citizens advisory committee and 2000 measure a

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

and

2000 MEASURE A CITIZENS WATCHDOG COMMITTEE

Wednesday, January 15, 2020

2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee (CWC) meeting begins at 4:00 PM

Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting begins at the conclusion of the CWC Meeting.

VTA Conference Room B-106

3331 North First Street

San Jose, CA

AGENDA

COMMITTEE MISSION STATEMENT:

The VTA CAC provides a communication channel for transportation stakeholders and residents

of the county by providing input, analysis, perspective and timely recommendations prior to VTA

Board of Director action on transportation policy issues and initiatives.

CALL TO ORDER

1. ROLL CALL

2. ORDERS OF THE DAY

3. PUBLIC COMMENT:

This portion of the agenda is reserved for persons desiring to address the Committee on

any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to 2 minutes. The law does not

permit Committee action or extended discussion on any item not on the agenda except

under special circumstances. If Committee action is requested, the matter can be placed

on a subsequent agenda. All statements that require a response will be referred to staff

for reply in writing.

4. Receive Committee Staff Report. (Verbal Report) (Gonzalez-Estay)

• Receive Governance Study Update

5. Receive Chairperson's Report. (Verbal Report) (Schulter)

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

Citizens Advisory Committee Wednesday, January 15, 2020

of 3

COMBINED CAC AND 2000 MEASURE A CITIZENS WATCHDOG

COMMITTEE CONSENT AGENDAS

6. ACTION ITEM - Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of December 11, 2019.

7. ACTION ITEM - Recommend that the VTA Board of Directors program a total of $9.7

million in Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF) Countywide Program funds to projects.

8. INFORMATION ITEM - Receive the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) 2019 Year-

End Attendance Report.

9. INFORMATION ITEM - Review the status of ongoing Santa Clara County Vehicle

Registration Fee (VRF) activity.

2000 MEASURE A CITIZENS WATCHDOG COMMITTEE REGULAR

AGENDA

10. ACTION ITEM - Consider exercising the option to extend the contract with Macias, Gini

& O’Connell LLP (MGO) for independent compliance auditing services to the 2000

Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee (CWC), at a cost of $29,700 for the Fiscal

Year 2019 audit cycle.

11. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive the annual review of the Citizens Watchdog

Committee's ballot-specified duties, responsibilities and limitations.

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGULAR AGENDA

12. ACTION ITEM - Conduct voting to determine the Committee's vice chairperson for

2020.

13. ACTION ITEM - Approve the 2020 Citizens Advisory Committee/2000 Measure A

Citizens Watchdog Committee (CAC/CWC) Meeting Schedule.

14. ACTION ITEM - Recommend that the VTA Board of Directors adopt a new Express Bus

Partnership Program and a new pilot Vanpool Subsidy Program for implementation in

April 2020.

15. INFORMATION ITEM - Receive a presentation from Rod Diridon, Sr: “A Historical

Perspective of Public Transit In the Silicon Valley.”

COMBINED CAC AND CITIZENS WATCHDOG COMMITTEE ITEMS

16. Review the Citizens Advisory Committee and Citizens Watchdog Committee Work

Plans.

OTHER

17. ANNOUNCEMENTS

18. ADJOURN


Citizens Advisory Committee Wednesday, January 15, 2020

of 3

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VI of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, VTA will make reasonable arrangements to ensure meaningful access to its

meetings for persons who have disabilities and for persons with limited English proficiency who

need translation and interpretation services. Individuals requiring ADA accommodations should

notify the Board Secretary’s Office at least 48-hours prior to the meeting. Individuals requiring

language assistance should notify the Board Secretary’s Office at least 72-hours prior to the

meeting. The Board Secretary may be contacted at (408) 321-5680 or email:

[email protected] or (408) 321-2330 (TTY only). VTA’s home page is on the web

at: www.vta.org or visit us on Facebook at: www.facebook.com/scvta. (408) 321-2300: 中文

/ Español / 日本語 / 한국어 / tiếng Việt / Tagalog.

All reports for items on the open meeting agenda are available for review in the Board

Secretary’s Office, 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California, (408) 321-5680, at least 72

hours prior to the meeting. This information is available on VTA’s website at http://www.vta.org

and also at the meeting.

CITIZENS ADVISORY

COMMITTEE

and

2000 MEASURE A CITIZENS WATCHDOG

COMMITTEE

Wednesday, December 11, 2019

MINUTES

CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)/2000 Measure A Citizens

Watchdog Committee (CWC) was called to order at 4:07 p.m. by Chairperson Schulter in

Conference Room B-106, VTA River Oaks Campus, 3331 North First Street, San Jose,

California.

1. ROLL CALL

Attendee Name Title Represents

nts Status

Jon Cacciotti Member Business & Labor Present

Aneliza Del Pinal Vice Chairperson Community & Societal Interest Absent

Nupur Gunjan Member Business & Labor Absent

Michelle Huttenhoff Member Business & Labor Absent

Steven Lee Member Community & Societal Interest Present

Aaron Morrow Transitional Member Member

Community & Societal Interest Absent

Aboubacar Ndiaye Member Business & Labor Present

Matthew Quevedo Member Business & Labor Absent

Martin Schulter Transitional Chairperson

Community & Societal Interest Present

Vignesh Swaminathan Member Community & Societal Interest Present

Noel Tebo Transitional Member Community & Societal Interest Present

Herman Wadler Transitional Member Community & Societal Interest Present

A quorum was not present and a Committee of the Whole was declared.

2. ORDERS OF THE DAY

There were no Orders of the Day.

3. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

There were no Public Presentations.

CAC/2000 Measure A CWC Minutes Page 2 of 5 December 11, 2019

4. Committee Staff Report

Manolo Gonzalez-Estay, Government Affairs Policy Analyst and Staff Liaison, reported

on the following: 1) summary of actions the VTA Board of Directors (Board) took at

their December 5, 2019 meeting; 2) CAC Membership Recruitment; 3) New Member

Mentorship Program; 4) Rod Diridon Invitation to speak at the next meeting; 5) BART

Phase I Update, and; 6) New Transit Service Plan (NTSP) Implementation.

