Home
Site Map
Contact
|
Minutes - February 5, 2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Church
(Chair), Joe Galligan, Rich Gordon, John Lee, Lee Panza, Ira Ruskin
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Guingona
STAFF PRESENT: Michael Scanlon, Joan Cassman, David Miller,
Howard Goode, Roger Contreras, Rita Haskin, Martha Martinez, Jennifer Buhr
Chair Church called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. and led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the flag.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Board unanimously approved the following items under the Consent Calendar:
None.
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) REPORT
Larry Shaine reported:
Mr. Shaine clarified that the CAC felt that there would be more active
participation by combining the two subcommittees.
Director Lee questioned what time the workshop is schedule for on March 4.
Mr. Shaine corrected that the workshop will be on March 9 and is scheduled from
4-7 p.m.
CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT
Chair Church concurred with Mr. Shaine and stated that the workshop in Redwood
City had an excellent turnout and a lot of good public comment was received.
Chair Church commended staff on their work with all the Expenditure Plan
presentations.
SAMTRANS LIAISON REPORT
The written report from the January 14, 2004 meeting was included within the
packet.
JOINT POWERS BOARD REPORT
Michael Scanlon reported on the February 5 JPB meeting:
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Michael Scanlon recommended to combine the March 4 and April 1 meetings to a new
meeting date of Thursday, March 18. Mr. Scanlon commented that the drive behind
the new meeting date is to ensure that there is enough time to review all input
that is received at the February 28 workshop. Additionally, it will enable the
meeting to be after C/CAG’s meeting and staff wanted to have the benefit of
their input before coming back to the board.
Director Ruskin questioned what time the meeting would be.
Mr. Scanlon commented that the March 18 meeting would be at 5:00 p.m. However,
Mr. Scanlon noted that the February 28 workshop begins at 10:00 a.m.
Director Ruskin commented that the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
meets that night at 7:00 p.m. in Belmont.
Mr. Scanlon stated that the meeting could be earlier or can be moved to a
different date.
Director Gordon suggested holding the meeting at 4:30 p.m. and having Measure A
as an earlier item on the agenda.
The motion to approve holding a March 18 meeting at 4:30 p.m. was approved
unanimously.
PROGRAM
Howard Goode, Chief Development Officer, commented that the update of the
Strategic Plan for the existing measure is one of the baseline points for
departure to a new measure. Staff is able to look at what can be accomplished in
the current measure and identify what projects can be candidates for
consideration in the reauthorization.
The following items were presented as information only.
a) 2004 Strategic Plan Update (Final Draft)
Joe Hurley, Director of Transportation Authority Program, reported that the
draft Strategic Plan has been adjusted to reflect the revised revenue
projections from both the Measure A half-cent sales tax and the adjustments in
both Federal and State funding. In terms of reduction in funding for this
five-year period of the balance of the current measure, there is a 13 percent
reduction in Measure A funding, which translates to about $50 million. There
will be a reduction of about 42 percent or $55 million in State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) funding. Mr. Hurley gave a presentation that focused
on the Highway Program, the Caltrain Program and the Grade Separation Program.
Director Panza questioned what the breakdown was on the Caltrain Program.
Mr. Hurley clarified that the breakdown is $108 million for electrification, $27
million for the downtown extension and $25 million for the county share.
Mr. Hurley reiterated that the item is for information only. Staff anticipation
is to come back to the board in March for adoption of the Strategic Plan.
Mr. Goode commented that overall the current Measure A is generating less money,
which has exasperated the problem of the shortfall in terms of delivery along
with the meltdown of the State STIP program. Mr. Goode also noted that
particularly in the Highway Program, there is a list of projects that it doesn’t
look like we will get to in terms of construction. All of those projects have
been rolled over in the new measure.
b) Draft Expenditure Plan for Reauthorization of Measure A
Mr. Goode made a presentation that highlighted the Measure A outreach &
reauthorization process, project requests, comparison of Measure A program
shares, allocation of new measure funds, proposed Measure A transit funding,
proposed Measure A Highway Program, C/CAG TAC (Highway Subcommittee) proposal,
comparison of Measure A program shares, proposed grade separations, updating
existing grade separations and proposed pedestrian/bike projects.
Jim Bigelow commented that he has been involved with this process for an
extensive period of time and stated that there has been a balanced approach and
has a countywide flavor with the Expenditure Plan.
Director Lee requested a basic rundown for the makeup of the TAC.
Mr. Goode responded that the basic Technical Advisory Committee was established
by C/CAG. Mr. Goode is one of the co-chairs along with the County Public Works
Director. The TAC is made up of about 20 members of city engineers, public works
directors and planning staff. The TAC generally provides input to C/CAG on
matters that are before them.
Director Panza requested clarification in regards to the Local Bus and Shuttle
Service project, which is listed on page 10. Director Panza questioned how the
split would go between existing and new service between the general SamTrans bus
service and the focused shuttles.
