Minutes - March 18, 2004

BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None

STAFF PRESENT: Michael Scanlon, Joan Cassman, David Miller, Joe Hurley, Howard Goode, George Cameron, Roger Contreras, Rita Haskin, Chuck Harvey, Martha Martinez, Jennifer Buhr

Chair Church called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

Chair Church commented that Director Gordon was teleconferencing into the meeting from Sacramento.

CONSENT CALENDAR

The Minutes of February 28 were severed from the Consent Calendar by Director Galligan.

Director Galligan questioned the amount on page 4 under Chair Church’s comments of, "However, the projected income of an extended Measure A, based on a 20-year period, is only going to be about $1.2 million."

Howard Goode, Chief Development Officer, indicated that the amount should be $1.2 billon, not million.

The motion to approve the revised February 5, 2004 meeting minutes was approved unanimously.

The Board unanimously approved the following items under the Consent Calendar:

a.  Approval of Minutes of February 5, 2004

c.  Adoption of Financial Statements, January 2004

Director Panza requested clarification under the Strategic Plan Update (Final Draft) on page 4 of the minutes from February 5. The minutes read that, "Mr. Hurley clarified that the breakdown is $108 million for electrification, $27 million for the downtown extension and $25 million for the county share." However, Director Panza noted that in the text of the Expenditure Plan, the amount is cut back for the downtown extension.

Mr. Scanlon responded that staff will check the tapes. However, Mr. Scanlon cautioned that the minutes are reflective of what was actually said whether it was correct or incorrect.

Director Panza referenced the February 28 minutes and commented in regard to the list of speakers on page 3. Director Panza noted that the specific comments were not reported.

Mr. Scanlon responded that the reason staff chose to list the names of the speakers is that it is extremely difficult to capture exactly what the speakers said with great accuracy. Mr. Scanlon stated that the tape of the meeting is available for review. Mr. Scanlon said that during tonight’s presentation, the major issues from the public will be addressed and a matrix of general questions and responses is available.

Chair Church questioned if it would be acceptable to Director Panza if a summation was prepared and to adopt the minutes as prepared or if he preferred to continue the item.

Director Panza stated that he would adopt the minutes with the understanding that something more would be provided. However, he would like the summation to include some degree of responsiveness to what the speakers actually said.

Mr. Scanlon stated that staff can bring forth the minutes and the summary sheet next month for board review.

Chair Church stated that perhaps a protocol needs to be set for the future.

The motion to adopt the February 28, 2004 meeting minutes was approved unanimously.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Jim Bigelow commented that with the passage of Regional Measure 2, the Dumbarton Rail Project will now be a reality. The project will move forward because of the tenacity of the San Mateo County Transportation Authority and he recognized staff and the board for their work with the project.

REQUESTS FROM THE AUTHORITY

Director Galligan, commented that there were signature sheets being circulated in reference to a ballot measure that the cities are putting forward for the November ballot to keep local monies local.

Director Gordon stated that he was in Sacramento with the State Association of Counties and its board of directors reaffirmed its firm commitment to the ballot measure.

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) REPORT

CAC Chair Larry Shaine noted the presence of fellow CAC members in the audience. He reported that at the last CAC meeting:

• Jim Bigelow was present and very complimentary towards the CAC with the Dumbarton Rail project.

• Joe Hurley gave an update on the draft Measure A Expenditure Plan and the Strategic Plan.
• The CAC unanimously approved the updated Strategic Plan.
• The CAC unanimously support the reauthorization of Measure A and questioned if there could be any potential in moving the term further out than 20 years. Also, the CAC feels that with the implementation of Measure A funding, staff should look at land use and Transit Oriented Development. Mr. Shaine noted the presence of David Cropper, Measure A subcommittee chair.