Member Swaminathan arrived at the meeting at 4:10 p.m.

Member Cacciotti arrived and took his seat at 4:11 p.m. and a quorum was established.

On order of Chairperson Schulter and there being no objection, the Committee

received the Committee Staff Report.

5. Chairperson's Report

Chairperson Schulter reported on the following: 1) he provided a CAC Chairperson

report at the December 5, 2019, VTA Board of Directors’ meeting; 2) announced Vice

Chairperson Del Pinal and Member Quevedo would be leaving the Committee, and;

3) emphasized the importance of member recruitment.

COMBINED CAC AND 2000 MEASURE A CITIZENS WATCHDOG

COMMITTEE CONSENT AGENDAS

6. Regular Meeting Minutes of November 13, 2019

M/S/C (Wadler/Tebo) to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of November 13, 2019.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] Consent Agenda Item #6

MOVER: Wadler, Transitional Member

SECONDER: Tebo, Transitional Member

AYES: Cacciotti, Lee, Ndiaye, Schulter, Swaminathan, Tebo, Wadler

NOES: None

ABSENT: Del Pinal, Gunjan, Huttenhoff, Morrow, Quevedo

2000 MEASURE A CITIZENS WATCHDOG COMMITTEE REGULAR

AGENDA

There were no items for the 2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee Regular

Agenda.

NOTE: M/S/C MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED,

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.


CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGULAR AGENDA

7. Election Process for 2020 Citizens Advisory Committee Leadership: Conduct

Elections

Michelle Oblena, Associate Management Analyst and Advisory Committee Coordinator,

provided a brief overview of the election process, noting the Nomination Subcommittee

nominated the following slate of candidates for the 2020 elections: 1) Chairperson Marty

Schulter for Chairperson; and; 2) Members Michelle Huttenhoff, Aaron Morrow and

Vignesh Swaminathan for Vice Chairperson.

Chairperson Schulter opened the nominations from the floor for the position of

Chairperson for 2020.

M/S/C (Swaminathan/Tebo) to close the nominations and elect Martin Schulter as

Chairperson for 2019.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNAN.] Agenda Item #7 – 2020 Chairperson

MOVER: Swaminathan, Member



NOES: None


Chairperson Schulter suggested deferring the 2020 Vice Chairperson election, noting two

candidates were not present.

M/S/C (Cacciotti/Swaminathan) to defer the 2020 Vice Chairperson election to the

January 15, 2020 CAC/CWC meeting.

RESULT: DEFERRED [UNANIMOUS] Agenda Item #7 – 2020 Vice

Chairperson

MOVER: Cacciotti, Member

SECONDER: Swaminathan, Member


NOES: None


8. Program Match Source for Caltrans Sustainable Communities Planning Grant for

the Central Bikeway Study

Amin Surani, Principal Transportation Planner, provided the staff report.


Members of the Committee and staff discussed the following: 1) spending criteria;

2) Request for Proposal (RFP); 3) design of protected bikeways; and 4) timeline.

M/S/C (Wadler/Tebo) to recommend that the VTA Board of Directors program

$103,649 of 1996 Measure B Local Program Reserve for the Central Bikeway Feasibility

Study to match a $800,000 Caltrans Sustainable Communities Planning grant.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] Agenda Item #8

MOVER: Wadler, Transitional Member



NOES: None


COMBINED CAC AND CITIZENS WATCHDOG COMMITTEE ITEMS

9. Citizens Advisory Committee and Citizens Watchdog Committee Work Plans

Members of the Committee and staff discussed the upcoming Audit Request for Proposal

(RFP) process and suggested the following information would be helpful: 1) provide

historical data on the scope of work and fees paid to the previous consultant to establish a

benchmark, and; 2) clarify if the selection criteria is qualifications based selection (QBS)

or if cost is an allowable factor.

Members of the Committee requested the following items be added to the workplan:

1) presentation on public/private innovation partnerships; 2) update on the status of

recommendations from the Ad Hoc Financial Stability Committee; 3) presentation on

VTA and national ridership trends; 4) presentation on Eastridge and Vasona light rail

extension; 5) update on activities for Transit-Oriented Communities and Transit-Oriented

Joint Development projects, and; 6) potential VTA development of micro-mobility

guidelines.

On order of Chairperson Schulter and there being no objection, the Committee

reviewed the Citizens Advisory Committee and Citizens Watchdog Committee Work

Plans.

OTHER

10. ANNOUNCEMENTS

Transitional Member Tebo announced Strike Brew Pub in Campbell’s discount offer for

patrons with same day VTA ticket or rideshare receipt.

Transitional Member Wadler announced the County Road Commission has two

vacancies.

Chairperson Schulter announced the next CAC/CWC meeting will be on Wednesday,

January 15, 2020.


11. ADJOURNMENT

On order of Chairperson Schulter and there being no objection, the meeting was

adjourned at 5:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Anita McGraw, Board Assistant

VTA Office of the Board Secretary

Date: January 8, 2020

Current Meeting: January 15, 2020

Board Meeting: February 6, 2020

BOARD MEMORANDUM

TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

Citizens Advisory Committee

THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez

FROM: Director of Planning and Programming, Deborah Dagang

SUBJECT: Vehicle Registration Fee Countywide Program Cycle 3

Policy-Related Action: Yes Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No

ACTION ITEM

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommend that the VTA Board of Directors program a total of $9.7 million in Vehicle

Registration Fee (VRF) Countywide Program funds to projects.

