sales tax and without that tax, or equivalent revenue, the
plan xvould need to be reviewed and modified, and
Whereas, the plan under discussion in general and most details is consistent with
the Measure A ballot language and arguments that the voters overwhelming
supported in 2000, and
Whereas, all polls to date shows continued support for projects in Measure A.
Therefore, the VTA PAC endorses and recommends this plan to the VTA for
approval; with further direction that BART be moved back to 2018 so other
projects can move forward in the next ten years including the BRT to
SunnyYale!Cupertino and the Palo Alto Transit Center; and recommend that the
Board seriously review the Caltrain Metro East alignment for the BART Project.
10.2006 State Legislative Program
11.
On order of Chairperson Glickman, there being no objection, the Conm~ittee reviewed
the 2006 State Legislative Program.
Freeway Litter Control and Landscape Maintenance Program-Final Report
On order of Chairperson Glickman, there being no objection, the Freeway Litter
Control and Landscape Maintenance Program-Final Report was deferred.
PAC Minutes Page 16 of 17 January 12, 2006
ATTACHMENT C
Cityof Palo Alto
Department qt Plam~ing and
Communi~f Enviromnent
March 13, 2006
DRAFT
Transportation
Division
Ms. Cindy Chavez, Chairperson
Board of Directors
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95134-1906
Re: VTA Quarter Cent Sales Tax Scenario
Dear Ms. Chavez:
On Feb~n.~ary 13, 2006, the City Council discussed the VTA Quarter Cent Sales Tax
Scenario and confirmed the position of the City as reflected by Vice Mayor Kishimoto’s
vote at the Policy Advisory Committee on January 12, 2006. The City Council supports
the revenue and expenditure pro~am with lnodifications to December 2005 scenario to
move completion of the B’ART extension back to 2018 so that other projects can move
forward in the next ten years, including the Palo Alto h~termodal Transit Center project
and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) to Smmyvale/Cupertino. The Council fln-ther recommends
that the VTA Board seriously review the Caltrain Metro East alignment for the BART
project.
Palo Alto looks for~ ard to working with the VTA as this matter moves ahead.
Sincerely,
JUDY KLEENBERG
Mayor
cc: City, Council
Michael Burns, VTA General Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue
RO. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2520
650.617.3108 fax