PROGRAM

a)  Adoption of 2004 Strategic Plan Update

Chair Church reported that there was a request to bring this item back to the board at a later date.

b)  Draft Expenditure Plan for Reauthorization of Measure A

Howard Goode, Chief Development Officer, reported that TA staff has received a large number of comments from various public outreach efforts, presentations, etc. As part of tonight’s presentation, staff will endeavor to update and bring the board current with all the comments. Mr. Goode stated that a large number of the comments can be accommodated relatively easily, such as wording or minor changes in the guidelines. However, there are other comments that are of much greater significance, such as moving money among different parts of the plan. Subsequent to the comments received at the February 28 board meeting, staff continued to receive comments and prepared an updated draft on the plan, dated March 4, which incorporated a number of the comments that were received.

Mr. Goode referenced "Attachment A" of the Expenditure Plan outlined a summary of comments on transit, highways, local streets/transportation, grade separations, pedestrian and Bicycle and alternative congestion relief The outline included the comment summary, on modification included in the March 4 draft. Where applicable, there were additional modifications listed for consideration.

Mr. Goode reiterated that comments continue to come in. A letter from C/CAG was submitted, indicating that C/CAG voted unanimously to support the plan. The letter was accompanied by some comments from individual C/CAG members.

The CAC also submitted a letter from its meeting, which was held earlier this week.

The Transportation and Land Use Coalition (TALC) also submitted a letter, which raised six points in regard to the Plan. Recommendations included that funding shifts between categories should not be allowed, adding $50 million for Grade Separations and $50 million for Dumbarton Rail, making bicycle and pedestrian safety a reality, reducing ferry funding to $12 million and limiting it to South San Francisco, and eliminating the Countywide Supplemental Highway Program and $100 million from the highway category.

Mr. Goode clarified that as drafted, funding shifts are not allowed between categories. The only shifts would be within program categories, not between categories. Mr. Goode stated that the only way that such a shift could take place would be to go back to the voters for amendment.

Mr. Goode reported that Diane Howard also submitted a letter on behalf of the Alliance, which sets forth their concern with the fund sharing.

Also distributed to the board was information from Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates, which summarizes the results of a survey of 300 San Mateo County voters. Mr. Goode highlighted that 73 percent are in favor of the measure, which is comparable to the survey from last May. Also highlighted was the term of the measure, with 59 percent favoring 20 years, 56 percent favoring 30 years and 51 percent favoring a permanent measure. Mr. Goode noted that the statistics are plus or minus 4.7 percent of variation.

Of those surveyed, questions were asked about the uses of the funds and the most convincing messages in favor of the measure.

Director Panza requested clarification concerning question 11 of the survey, which asked what the most convincing message in favor of the measure was.

Mr. Goode responded that he is not exactly sure how the question was presented. However, the purpose was to find which argument has the highest approval of the voters. With a ballot initiative there is a limited number of words that can be used and so the interest was in finding the key words and concepts that are most important to the voters.

Mr. Goode summarized, referencing Attachment A of the staff report, that there are six major plan issues including an increase in ferry funding, a decrease or elimination of the ferry program, the elimination of BART funding, the elimination of the supplemental highway program, reallocation of $50 million to grade separations and $50 million to Dumbarton, an increase in local share and finally, the consideration of a 30-year term. The outline also included the source of the recommendations listed.

Diane Howard, representing the Water Transit Advocates and Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance, expressed pleasure that water transit was included in the draft Expenditure Plan.

Ms. Howard also grateful for the flexibility of the language as far as the spending for water transit. She asked that the board at least consider surveying the measure to see if it would poll well for 25 to 30 years so that more projects can be done in San Mateo County. She understood that the cost is high for ITS and asked, within the letter submitted, that the board consider a cap on the spending so that programs such as carpooling and vanpooling can continue.

Matt Grocott, representing Citizens for Better Transit (CBT), reported that CBT is recommending that the two percent each for BART and the ferries be eliminated from the plan.