BACKGROUND:

Senate Bill 83 (Hancock), signed into law in 2009, authorized countywide transportation

agencies such as the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to implement a Vehicle

Registration Fee (VRF) of up to $10 on motor vehicles registered within the county for

transportation programs and projects. The statute requires that the fees collected be used only to

pay for programs and projects bearing a relationship or benefit to the owners of motor vehicles

paying the fee. In order to implement the fee, the voters within the county are required to

approve the VRF and expenditure plan by a simple majority.

On June 3, 2010, the VTA Board of Directors (Board) adopted a resolution placing 2010 Santa

Clara County Measure B on the ballot. The measure authorized a $10 increase in the VRF for

transportation-related projects and programs. Voters in Santa Clara County approved the VRF on

November 2, 2010.

The expenditure plan dedicates 80% of the VRF revenues to the Local Road Improvement and

Repair Program, in which the revenue is returned directly to VTA Member Agencies (the cities,

towns and county of Santa Clara County) based on each city/town’s population and the County

of Santa Clara’s road and expressway lane mileage.

Another 15% of the VRF revenue to the Countywide Program, which allows using VRF funds to

7

of 4

match federal/state/regional transportation grants applied to any roadway transportation project

included in the adopted Valley Transportation Plan. Also eligible are projects involving

Intelligent Transportation System Technologies, including traffic control signals, safety and

traveler information systems. Staff anticipates that approximately $27.7 million in revenue will

have been set aside for the Countywide Program by the end of Cycle 3.

On June 7, 2012 and on December 10, 2015, the Board adopted the first and second three-year

Countywide Program cycles. On April 4, 2019, the Board programmed $50,000/year for

Crossroads Software. The main features of Crossroads Software include data analysis, mapping,

and reporting capabilities for identifying high collision locations and factors contributing to

collisions.

The remaining 5% of the VRF revenue is reserved for Program Administration. Unused

administration funds, or leftover funds from under-budget projects, return to the Countywide

Program and are available for future Countywide Program programming.

DISCUSSION:

For the third cycle (FY2018/19-FY2020/21) VTA has approximately $9.7 million to program to

projects. Given the high demand for this source of funds, VTA staff recommends that the Board

program these funds to projects as discussed below:

US 101/SR 85 Express Lanes Phase 4 Project

VTA staff recommends that the Board program $4 million in VRF Countywide funds to the US

101/SR 85 Express Lanes Phase 4 Project. This project involves converting the existing High

Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes to Express Lanes along SR 85 in San Jose, from the US 101

interchange to SR 87, including the existing US 101/SR 85 HOV to HOV direct connector ramps

and the approaches to/from US 101.

Due to the lack of funding for the Electronic Toll System (ETS) Integrator design, VTA staff

placed the civil design activities for the project on-hold. Recently, the final design phase was

restarted with anticipation of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding for the

ETS activities. STIP funding was received in June 2019 for the ETS Integration Services.

Based on lessons learned from the US 101/SR 85 Express Lanes Phase 3 project, additional

funding is needed to complete final design in order to incorporate new Caltrans and electronic

toll system requirements. With the additional $4 million in funding, $1.2 million will be used to

complete the civil design which contains additional scope-of-work, and $2.8 million will be used

to support the ETS work for the project. These additional funds will make this project ready to

access construction funds, including future rounds of the SB1 Solutions for Congested Corridor

program and Regional Measure 3, as they become available.

7

of 4

I-680 Soundwall Project

Staff recommends that the Board program $2 million in VRF Countywide funds to the I-680

Soundwall Project. VTA will construct sound walls to mitigate noise to property owners along I-

680 between Capitol Expressway and Mueller Avenue in San Jose. The environmental phase was

completed in May 2019. The project is currently in the design phase which is expected to be

finished by the end of 2020 when the construction phase will begin. During detailed design,

additional work and updated cost estimates show additional need for right-of-way and design

phases ($400k) and construction ($1.6 million).

Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Technologies

VTA staff recommends the elimination of both the Regional Transportation Operations

Personnel Service (RTOPS) and Regional Intelligent Transportation System Maintenance

Service (RITSMS) programs. RTOPS is a transportation/traffic engineering consultant services

program that provides expertise to repair existing communications infrastructure. RITSMS is an

operations and maintenance program to upgrade and replace ITS infrastructure. For these two

programs, there is a combined unspent balance of $1,808,358. Staff will continue to work with

project sponsors to deliver these projects.

For Cycle 3, staff is proposing to create a single, $1.5 million, program. The single project will

be identified by VTA staff working through the ITS Working Group and will take into

consideration the following:

1. Include minimum of 10 traffic signals on a roadway of regional significance.

2. Include the replacement of the controller signal cabinet or the signal controller meeting

the recommendations as described the Enhanced Traffic Signal Controller document.

3. Implement new timing plans to improve operations.

4. Implement new technologies to enhance vehicle detection, including using these

technologies to enhance safety and improve traffic operations.

Other cost eligible elements may also include potential software/firmware upgrades to the

controller and the local agency’s central traffic management system.

Matching Funds

Staff recommends that the remaining funds, approximately $2.2 million, be reserved for

additional projects requiring matching funds for regional roadway transportation projects

included in the adopted Valley Transportation Plan.

7

of 4

ALTERNATIVES:

The Board could recommend other eligible projects for VRF funding.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This action will program $9.7 million to VRF Countywide program projects.

Prepared by: Bill Hough

Memo No. 7141

7

Date: December 13, 2019


Board Meeting: N/A

BOARD MEMORANDUM




FROM: Board Secretary, Elaine Baltao

SUBJECT: CAC 2019 Year-End Attendance Report

FOR INFORMATION ONLY

BACKGROUND:

At the January 5, 1995, Board of Directors meeting, the Board Secretary was requested to submit

quarterly and year-end attendance reports to include Board Standing Committees and Board

Advisory Committees.

