Minutes - October 3, 2002

STAFF PRESENT: Michael Scanlon, David Miller, Roger Contreras, Howard Goode, Joe Hurley, Aurora Jose, Martha Martinez

All members were present. Chair Guingona called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. and led the pledge of allegiance to the flag.

CONSENT CALENDAR

The Board, by roll call, unanimously approved the following items under the Consent Calendar:

1. Minutes of September 5, 2002
2. Financial Statement, August 2002
3. Opposition to Proposition 51 – Traffic Congestion Relief and Safe School Bus Act
4. Resolution No. 2002-18: Authorizing the Executive Director or His Designee to Execute Right of Way Certifications for Projects on the State Highway System

PUBLIC COMMENT: None at this time.

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) REPORT

Doris Maez, CAC Vice Chair, reported:

• The Committee is recommending acceleration of the timeline for the Measure A reauthorization. The CAC would like to play an active role and get its subcommittee involved as early as possible in the process to be able to assist the Board in getting the reauthorization. She stated the CAC needs a policy from the TA Board on the extent of their involvement in this endeavor.
• The Committee, at times, cannot get enough votes to pass a motion due to failure to get the vote of the majority of membership because there is not enough members in attendance at the meeting. She stated a letter was previously received by the CAC from Ms. Martha Martinez, Manager, Executive and Governing Boards support, indicating that "The practice of policy issues for the CAC follows those of the Transportation Authority. Therefore, all official acts of the CAC require the affirmative vote of the majority of the members of the CAC and not the majority of those in attendance." However, at the last TA Board meeting, Attorney Miller advised "…CAC policy recommendations may be brought forward based on the vote of majority of the committee or the majority of the quorum." Ms. Maez asked clarification of the statement of Attorney Miller. Attorney Miller stated his statement was not meant to give the CAC a choice. Since the same ground rules apply to the Board as a legislative body, it can set the rules for the CAC and change the existing policy if it so desires. From the discussion on this matter last month, the Board concluded that there should be consistency of approach. The decision was to not change the existing rules. Ms. Maez urged that the current vacancy be filled as soon as possible. At present, the CAC has two vacant seats.
• Ms. Maez further reported the Committee is supporting staff’s recommendation to oppose Proposition 51.

Director Panza remarked if an issue before the CAC is so contentious that they are unable to carry a motion despite the number of members present, there is the message that the motion is not to be brought to the Board.

CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT

Chair Guingona reported on the APTA Annual meeting recently held in Las Vegas and the discussion on the reauthorization of ISTEA. He also referred to an item that Director Galligan would like to bring up.

Director Galligan stated it is about having an audit committee that would go through proposals and pick a CPA firm that will audit the TA. The committee will meet with the firm and get their input on their interaction with staff and their findings regarding the internal control process. The firm could also make recommendations and help the Board do its job. He referred to an engagement letter from the County of San Mateo to the TA, stating that the cost of the service in auditing the TA financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2002 will be $28,000. He pointed out that different firms audit the JPB and SamTrans. He noted the need for cross-checking and reducing costs. The audit committee will do a post-audit interview with the audit firm.

Chair Guingona invited discussions on the issue. Attorney David Miller advised that the item is not agendized. However, it is within the prerogative of the Chair under the rules to create committees and if there is some interest from the Board, this item could be agendized.

The Board agreed to agendize this matter next month to be able to have a full discussion. A copy of the engagement letter referred to by Director Galligan was distributed to all Board members.

SAMTRANS LIAISON REPORT

Chair Guingona stated the report is in the packet. There were no questions from the Board.

JOINT POWERS BOARD REPORT

Executive Director Michael Scanlon stated there is no report because there has been no meeting yet. The JPB will meet on Monday next week. The meeting date was changed at the beginning of the year due to conflict with some other schedules.

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Mr. Scanlon reported on the following:

• American Public Transportation Association Annual Meeting and Expo that was held in Las Vegas, Nevada. He stated it was phenomenal - the largest transportation expo in the world.

• The Legislature passed and the governor signed the legislation that will put before the voters in 2004 the authorization for the High-Speed Rail. He thanked Senator Jackie Speier for her work and support of this project.

  Director Lee inquired if the High-Speed Rail project will have an impact on the reauthorization of Measure A. Mr. Scanlon responded he cannot speculate because there will be a number of issues in the ballot. However, in advocating and marketing this program the TA staff will work hard to make sure they do the right thing.

• On the Highway 92 improvements, some alternatives are being looked at and a resolution to the issues is underway.
• Staff met with the city officials of the City of Pacifica. They heard about the environmental work that the City is doing. Staff is finalizing the strategic plan. A report will be rendered later on.