Mike King, C/CAG, commented that 18 cities unanimously voted in favor of the plan. Mr. King reported that the draft Expenditure Plan is consistent with the Countywide Transportation Plan. He noted reported that there was a notable desire on the part of the members for a larger Local Share. C/CAG took a straw vote for a 20 versus 30-year term for the measure, which was 15:4. However, the basis under which the vote was taken was with the draft Expenditure Plan of March 4, which was presented as a 20-year term. Additionally, there was a request for the sharing of the polling results.

Cal Hinton, Pacifica, stated the City of Pacifica council unanimously supported the reauthorization and Expenditure Plan of Measure A. However, they requested more consideration for public transportation on the coast because currently, there is not enough public transportation other than SamTrans on the coast.

Stuart Cohen, Transportation and Land Use Coalition (TALC), commented that TALC supports this measure. However, TALC is concerned with funding shifts within categories and recommends adding $50 million for Dumbarton Rail.

Steve Schmidt, Menlo Park, stated that he is 96 percent in support of the draft Expenditure Plan. However, he would like the funding for BART to be removed or at least have a cap. He recommended eliminating ferries from the project and suggested moving the money into local streets and projects or to Dumbarton Rail.

Bruce Balshone, representing himself and the JPB CAC, stated that the CAC would like to see the language for electrification changed from a recommendation to "shall electrify Caltrain." Additionally, the CAC would like to not be so dependent on Regional Measure 2 for the rail and Dumbarton corridor and would like to see some local money moved into Measure A.

Christine Maley-Grubl, Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance, expressed gratitude for the increase to one percent in the Alternative Congestion Relief program allocation for the new draft of the Measure A plan. She also thanked staff for the ITS project costs, which were removed from the Alternative Congestion Relief portion of the plan in the draft of Measure A and including project design costs. However, still a concern is the project design costs being included with TDM programming costs. The Alliance is requesting a dedicated .8 percent for TDM programming.

Jim Bigelow, Redwood City/San Mateo County and Menlo Park Chamber of Commerce stated that they strongly support the plan as written. However, they requested considering a 30-year term.

Pat Dixon, Redwood Shores, requested that the language for BART clarify that it is for the existing BART extension. She favors ferry service. She is also in favor of a 20-year term.

David Cropper, CAC member and chair of the Citizens for Traffic Relief, stated that he feels the plan is very strong, fair and balanced, and will benefit the county.

Randy Hees, San Mateo, believes that a well-balanced list of projects has been created. However, he is concerned with the great deal of operating money, the lack of transit-oriented development, and suggested a longer term of 25 or 30 years.

Onnolee Trapp, League of Women Voters, supports the plan and commented that everyone needs to work together to get this measure to pass.

Ken Feldstein, Foster City, feels that this plan has to be approved. However, he expressed concern that if the BART funding needs to be included in the plan, perhaps it also can be used for operating shuttles and buses to BART and Caltrain stations to provide easier connections.

Rick Gomez, TA CAC and South San Francisco Historic Old Town Homeowners and Renters Association, commented that the community outreach for this project has been excellent. Mr. Gomez expressed appreciation for the ferry service.

Pedro Gonzales, South San Francisco, commented that he is excited for the ferry service because it will benefit the County of San Mateo. Mr. Gonzales also suggested having a 30-year term.

Steve Castleberry, Water Transit Authority, thanked staff for including the $24 million in the plan, which will be leveraged with $226 million out of Regional Measure 2. With those two funding sources, the ferry service will be able to come to San Mateo County. Mr. Castleberry stated that the WTA will continue to work with the business community.

Peter Grenell, San Mateo County Harbor District, urged the board to adopt the Measure A Expenditure Plan and suggested considering a 30-year term. He stated that in addition to the Regional Measure 2 funding for water transit, there are Federal funds that have been and are being obtained by Congressman Lantos in the amount of at least $3.5 million. Additionally, the Harbor District, in partnership through a cost sharing agreement with the U.S Army Corps of Engineers, is putting in approximately $1.8 million more to modify its Oyster Point breakwater entrance, which will facilitate ferry service.