Prepared By: Anita McGraw

Memo No. 7226

8

Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)

2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee (CWC)

2019 Attendance Report

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL

AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Cacciotti, Jon

(effective 07.01.19) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A C P P A

P

P

Del Pinal, Aneliza P P P P P C C P P A P A

Gunjan, Nupur

(effective 07.01.19) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A C P P P

A

A

Huttenhoff, Michelle

(effective 07.01.19) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A C P P A

P

A

Hadaya, William (left

effective 06.30.19) A A A P P C N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A

N/A

Hashimoto, Ray (left

effective 06.30.19) P P P P P C N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A

N/A

Lee, Steven

(effective 07.01.19) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A C P P P

P

P

Morrow, Aaron A A P P P C C P A P P A

Ndiaye, Aboubacar P A A P A C C A A A P P

Quevedo, Matthew P P A P P C C P A A A A

Rogers, Connie (left

effective 06.30.19) P P P P P C N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A

N/A

Schulter, Martin P P P P P C C P P P P P

Swaminathan,

Vignesh

(effective 07.01.19) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A C P A P

A

P

Tebo, Noel P P P P P C C P P P P P

Wadler, Herman H. P P P P P C C P P P P P

P = Present

A = Absent

C = Cancelled

E = Excused

* Two meetings held during month: 1) Regular CAC/CWC Meeting; 2) Joint Advisory Meeting

8.a




BOARD MEMORANDUM





SUBJECT: Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF) Annual Report


BACKGROUND:

Senate Bill 83 (Hancock), signed into law in 2009, authorized countywide transportation

agencies such as the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to implement a Vehicle

Registration Fee (VRF) of up to $10 on motor vehicles registered within the county for

transportation programs and projects. The statute requires that the fees collected be used only to

pay for programs and projects bearing a relationship or benefit to the owners of motor vehicles

paying the fee. Voters in Santa Clara County approved a VRF on November 2, 2010.

The VTA Board of Directors adopted an expenditure plan allocating the revenue to be eligible

transportation-related programs. This plan dedicates 80% of the VRF revenues to the Local Road

Improvement and Repair Program, in which the revenue is returned directly to VTA Member

Agencies (the cities, towns and county of Santa Clara County) based on each city/town’s

population and the County of Santa Clara’s road and expressway lane mileage.

Another 15% of the revenue is directed to the “Countywide Program.” On June 7, 2012, the

VTA Board of Directors adopted an initial three-year Countywide Program and on December 10,

2015, the VTA Board of Directors adopted a second, three-year Countywide Program.

Up to the remaining 5% of the VRF revenue is reserved for Program Administration. Unused

administration funds, or leftover funds from under-budget projects, return to the “Countywide

Program” and are available for future Countywide Program programming.

DISCUSSION:

During FY2018/19, there was a total of $16,734,907 available for distribution. Of this,

$13,387,926 was distributed to Member Agencies via the Local Road and Repair Program,

9

of 2

$3,000,594 was placed into the Countywide Program, and $250,895 was used to cover

administrative expenses. Attachment A explains this VRF activity.

Attachment B summarizes allocations of VRF Local Road Improvement and Repair Program

funds during FY2018/19. Attachment C lists projects funded or completed by Member Agencies

with Local Road Improvement and Repair Program funds in FY2018/19. Some agencies are

combining funds over multiple years and/or combining them with other funding sources to

finance large, multi-year projects. Attachment D shows the status of the Countywide Program

(ITS and Matching Fund) projects.

Finally, the administrative procedures adopted by the VTA Board allow financial audits to be

performed at VTA's discretion. Funding agreements between VTA and member agencies require

VRF records be available to VTA upon request for review and audit purposes. This is to ensure

that each agency has properly expended VRF funds, in accordance with Senate Bill 83 and the

Funding Agreement, on eligible transportation projects. Since last year's report, the City of San

Jose and the County of Santa Clara were audited, and the auditor's reports are provided as

Attachment E. An audit for the City of Santa Clara is currently in progress. VTA anticipates

additional agency audits will take place during 2020.

Prepared By: Bill Hough

Memo No. 7116

9

Attachment A: Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF)Total Program

FY 2018/19Cumulative FY2012-19

Revenue:

VRF receipts from DMV $16,583,509 $109,977,442

Interest earned on VRF revenue $151,398 $1,182,827

One-time 2010 election expense $0 -$866,584

Total Available for Allocation $16,734,907 $110,293,685

Allocation:

Revenue for Local Road and Repair Program $13,387,926 $88,234,948

Revenue for Program Administration $836,745 $5,514,684

Total Available for Countywide Program* $3,000,594 $16,544,053

Ongoing Expenses:

Administration charges $346,388 $1,055,206

*Countywide Program:

Revenue for Countywide Program $2,510,236 $16,544,053

Unused Administration Funds available for Countywide Program $490,357 $4,459,478

Total Available for Countywide Program $3,000,593 $21,003,531

Page 1 of 1

9.a

Attachment B: VRF Local Road Improvement and Repair Program

Agency FY2018/19 AllocationCumulative FY2012-19

Allocation

Campbell $262,969 $1,745,089

Cupertino $370,106 $2,480,258

Gilroy $342,538 $2,233,816

Los Altos $193,156 $1,274,398

Los Altos Hills $52,771 $351,484

Los Gatos $188,475 $1,280,368

Milpitas $461,101 $3,008,471

Monte Sereno $22,358 $145,117

Morgan Hill $274,160 $1,760,077

Mountain View $502,133 $3,254,854

Palo Alto $429,419 $2,820,682

San Jose $6,475,160 $42,486,523

Santa Clara $798,244 $5,128,212

Saratoga $193,611 $1,283,330

Sunnyvale $944,738 $6,184,421

Santa Clara County $1,876,987 $12,797,847

Total $13,387,926 $88,234,947

Note: Totals might not add due to rounding.