PROGRAM

1. Authorizing the Executive Director or His Designee to Accept all Deeds and Grants Conveying any Interest in or Easement upon Real Property to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority and to Consent to their Recordation

   Attorney Miller stated at the end the meeting last month, Director Ruskin requested to meet with staff on this particular item that was on the Consent Calendar and to bring it back if he is not satisfied or has some questions. Attorney Miller was briefed on the discussions that took place. Last month, the Board adopted a blanket resolution authorizing the Executive Director or his designee to accept deeds when there are real estate transactions and to consent to their recordation. The recorder is not permitted legally to record an instrument conveying a real estate interest to a public agency unless there has been an appropriate resolution authenticating the power to record the deed. Attorney Miller stated the intent was not to expand the authority that would otherwise be delegated to staff to enter into real estate transactions. It was done to facilitate the closing of transactions. Attorney Miller explained that the resolution before the Board at this time revises last month’s resolution to reflect the discussions that took place between Director Ruskin and Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick. He suggested as a process, that the Board either rescind the prior resolution and go back to where things were before last month, or to stay with the said resolution.

Director Ruskin expressed his concern that the resolution that was passed last month was too broad. He stated there are some oversights that as policymaker, he would like the Board to keep. He preferred that in terms of policy oversight, the previous resolution be rescinded.

Director Church commented the Board approves the terms of each individual real estate transaction. There is no need for staff to bring it back to the Board to pass an acceptance. He felt it is a ministerial act that can be delegated to staff. Attorney Miller advised that whatever the Board approves stands. He does not think that staff would commit the error of bringing to the Board a matter for action that does not have the language "and authorize the acceptance of deeds" but in the event of an oversight, with a blanket certification, the CEO will always have that authority. Thus this has become a housekeeping item.

Director Church remarked given the fact that the Board will review each real estate transaction and approve the terms, it is important that there is a process in place that would facilitate the transaction. He has no problem with the blanket resolution.

Having gone through the discussions, Director Ruskin agreed to stay with last month’s approved resolution.

At this point, Mr. Scanlon announced and asked the Board to join him in welcoming back after four months off, Martha Martinez, Manager of Executive/Governing Boards Support.

2. Strategic Plan Update

   Joe Hurley, Director of Transportation Authority Program, reported there is a funding deficiency of $330 million in the highway program, necessitating the need to prioritize the projects. Projects that are not categorized as Completed or Under Construction are categorized as either Funding Available or Funding Unavailable. Funding Available means that there are sufficient funds to carry those constructions. Funding Unavailable means there are no sufficient funds to carry those projects through the construction. Staff may continue with the project development process on those under Funding Available category. Mr. Hurley stated staff will embark on an outreach program where they will go to the affected agencies to get their input, to be able to make a comprehensive analysis of the project priorities. An updated strategic plan will be presented to the Board that reflects the input collected from the local agencies.

Howard Goode, Chief Development Officer, added the meetings would generally be with city staff. However, in some cases, they may involve the council. Currently, a workshop is scheduled with the Burlingame council to go over all of the highway and transit projects within the Measure.

Director Panza questioned the change on the I-280/380 Local Access project which is shown under the Funding Unavailable category. It was originally shown in the previous version of the report that funds were available. Mr. Goode responded this is a project where staff completed the Planning Study Report within the last couple of months. It was determined that it is going to be substantially more expensive than the previous estimates and the relative transit benefits are very small. The cost has gone up from $3 million to over $12 million.

3. Measure A Reauthorization Timeline

   Mr. Goode pointed to the written report in the packet and offered to answer questions from the Board. He then presented slides that were shown to the Board in February 2000 of the Draft Expenditure Plan that was meant to be presented to the voters in November 2000 but did not happen. The slides show a list of programs, most of which are in the current measure, and the share of those programs in the existing measure. What staff plans to do at this time is to look at those line items and others that will be identified, and determine the needs within each of the areas. Staff will provide the Board with an assessment of what projects are needed and their costs. He stated the flow diagrams in the staff report lay out the process that staff will go through with the communities, the Citizens Advisory Committee, and with the TA, to develop information about the needs that then could be the basis for forming policy decisions about the distribution of funding in the Measure. Staff will proceed with the said process unless the Board advises otherwise. Also, the starting point will be the list but will also consider other areas like ferries. Staff will seek the Board’s guidance in this regard.

On the request of the CAC to establish their role in the reauthorization of Measure A, Director Panza encouraged the Board to discuss it superficially or bring it back next time. Chair Guingona added the Committee specifically requested acceleration of the timeline. Director Ruskin commented this issue cannot be discussed at this point because the process is still undefined. Executive Director Scanlon suggested having a staff member attend the next CAC meeting to determine exactly what the CAC have in mind.

REPORT OF LEGAL COUNSEL: None at this time.

COMMUNICATIONS TO THE BOARD: The communications packets were distributed to the Board members.

ADJOURNED: 5:55 p.m.