David Miller, Legal Counsel, clarified that as he interprets testimony received tonight, there is a suggestion that before the Authority may exercise any reallocation powers that are reposed with the board, the city councils should be consulted. Since that is a policy issue, Mr. Miller suggested adding it to the list of issues to see if the board wants to add that additional procedure. He also stated, with regard to the example from Mr. Cohen in terms of paratransit, that he does not believe that under these proposed Implementation Guidelines, monies could be used and reallocated away from paratransit by the board. In his opinion, the criteria for reallocation that are enumerated in the Implementation Guidelines, wouldn’t apply to specifically defined and prescribed projects, such as paratransit. Mr. Miller stated that staff has included flexibility principles in other areas, including the bicycle and pedestrian program and highway supplemental projects where a range of projects is itemized. The other aspect of flexibility, which is borrowed from the Alameda County model, is the periodic strategic planning process to take into account changed conditions. Additionally, with regard to those situations where funds can be reallocated, there is a consideration that stems from the fact that there may be circumstances that change such as, a project being funded by other means or a project becoming technically infeasible. Mr. Miller stated that those criteria are enumerated on page 20 of the plan. He also stated that the concept of flexibility is reflected in the fact that the extended tax would not begin until four years from now. Yet, there is advance bonding authority that is provided to allow for flexibility to the board to jumpstart some projects. Mr. Miller commented that Mr. Cohen suggests that in cases of proposed reallocation of funds, the TA should at least go back to the cities, if not the voters. Mr. Miller stated that is a policy judgment that the board should consider.

Mr. Goode, in response to a public testimony regarding Transit Oriented Development, stated that that comment came up in a number of venues. He stated that staff could fashion a language to reflect that into the plan.

Mr. Goode, in reference to the ferry program, stated it is important to have some funding that allows San Mateo County to be a participating partner at the table as the ferry program goes forward. This would give a resource to the local communities in the negotiations with the Water Transit Authority. Mr. Goode reported that the language has been modified to increase the flexibility of the money. However, staff is not recommending a change in the dollar amount.

Director Lee stated that it is quite apparent from all of the comments that staff has done a wonderful job with the plan.

Director Panza commented that he has some misgivings about including ferries in this measure because it is a new mode that he is not as familiar with as he would like to be. He stated that Regional Measure 2 did provide a great deal of money for ferries. The voters around the entire Bay Area very strongly endorsed Regional Measure 2 with the strong focus on ferries, which includes the voters of San Mateo County. He stated that it would have made more sense for Regional Measure 2 to be focusing on ferries across the bay rather than up the Peninsula, since it is coming from bridge tolls, but since they have included the ferry service up the Peninsula, the money is already there. He also stated, in response to the assertions from several people, that the ferries are essentially a redundancy for serving the Peninsula but that is not necessarily a point against it. Director Panza commented that if the service is built and properly connected to the transportation network, it may not necessarily take people off the transit modes but rather make it possible for the growing number of people that do need to commute up and down the Peninsula.

The motion to accept the staff recommendation of the percentage (2 percent) for ferries was made by Director Gordon.

Director Lee reported that the businesses in the specifically impacted area have expressed that they want the service. He supports the motion with the cautionary note of not expecting the half-cent sales tax money to run the program. He stated that it is a very small amount of money that will help and that he agrees with Mr. Goode in that the TA should be part of this new idea and try to help the transportation system but cautioned not to expect a lot of dollars from the half-cent sales tax.

Chair Church reported that there is a base employment of 24,000 people east of Highway 101 in the South San Francisco area and that ABAG estimates 10,000 additional employees by 2020. He stated that ferries are a part of the Countywide Transportation Plan and the TA needs to appeal to all segments of the community with Measure A. Clearly there is a segment within the community that is very supportive of ferries. Additionally, there is the benefit of Regional Measure 2, which is going to provide some $226 million for ferries throughout the Bay Area.