Page 1 of 1

9.b

Attachment C: VRF Local Road Improvement and Repair Program FundsProjects Funded FY 2018/19

Agency Name: Project Title Description Project LimitsVRF Funds

Spent

CampbellAnnual Street Maintenance Project

Winchester Blvd and Campbell Ave Street Resurfacing. Total project cost is estimated at $7.8 million. No work has been performed yet as the projectis still in design phase.

Winchester Blvd from northern city limit near Rosemary Ln to the southern city limit at Knowles Drive and Campbell Ave from Jeffers Way to Winchester Blvd.

$0

Cupertino2018 Pavement Maintenance

Pavement maintenance of Phil Lane, Erin Way and Kirwin Lane.

Phil Lane between Miller and Tantau Avenues, Erin Way between Stelling Road and Kim Street, Kirwin Lane between Erin Way and Kirwin Lane.

$370,106

GilroyStriping and Pavement Markings

Repainting and refreshing pavement arrows and lane line markings around the City of Gilroy.

Various locations citywide. $7,118

GilroyTraffic Signal and Crosswalk Project.

Removed and replaced traffic signal video detection devices. Replaced traffic signal battery back-up for 16 intersections and upgraded 4 RRFB for 4 crosswalks.


Los Altos Report pending N.A. N.A. N.A.Los Altos Hills Report pending N.A. N.A. N.A.Los Gatos Report pending N.A. N.A. N.A.

Milpitas Report pending N.A. N.A. N.A.

Monte SerenoAnnual Pavement Improvement Project

Pavement maintenance including cape seal, overlay and microsurfacing.

Various locations citywide $21,502

Morgan Hill2018 Pavement Resurfacing Project

Street repairs and line striping. Various locations citywide $274,160

Mountain ViewHackett AvenueReconstruction

Constructed curbs, gutters and driveway approaches and pavement on Hackett Avenue in the Rex Manor Neighborhood.

Hackett Avenue between Burgoyne Street and Farley Street.

$37,879

Mountain ViewWagner AvenueReconstruction

Constructed curbs, gutters anddriveway approaches and pavementon Wagner Avenue in the Rex ManorNeighborhood.

Wagner Avenue between BurgoyneStreet and Farley Street.

$47,682

Mountain ViewTraffic Signal System - Major Replacement and Upgrades

Upgrade Traffic Signals and Intersections.


Palo Alto Overlay ProjectStreet repairs, including asphalt milling, paving, PCC repair, and sidewalk/curb/gutter replacement.


Page 1 of 5

9.c



Spent

San JosePavement Administration

This is for general project administration/engineering work across entire pavement program projects.

Various Streets in all 10 Council Districts

$16,416

San Jose Park Avenue

Enhance bicycle safety along section of Park Avenue. Work includes the application of a green pavement treatment to enhance the visibility of the existing bike lanes. Sharrow lane markings and installation of bicycle boxes at signalized intersections may also be added.

Park Ave between Hedding and South Market Street

$9,094

San Jose 2017 Street Sealing

This project applied a microsurfacing sealant on 89 miles of streets. Microsurfacing is a preventative maintenance treatment used to extend the lifetime of the road. Project also included crack filler, striping removal, and striping instalation to implement complete streets improvements.

Various Streets in Council Districts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10; 2nd St, Aborn Rd, Almaden Av, Boynton Av, Chynoweth, Colleen Dr, Cunningham Av, Curie Dr, Curtner Av, Dana Av, Flickinger Av, Great Oaks Bl, Hamilton Av, Hayes Av, Hedding St W, Hicks Av, Jackson Av, Jackson St, Jarvis Av, Junction Av, King Rd,

$916,158

San Jose2016 Pavement & ADA Survey

CONSULTANT surveyed all CITY streets to capture pavement condition data and develop ramps inventory for analysis and recording of pavement condition index and sidewalk accessibility ramps compliance status with ADA requirements.

All streets in San Jose. $128,035

San Jose2018 Local Resurfacing

Project administration, planning and engineering work for the residential pavement program projects.

Various Streets Citywide. $126,243

Page 2 of 5

9.c



Spent

San Jose 2018 Street Sealing

This project applied a microsurfacing sealant on 69 miles of streets. Microsurfacing is a preventative maintenance treatment used to extend the lifetime of the road. Project also included crack filler, striping removal, and striping instalation to implement complete streets improvements.

Various Streets in all 10 Council Districts; 1st St, 22nd St, 3rd St, 4th St, Almaden Av, Almaden Rd, Blossom Hill Rd, Cahill St, CALERO AV, Clayton Rd, Cropley Av, Dry Creed Rd, Forest Av, Mabury Rd, Malone Av, McKean Rd, McKee Rd, Monferino Dr, Monroe St, Mt Pleasant Rd, Murillo Av, Notre Dame Av, Penitencia Creek Rd, Plumeria Dr, Rainbow Dr, Ruby Av, San Carlos St, San Fernando St, San Salvador St, Saratoga Av, Sierra Rd, St John St, St John St, Story Rd, Sylvandale Av, Taylor St, Trade Zone Bl, Via Valiente and Winfield Bl.

$174,429

San Jose2018 Arterial Resurfacing

This project aims to resurface and rehabilitate approx. 23 miles of streets in the City of San Jose. The project will include work such as Cold In-Place Recycling (CIR), placing pavement fabric, applying a rubberized hot mix asphalt overlay, replacing traffic striping and markings, adding new/enhanced bike lanes, and installing bicycle detector loops.

CD 1: Blaney Av (Prospect Rd to Bollinger Rd)CD 3: 16th Sy (San Carlos St to Margaret St), 17Th Sy (Santa Clara St to San Carlos St),San Salvador St (Market St to 10th St),Viola St (Market St to Almaden Av)CD 4: Plumeria Dr (First St to Montague Expwy),Ringwood Av (Trade Zone Blvd to Birchmeadow Ln)CD 5: Mckee Rd (Eastside Dr to City Limit),Mckee Rd (Gridley St to Valley View Av)CD 5: Canoas Garden Av (Almaden Rd to Almaden Ex)CD 8: Norwood Av (White Rd to Gurdwara Av)

$4,642,239

San Jose2018 Street Resurfacing

Project administration, planning and engineering work for the residential pavement program projects.