Mr. Goode responded that the statute requires that the project needs to be
named, how much it will cost, how much sales tax is going towards it, who the
sponsor is and have a brief description of the project. Typically what happens
is that the sponsor will come to the TA and ask for the funding. Whatever
requirements that are placed on the sponsor by the TA would either be something
that is in the plan or something that is developed when that allocation took
place. Mr. Goode commented that in this particular case, the allocation would be
to SamTrans and then SamTrans, as the mobility manager of the county, would
figure out how much should go into shuttles and how much would support SamTrans
local service. Mr. Scanlon further commented that shuttles will play an ever increasing role as opposed to the mainline type of transportation that traditionally SamTrans has been providing. In partnership with private sector entities, cities, or with other groups the creation of shuttles that are very flexible in terms of where and when they can go will be in competition with the automobile for customers. Director Panza stated that people are going to be looking for shuttles and creative use of that type of transportation. Director Panza also commented in regard to Redi-Wheels service by stating that paratransit in general is going to become increasingly important. Director Panza questioned if there are other forms of paratransit that are currently being provided other than Redi-Wheels and asked if they will receive some benefit of this. Mr. Scanlon responded that there is RediCoast, which is part of Redi-Wheels and stated that it would be available for the same funds. Mr. Scanlon commented that because of Federal initiative, transit agencies and other agencies who are receiving Federal funds will be prompted to do a better job at coordinating transportation resources. Director Panza commented in reference to the BART/Caltrain conflict and noted that it is presented as local share of capital improvements rather than the feasibility of the BART extension. Director Panza suggested focusing more on making better use of what BART already has. Mr. Scanlon commented that staff is interested in producing a feasibility study because this community has been fixed for many years on the BART versus Caltrain issue. BART on this side of the bay wouldn’t come until BART is extended on the other side of the bay, which is at least 15-20 years away. Therefore, no additional construction would be done under this measure. However, to have the funding resources to help maintain existing BART is very critical. Director Lee commented that perhaps the public doesn’t understand the cost associated with bringing BART down through San Mateo County and the study will help to make that clear. Director Panza questioned whether the costs in the Pedestrian and Bicycle section are correct in that the total amount should be $56 million with $36 million coming from State grant programs. Mr. Goode corrected that the State grant programs should be listed as $20 million. Director Panza commented in regard to the Alternative Congestion Relief Programs and noted that it includes information systems and intelligent transportation systems. Director Panza questioned if $24 million would be enough to maximize the use of what has already been done. Mr. Goode responded that staff can get updated information from C/CAG. Mr. Goode stated that the purpose of this category is two-fold. Part of it is to continue the support that the TA provides for the Alliance and the other purpose is to provide a place for funding of intelligent transportation systems. Director Panza also commented that the process for amending the plan is not flexible enough in order to adapt to changing conditions and being able to match the plan to reality as reality unfolds. David Miller, Legal Counsel, stated that legal counsel will be working with staff on language to deal with the very principle of flexibility. Mr. Miller stated over the next few weeks legal counsel and staff will be working on dealing with contingencies of more funds than anticipated as well as less funds than anticipated and to deal with contingencies such as projects no longer being as viable as envisioned. Mr. Miller stated that they will be looking at options and bringing them back to the board. Director Panza expressed concern because the draft plan has already been circulated. Mr. Miller responded that the language comes out of the statute that governs the TA. Legal counsel and staff will work to reconcile the flexibility that will be built in with the fact that there is a statutory framework that also governs the TA. Director Galligan questioned if the TA is allowed to fund any of the operation costs for SamTrans under the current measure and requested clarification as to whether the local bus and shuttle service of $96 million would be operating costs for SamTrans. Mr. Scanlon responded that the only operation funding in the current measure is through the paratransit trust fund. On the shuttles side, the only thing that is being used out of the current measure are Caltrain shuttles under the Caltrain line item. Routes that serve Caltrain can qualify and typically matching funds are put up from someone else, namely employers. Therefore, this is a departure from the past. Director Galligan questioned if it would be changing the philosophy if more funds were added to paratransit versus what would appear to be the operating expenses of SamTrans. Mr. Scanlon responded that staff could do that but the belief, based on public input and polling, is that the ability to provide these types of shuttles will resonate with voters. Director Galligan stated that he agrees with that but the wording of "local bus" sounds like handling SamTrans’ job versus local service. Mr. Scanlon commented that the wording can be revised. Onnolee Trapp appreciated Director Gilligan’s comments regarding the perception of using any of funds on SamTrans busses, which Ms. Trapp has also been concerned with. Ms. Trapp also commented that to study BART when it seems like a rather improbable item in this county may be off-putting to some people. Ms. Trapp commented that the Measure A proposal seems to relieve SamTrans of its local bus funding unless staff is careful about the wording of "local" and she is concerned about the $24 million being put into BART to sustain the current facility. Ms. Trapp expressed that, if possible, it needs to be clear that the money will not be used for BART operations. Steve Morrison, SF Bay Area Water Transit Authority, stated that there has been discussion of cost effectiveness throughout the county in regards to the two submissions that South San Francisco and Redwood City made for ferry service. Mr. Morrison stated that they would like the opportunity to ensure that everybody fully considers the actual numbers, including cost effectiveness numbers, that are in their plan for recommended service rather than other inaccurate numbers. Chair Church requested that the numbers be sent to the board. Mr. Morrison responded that he will send the numbers to the board and to staff. REQUESTS FROM THE AUTHORITY None.
REPORT FROM LEGAL COUNSEL None.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION TO AUTHORITY The communication packets were distributed to the Board members.
DATE/TIME OF NEXT MEETING: The TA Measure A Workshop will be held Saturday, February 28, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. at the SamTrans Administrative Building, 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070 The next regular meeting will be held on March 18, 2004 at 4:30 p.m. at the SamTrans Administrative Building, 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070 ADJOURNED: 6:37 p.m. |
|
|
||
|
Quick Hits Progress Reports Expenditure Plan 2009-2033 Dumbarton Rail Highway 101 Auxiliary Lane Project: Millbrae Avenue to Third Avenue Application for CAC Member (PDF, 28 KB) - (MS WORD, 110 KB) Procurement Jobs |
||
|
|
||