Director Panza reminded that C/CAG was concerned that no other or additional funding is shown for ferry services or for BART.

Mr. Goode responded that staff has noted that and will make the change.

Director Gordon added into his motion the reference to the additional funding that will be used as local match from Regional Measure 2.

The motion (Gordon/Galligan) to accept the staff recommendation of the percentage (2 percent) for ferries plus the addition of the reference to the additional funding that will be used as local match from Regional Measure 2 was adopted unanimously by roll call.

Director Gordon agreed with the recommendation of the League of Women Voters regarding inclusion of some additional language in regard to the ferry service within the March 4 plan, as follows: (1) On page 7, under item 4, revise the wording to reflect providing financial assistance for the ferry service. (2) On page 11, under item 4, revise the language to state funding would be provided to support costs associated with ferry service. He moved for the inclusion in the plan of the language provided by the League of Women Voters.

Director Gordon questioned if there will be a revised plan coming back to the board for adoption beyond what is being discussed at the tonight’s meeting.

Mr. Goode responded that there have been a number of requests for small changes, which don’t change the substance of the report and have not yet been incorporated into the text of the proposed plan. However, Mr. Goode stated that the next step for staff will be to incorporate the changes.

The motion (Gordon/Ruskin) to include the language provided by Ms. Trapp was approved unanimously by roll call (Lee out of the room).

In regard to the issue of eliminating BART funding, Mr. Goode reported that the March 4 draft provides two percent, or an estimated $24 million, in financial assistance to the existing BART extension. Mr. Goode commented that the funding would be available for either operating or capital purposes. However, he clarified that if it were available for capital purposes it would be as local match probably for improvements. Mr. Goode stated that the plan needs to be consistent with MTC’s regional planning and given that there is a BART system extension in San Mateo County, providing some source of funding, particularly capital improvements, is an appropriate ingredient in the plan. Therefore, staff recommends keeping the item in the plan as is.

Director Galligan moved to accept staff recommendation and approve the BART language currently in the plan.

Director Panza commented that the way the item is worded now, it leaves the TA open for criticism that this is a bail out for the bad deal with BART. Director Panza suggested that it could be reworded to stress that this isn’t financial assistance but rather enhancements of the existing services and facilities.

Mr. Scanlon clarified that the staff recommendation is not necessarily for enhancements but for capital or operating and will have the flexibility to be used for either. He further commented that it is very important that the board look beyond what the current situation may be. He stated that in the midst of this economic downturn, the BART and SamTrans partnership is providing 24,000 rides a day on the San Mateo County portion of the service. Therefore, staff is suggesting two percent, which is a modest amount for this item, with the flexibility to use it as either operating or capital.

Chair Church stated that he believes Director Panza’s concerns were with the wording of financial assistance as opposed to capital and operating expenses.

Director Panza thinks that there should be something for BART included. However, there needs to be caution with the wording.

Mr. Scanlon responded that staff worded it as financial assistance because the original proposal was to do capital maintenance and have a portion for a study. However, while it was clear that there was not support for the study, the existing portion seemed to be acceptable for a reasonable amount of support. Therefore, when staff crafted the existing language it was in order to try to remedy the previous language.

Mr. Goode proposed that the wording can be modified to capital and/or operating.

Director Galligan amended his motion to include the revision of the language.

Director Ruskin inquired if the two percent was a cap on the BART expenditure.

Mr. Scanlon responded it was a cap and hoped that over the life of this measure, everything will grow. Therefore, the dollar amount would grow but not the percentage.

Mr. Miller commented that with the flexibility provided in the plan, if certain circumstances arise, there wouldn’t necessarily be any constraints. However, if the intent is to have a cap, that needs to be clear.