Various locations citywide $250,236

Page 3 of 5

9.c



Spent

San Jose 2018 Pavement Project

This project resurfaced 8 miles of streets in the City of San Jose. The project will included work such as Cold In-Place Recycling (CIR), placing pavement fabric, applying a rubberized hot mix asphalt overlay, replacing traffic striping and markings, adding new/enhanced bike lanes, and installing bicycle detector loops.

Santa Teresa (Dunn - Cottle), Blossom Hill Rd (Almaden Ex - Meridian), San Carlos (Lincoln - Leigh)

$1,991,152

San Jose Prospect RoadThis project installed new ADA curb ramps in advance of the street microsurfacing.

Prospect Road. $122,607

Santa ClaraLafayette Street Signal Timing Project

Install new controllers/cabinets at 7 intersections and install fiber interconnect.

Lafayette Street between Lewis St. and Newhall St.

$915

Santa ClaraChangeable Message Sign

Install permanent Changeable Message Signs.

Great America Pkwy between Lafayette St, & Tasman Dr

$131,343

Santa ClaraAnnual Street Maintenance and Rehab Project

Annual Street Maintenance and Rehab Project.

Various Streets Citywide. $1,459,764

SaratogaStreets and storm drain maintenance program

Small street repair projects, filling of potholes, remove and repair failed street sections using the City' own grinder, maintenance of roadway signs,, re-striping non-legible pavement markers, signals, streetlights, and debris removal.


SunnyvalePavement rehabilitation and surrey seal

Pavement repairs, overlay and slurry lealing.


Santa Clara County

Joint Pavement Project with CSJ

Pavement repairs, pavement overlay, and 2 ADA ramp improvements.

Camden Ave between Bascom Ave and Hillsdale Ave.

$36,000

Santa Clara County

Joint Pavement Project with CSJ

Pavement repairs and pavement overlay.

Bascom Ave at Elliot St. $229,000

Santa Clara County

Juniperro Serra Boulevard Traffic Calming Project

lnstall chicanes, sígns, flashing beacons, new striping.

North of Stanford Ave to North of Santa Maria Dr.

$1,706,168

Santa Clara County

Lawrence Expressway -Homestead Road toQuito Road.

Pavement repair and resurfacing,restriping, ADA and bikeaccomodations on LawrenceExpressway.

Homestead Road to Quito Road. $4,446

Santa Clara County

Uvas Road Pavement Rehabilitation

Road repair and resurfacing.Watsonville Road to LittleUvas Road.

$15,000

Santa Clara County

San Tomas Widening and Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail.

Widening on San Tomas Expressway from 6 to 8 lanes, adding sidewalk on the eastside and replacing soundwall.

El Camino Real to Homestead Road. $585,282

Page 4 of 5

9.c



Spent

Santa Clara County

Capitol Expressway Pavement Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation of the roadway by hot mix asphalt (HMA) overlay, subgrade improvements, pavement repair, roadway excavation, cold in place recycling (ClR), traffic loops replacement, adjustment of utilities to grade, curb and gutter, removal and replacement of traffic stripes, new signage, markings/markers, ADA improvements and sidewalk installations.

Capitol Auto Mall Parkway to McLaughlin Ave.

$35,000

Santa Clara County

McKean Road Pavement Rehabilitation

Road repair and resurfacingFrom Harry Road to Calero Reservoir, Casa Loma Road to 3,500' North of Casa Loma Road.

$28,746

Page 5 of 5

9.c

Attachment D: VRF Countywide Program Projects-Cycle 2Project Status

Sponsor ProjectAmount

Programmed Expended to date

ITS-Regional Transportation Operations Personnel Service

San Jose Fiber Optic Asset Management ($70,000 approved 8/4/2016 and $96,805 transferred from other projects) $70,000 $36,820

San Jose On-Call Fiber Optic Splicing, Repair & Testing (approved 8/4/2016)$80,000 $39,603

San Jose Silicon Valley Wide-Area Network Monitoring and Maintenance (approved 8/4/2016) $60,000 $52,341

Santa Clara County Repair Fiber Optic Cables at Lawrence and San Tomas Expwys (approved 8/4/2016) $50,000 $50,000

Santa Clara Network Repair and Troubleshooting (approved 5/4/2017) $20,000 $0

Subtotal RTOPS $280,000 $178,764

ITS-Regional Intelligent Transportation System Maintenance Service

Santa Clara Citywide ITS Project 2 on Monroe St., Benton St., and Lafayette (approved 8/4/2016)

$500,000 $0

Los Gatos Town-wide Traffic Signal System Upgrade (approved 8/4/2016) $500,000 $52,580Santa Clara Citywide ITS Project 1 on Tasman Drive, Great America Pkwy.,

Homestead Rd, etc (approved 8/4/2016)$500,000 $0

Campbell Citywide ITS Enhancements (approved 8/4/2016) $500,000 $459,615San Jose Signal Retiming and Vehicle Detection Repairs (approved 8/4/2016) $500,000 $500,000

Santa Clara County Traffic Signal Controller Upgrades at Various Locations (approved 8/4/2016)

$150,000 $150,000

Sunnyvale ATMS Upgrades (approved 8/4/2016) $500,000 $500,000San Jose VIDS Communication Modules Upgrade (approved 8/4/2016) $248,000 $248,000Los Altos Signal Timing and Coordination Improvement (approved 8/4/2016) $415,000 $195,684