Director Gordon commented that he feels that the percentages should be set fairly solidly and not allow for movement of figures within this category without some extra steps that would be needed beforehand. He stated that he has less concern over the other programs because projects have been identified and the reasons for how projects would be selected have been stated. However, for this category, Director Gordon would feel more comfortable if the percentages were set solidly.

Mr. Scanlon, in response to Director Gordon’s comments stated that this could be the portion within the transit program where there is a need to specifically adopt the language that was suggested by Stuart Cohen, which incorporates a supermajority vote of the TA and then a vote of the cities with a majority of the population.

The motion (Galligan/Guingona) to accept staff recommendations and approve the BART language currently in the plan with the revision of the wording of financial assistance to capital and/or operating costs was adopted unanimously by roll call.

Director Gordon made a motion to adopt language that has been presented that would require a supermajority process from the Transportation Authority board and the cities in order to change the percentages within this category.

Mr. Miller commented that as he understands the submittal, the extra process would deal with city council approval representing a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population. However, it does not presently provide for a supermajority vote from the board.

Director Gordon stated that he would accept the language requiring a majority vote of the Transportation Authority board and also the language regarding the cities.

Director Galligan questioned if that meant that the Transportation Authority had the ultimate decision on whether the funds will be for operating or capital.

Mr. Miller indicated that the thrust of this motion is if the request to the board exceeds the percentage in the transit category then in addition to the board approval, the action would be taken back to the city councils and the county to seek their approval to reallocate funds within the transit category.

Director Gordon clarified that as suggested, the board would not be able to, without going through a process, reduce Caltrain from 16 percent of the share in order to transfer money to local shuttles or to cover BART, for example. If something comes up during the life of the measure where that was necessary, the board would have to go through a process to gain additional support from the cities.

Director Galligan questioned how that has polled with the citizens.

Director Gordon pointed out that the board has the authority to change the categories right now.

Director Lee inquired if the board could still change the percentage categories after the plan has passed.

Mr. Miller responded that changes can be made within categories and reallocations can be made.

Mr. Miller stated that the language on pages 19 and 20 in the Implementing Guidelines deals with the issue of the authority of the board to reallocate due to various circumstances listed as items 1-5 on the top of page 20. Mr. Miller stated that this is the section where Director Gordon’s language would be incorporated to restrict the moving of funds within the transit category.

In response to Director Galligan’s question, Chair Church stated that there hasn’t been any polling on this issue.

Director Galligan remarked that it is his understanding that this would make it more restrictive.

Mr. Miller confirmed that adding one more layer of review at the city level for exercising the reallocation discretion would add a restriction.

Director Lee questioned why the board should consider that.

Chair Church responded that it would presumably be for voter appeal.

Director Gordon remarked that this would assure people that the percentages stated would be spent on the various transit categories. If there is a unique circumstance that develops over the measure, there is a way that the board can go back and change it. However, it requires a special process.

Mr. Scanlon commented that as presented, before any changes are made, conditions would have been presented to justify the change and then if that change is to come about, staff will go through a deliberate process that will require getting votes from city councils representing the majority. In order to complete this process, a public airing and process would be associated with those changes. Therefore, the process is restrictive but not overly restrictive.

Director Galligan questioned if the motion was for a majority of the cities.

Chair Church responded that the proposal of the motion is for a majority approval.

Mr. Miller clarified that it would be the majority of the cities representing a majority of the population, which is the same standard that applies to bringing the Expenditure Plan as a whole forward at this time.

The motion (Gordon/Ruskin) to adopt language that would require a supermajority process from the Transportation Authority board and the cities to change the percentages within this category was adopted unanimously by roll call.

Mr. Goode reported that, on the issue of eliminating the supplemental highway program, a comment was made by Mr. Cohen that the $100 million currently allocated for supplemental and highway projects, which are beyond the core program, should be reallocated as $50 million for grade separations and $50 million for Dumbarton to cover funding which may not be available from Santa Clara County. Mr. Goode expressed concern on the allocation for Dumbarton because Santa Clara County approved $40 million in its sales tax measure, which allows for a distribution of portions throughout the benefiting counties of San Mateo and Santa Clara.