VTA ITS Strategic Plan (approved 12/10/2015) $300,000 $300,000

Subtotal RITSMS $4,113,000 $2,405,878

Total ITS [RITSMS + RTOPS] $4,393,000 $2,584,642

Countywide Program Matching Funds

VTA SR 237 Express Lanes (approved 10/6/2016) $4,000,000 $1,622,549VTA I-680 Soundwalls ($500,000 approved 5/4/2017 and $173,700

approved 5/3/2018)$673,700 $432,992

Los Gatos Los Gatos Smart Signals Project (approved 5/3/2018) $376,400 $30,582VTA Freeway Performance Initiative (approved 5/3/2018) $53,073 $53,073VTA Keep Santa Clara Valley Beautiful (approved 6/7/2018) $21,125 $799

Subtotal Matching Funds $5,124,298 $2,139,994

Grand total $9,517,298 $4,724,637

page 1 of 1 12/18/2019

9.d

~anta Clara Valley Transportation

Authority

July I, 20I9

City of San Jose John Ristow, Director of Transportation 200 E. Santa Clara St. San Jose, CA 95113

Dear Sir,

VTA's Audit Manager provided a review and audit services related to the Vehicle Registration Fee

(VRF), Local Road Improvement and Repair Program Funding Agreement (Funding Agreement) between

the City of San Jose (City) and VTA, dated November I, 20 I2.

Our engagement was performed in accordance with Standards for Auditing issued by the American

Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

Our procedures were performed solely to assist the VTA in determining compliance with the Funding

Agreement and VRF Program requirements. This report should not be used for any other purposes.

The procedures we performed, the results of our tests, and any observations are summarized on the

following pages.

We noted certain exceptions to the VRF Funding Agreement, or opportunities for Improvement, as

detailed on the following pages.

We appreciate the opportunity to work with the City of San Jose.

Sincerely

Meeta Podar, CPA, CIA

Audit Program Manager, VTA

3331 North First Street c:~n lnc,:::~o ra Ot;1~.1.-1Q?7

Administration 408-321 - 5555 rt tdf"''tnP.I'" C:.t:::U'\Iir&:> .df'l~-7.:?1- ?~(l(l <:;nlutinn" thrit mnvP vnu

9.e

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT E

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

E-1

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

City of San Jose


July 1, 2019

2

VRF EXPENDITURES REPORTED TO VTA BY THE CITY OF SAN JOSE (RECIPIENT)

The following amounts were subject to testing

Fiscal Year Amount

2013 3,406,220

2014 4,009,760

2015 2,819,935

2016 298,161

2017 10,196,847

2018 4,388,038

SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS

We noted the following during our review:

• Reported Earned Interest was understated by $5,204. The chart below details the amounts

reported and the accurate amounts for Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014. The difference is due to the

omission in reporting of the discount amounts in Fiscal Years ’13, and ’14. The City confirmed

these errors, which were corrected in Fiscal Year ‘15.

• Invoice approval sign-offs were not obtained on one invoice selected for FY17 in the amount of

$13,320. The invoice paid to Alviso Rock in January 2017 and was part of a larger amount

included in an reclass Journal Entry.

• VTA was not able to test selected expenditures to vendors for Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014.

Invoices for these years were not available. In accordance with City of San Jose's Record

Retention policy, invoice records are required to be kept for only 4 years after payment and

therefore were discarded. However, per the funding agreement between the City and VTA Sec

3.6 financial records related to the VRF Program are required to be kept for five years. For Fiscal

Year 2014 the City is not in compliance of this requirement of the Funding Agreement.

• Note: The Audit Scope was revised to exclude invoice testing for Fiscal Year 2013. VTA was

able to test selected payroll expenditures for Fiscal Year 2013 and found no exceptions in that

testing.

We recommend that going forward,

• The City should validate the completeness and accuracy of information in the annual reports

against the General Ledger to mitigate the risk of errors, and prior to submission to VTA.

• The City should ensure that Internal Controls related to expenditures are reinforced.

• The City should ensure that it is in compliance with its’ Obligations per the Funding Agreement

Fiscal

Year

Accurate

Interest

Per Annual

Report Difference

FY13 6,133 4,433 1,700

FY14 18,660 15,157 3,503

Totals 24,794 19,590 5,204

9.e

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

E-2

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT E

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

City of San Jose


July 1, 2019

3

PROCEDURES PERFORMED

• Compared the total VRF distribution amounts from the VTA to the City’s records, by

fiscal year.

• Reviewed the first expenditures, based on invoice date, noting that costs were not

incurred prior to July 1, 2011.

• Determined whether the City has submitted to VTA an Annual Report of its VRF

Program expenditures and associated interest, covering twelve months consisting of the

previous State fiscal year, no later than October 15 (for each fiscal year).

• Determined whether the City had certified that it made a Good Faith Effort (GFE) to

maintain a level of VRF expenditures, as part of its Annual Reports (for each fiscal

year).

• Compared direct costs from reported expenditure to supporting documentation to

ascertain whether the costs were eligible under the VRF Funding Agreement and

California Senate Bill 83 (for a sample representing at least 50% of expenditures for

that Fiscal Year). Eligible costs include congestion and pollution mitigation

expenditures and certain matching funds for transportation programs.

o For payroll charges, traced amounts to payroll records or time cards

o Determined that VRF Program financial records, books, documents, papers,

accounting records and other evidence has been maintained for five years

• Assessed whether the City expended funds on the VRF Projects identified in the Annual

Reports (for each fiscal year).

• Assessed whether the City credited VTA's funding contribution on all signage,

electronic or printed materials distributed to the public that are related to VRF

Program projects.

• Assessed whether the City tracked interest earned on unexpended VRF Program funds

and applied interest to VRF Program eligible projects.

• Inquired whether there have been any material changes to the Funding Agreement, or

any disputes.

9.e

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

E-3

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT E

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

Santa Clara Valley Transportation

Authority

November 19, 2019

Santa Clara County Harry Freitas, Director Roads & Airports Department 101 Skyport Drive San Jose, CA 95110

Dear Sir,

VT A's Audit Manager provided a review and audit services related to the Vehicle Registration

Fee (VRF), Local Road Improvement and Repair Program Funding Agreement (Funding

Agreement) between the County of Santa Clara (County) and VTA, dated July 25, 2012.