The motion (Gordon/Lee) to maintain the supplemental highway program passed unanimously by roll call (Ruskin out of room).

In regard to the issue of increase in local share Mr. Goode reported that this was a comment that was in the C/CAG letter and has been commented on from various cities. He recommended that this is something that should be considered and paired with major plan issue item five, considering a 30-year term, because if the term is at the current 20-year, which was assumed in the draft plan, he would not recommend a change in the local share because of the adverse impact that it would have on the other programs. If a longer term is contemplated, the opportunity to increase local share is created. Comparing 20 years versus 30 years, Mr. Goode reported that at the current 20 percent level, which generates $12 million a year for local streets and funding, the core highway program receives $260 million over the full term and the supplemental program receives $100 million for 20 years. In contrast, if the local streets percentage was 25 percent, that would be an increase of $3 million a year at $15 million. The congested corridors remain the same because that is a fixed set of projects. In a 20-year period the supplemental program would go down to $40 million, which makes it a very limited program at that stage. However, in a 30-year term, because the core program is a fixed amount, the additional highway funding goes into the supplemental program, which would be an allocation of $190 million for a 30-year term.

Director Lee moved to establish a 30-year term and 25 percent for local share for streets. There was no second.

Director Ruskin understands why people may want to extend the measure to 25 or 30 years. However, he would prefer to stay with the 20-year term because it has been the length the term that has been discussed up until now in a variety of venues and a large number of people. Further, the public is in a conservative fiscal mood and he thinks that the 20-year term would guarantee extension of the measure. Director Ruskin recalled that some of the bond measures that passed in the last election, some did not pass with two-thirds vote. He feels that 20 years is a long time and there is validity in having to reexamine the entire proposition after the 20-year term.

Director Panza stated that he thinks that the strongest argument in favor of extending the measure to 30 years is to have greater bonding capacity overall. However, in addition to how much money the measure will raise, there also is a cashflow issue. It is not certain that an extra 10 years would bring in many more projects upfront. He added that percentages guaranteed to transit and highways are currently equal, which is very important, but perhaps they have been set at levels that are not justifiable. Director Panza cited that from past experience, the projects listed within the hot spots may cost more than what is shown so there is not a guarantee to even complete those projects within this measure. He stated that 30 percent may not be politically justifiable and suggested it reducing both transit and highways together, to keep them equal, but use that to raise the local match. Director Panza stated that the numbers from the public surveys make it very clear that the public wants more money locally and they seem to be willing to sacrifice the big projects for more local share.

Director Lee commented that if the term was for 30 years, that would mean there would be approximately $600 million more than can be planned and structured into the programs. The survey says that 30 years will pass and he feels better planning can be done with 30 years. Additionally, he feels that the public is concerned with local street money and the 25 percent that he recommended would go towards that.

Director Panza argued that a 30-year plan would give 50 percent more in the measure, but it wouldn’t give more per year. By extending these terms out to 30 years, the TA may be preventing themselves from raising things 10 years sooner.

Director Ruskin stated that passing the measure for only 20 years gives flexibility to make significant changes between categories, not just within categories.

Director Galligan feels that 30 years is too long. He questioned if this was approved with 25 years, would the TA immediately be able to go out and bond. He contended that by being able to go back to the cities and say that they will receive 10 percent more if the term is 25 years is very saleable. Also, if the TA could bond on the next 29 years, then some of the major projects can be done with cheaper dollars today paying it back with discounted value in the future.

Mr. Miller clarified that the intent, which is itemized in the last guideline, is to provide the authority to bond in anticipation of the tax, on the premise that once the voters approve it, the tax becomes legalized and a dependable future revenue source.

Director Panza requested to see what it does in terms of how much the TA can borrow and carry with what is expected to come in.

Mr. Scanlon responded that that information would not be available today because it would require a lot of work to research. He clarified that it would be a revenue stream that could be bonded for.

The motion (Galligan/Lee) to adopt a 25-year term with 22.5 percent for local streets and roads was adopted (Panza dissenting).

Director Gordon requested, in regard to page 15 of the March 14 draft, under the bicycle projects, that the wording for the second project listed be changed to read, "Route 1 pedestrian/bike trail from Montara to through Half Moon Bay."

Director Gordon also suggested approval of the Caltrain improvements listed as an additional modification for consideration on the summary chart within Attachment A.

The motion (Gordon/Galligan) to change the language from Montara to Half Moon Bay to Montara Through Half Moon Bay was approved unanimously by roll call.

The motion (Gordon/Galligan) to approve the suggested Caltrain improvements language was adopted unanimously by roll call.

Mr. Goode requested, for the record, that three changes need to be approved by roll call. In response to a comment in the C/CAG letter, Mr. Goode proposed that the last line on page five of the March 4 version, state, "Support San Mateo County’s participation in the Water Transit Authority’s program for cost effective ferry service." He stated that this would set the criteria which will be used in the Strategic Plan.

The motion (Guingona/Galligan) to include the words "cost effective" on page five was adopted unanimously by roll call.

The next change was in regard to the alternative congestion relief projects on page 16. The request of the Alliance was that eight-tenths of a percent be for their purposes with the remaining two-tenths for intelligent transportation. Therefore, the change would be, "Eight-tenths of the percent of the tax revenue will be allocated to encourage efficient use of the transportation network…."

The motion (Lee/Panza) to incorporate the suggested language for the alternative congestion relief was approved unanimously by roll call.

The final suggested additional wording is on page 19, beginning on the third line of paragraph F. The suggested change included, "…consistent with the goals and objectives of the Countywide Transportation Plan and this Transportation Expenditure Plan." Also, to reflect the desire to reference transit-oriented development, Mr. Goode suggested adding a new line: "Criteria will include priority for projects, which encourage transit-oriented development."

The motion (Galligan/Ruskin) to accept the staff recommendation for the changes within section F was approved unanimously by roll call.

In regard to the bicycle and pedestrian issues raised in Mr. Cohen’s letter, that the plan allows only for dedicated separate facilities for cyclists and pedestrians rather than those that might be included in the roadway design itself, Director Ruskin questioned if that was true.

Mr. Goode responded that the wording has been changed because there was a concern with the wording in the February 5 draft, which has been changed to be very generic and broad to allow for flexibility.

Mr. Miller stated that the resolution will be amended to include the term that was agreed upon. The resolution refers to an attachment, which will ultimately be the plan as it was revised tonight with all of the various changes made. Additionally, there may be some minor ministerial language changes that do not speak to the substance, which staff will carefully edit.

The motion (Lee/Galligan) to approve the overall plan as modified incorporating all approved motions passed unanimously by roll call and resolution 2004-1 was adopted.

Chair Church thanked staff and the public for their hard and diligent work on this project.

c)  Capital Project Status Report – 2^nd Quarter

Mr. Hurley reported that he is available for any questions of the board.

CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT

None.

SAMTRANS LIAISON REPORTS

The written reports from the February 11, 2004 and the March 11, 2004 meeting were included within the packet to the board.

JOINT POWERS BOARD REPORT

Mr. Scanlon reported that the Joint Powers Board held its meeting on March 4, 2004.

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

None.

REPORT FROM LEGAL COUNSEL

None.

WRITTEN COMMUNICATION TO AUTHORITY

The communication packets were distributed to the Board members.

DATE/TIME OF NEXT MEETING:

May 6, 2004 at 5:00 p.m. at the San Mateo County Transit District Administrative Building, 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070

ADJOURNED: 7:10 p.m.