Our engagement was performed in accordance with Standards for Auditing issued by the

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

Our procedures were performed solely to assist the VT A in determining compliance with the

Funding Agreement and VRF Program requirements. This report should not be used for any

other purposes.

The procedures we performed, the results of our tests, and any observations are summarized on

the following pages.

We noted certain exceptions to the VRF Funding Agreement, or opportunities for Improvement,

as detailed on the following pages.

We appreciate the opportunity to work with the County of Santa Clara.

Sincerely,

17~ f,tL Meeta Podar, CPA, CIA

Audit Program Manager, VT A

3331 North First Stree t c:~n l r\ <; 1=> ra QI:\1'Ll- 1Q?7

Ad mini stration 408 -321-5555 rrrctnrn .:> r C:c..-uir o Lln~ - ~?1-'~nn t:;n/utinnc:; thrlt mnvP vnu

9.e

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

E-4

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT E

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

County of Santa Clara


November 19, 2019

2

VRF EXPENDITURES REPORTED TO VTA BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

(RECIPIENT)

The following amounts were subject to testing

Fiscal Year Amount

2013 -0-

2014 117,956

2015 1,186,559

2016 4,976,328

2017 338,740

2018 3,377,249

SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS

We noted the following during our review:

• VRF annual reports were not submitted timely in five of the six year audited. Annual

reports are due before October 15 each fiscal year as required by the funding agreement. The

FY13 annual report was submitted on October 23, 2013, FY15 annual report was submitted

on October 19, 2015, FY16 annual report was submitted on December 15, 2016, FY17 was

submitted on October 30, 2017 and FY18 was submitted on November 30, 2018.

• Actual Expenditures in Fiscal Years 2016, 2017 and 2018 do not match that reported to VTA.

Under-reporting in Fiscal years 2016 and 2017 is subsequently offset by over-reporting in Fiscal year

2018, leaving an unaccounted amount of $341.

Fiscal Year Projects

VTA Annual

Report

Actual

Expenditures Difference

C3358-Lawrence Homestead/SR237 4,226,622 4,226,622 -

C3359 -Capitol Tully/Quimby 748,113 748,113 -

C3360-Capitol US101/Seven Trees 1,593 1,593 -

C3373-Lawrence Homestead/Quito 36,369 (36,369)

4,976,328 5,012,697 (36,369)

C3358-Lawrence Homestead/SR237 124,218 124,218 -

C3373-Lawrence Homestead/Quito 214,522 250,766 (36,244)

338,740 374,984 (36,244)

C3373-Lawrence Homestead/Quito 3,377,249 3,303,953 73,295

Labor charge 2018 (341) (341)

3,377,249 3,303,612 72,954

8,692,316 8,691,293 341 Totals

2017

2016

2018

Fiscal Year 2016 Total



9.e

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

E-5

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT E



November 19, 2019

3

• VRF expenditures are combined with other public funding sources and the rest of the County’s

Capital Project Expenditures. Due to this, supporting documentation for VRF specific expenditures

reported on the County’s Annual Reports to VTA could not be obtained. We were provided with the

County’s VRF-related project expenditures and were able to select and test invoices and payroll

records equal to or greater than 50% of the reported VRF expenditures, in most years.

• Interest earned on unexpended VRF funds was calculated incorrectly, as a result, total

interest for fiscal years 2013-2018 was overstated by $1,619. The net overstatement of

interest is due to a faulty interest calculation method. Current Senior Accountant in charge of

calculating interest corrected previous calculation method in FY16, after taking over this

responsibility. The County has adopted the correct calculation method in FY19 and will

continue using this method in future interest calculation. The County will adjust reported

interest on the FY20 Annual Report by the amount overstated.

• VTA’s funding contribution was not credited in Fiscal years 2013 to 2015 or

acknowledged on signage, electronic or printed materials distributed to the public that were

related to VRF Program projects, as required by the Funding Agreement.

9.e

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

E-6

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT E



November 19, 2019

4

We recommend that going forward:

• The County submit VRF annual reports before October 15 of each fiscal year to comply

with the Funding Agreement.

• Actual expenditures agree with those reported to VTA on the Annual Report. Annual

VRF Report submitted to VTA include an SAP report of VRF expenditures in addition to

a breakdown by project spending.

• Although not a Funding Agreement requirement, the County strongly consider

implementing best practices and tracking VRF project expenditures to the funding source

for the purpose of increased precision and maintenance of an audit trail. This may entail

implementing a parallel system of record for VRF transactions. This would also lead to

more accurate reporting of VRF expenditures.

• In its FY20 report, the County report the aggregate interest error and restate its opening

VRF fund balance to include the amount of earned interest previously unreported. The

County report subsequent interest earned or allowable VRF expenditures incurred using

the unreported interest in compliance with the agreement.

• The County appropriately credit VTA’s funding contribution with signage and other

distributed materials, if such materials are deemed applicable. Additionally, evidence of

applicable publicly distributed materials and the related VRF-funded projects should be

included in the County’s annual submission of the VRF Program Annual Report to VTA.

9.e

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

E-7

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT E



November 19, 2019

5

PROCEDURES PERFORMED

• Compared the total VRF distribution amounts from the VTA to the County’s records, by fiscal year.

• Reviewed the first expenditures, based on invoice date, noting that costs were not incurred prior to

July 1, 2011.

• Determined whether the County has submitted to VTA an Annual Report of its VRF Program

expenditures and associated interest, covering twelve months consisting of the previous State fiscal

year, no later than October 15 (for each fiscal year).

• Determined whether the County had certified that it made a Good Faith Effort (GFE) to maintain a

level of VRF expenditures, as part of its Annual Reports (for each fiscal year).

• Compared direct costs from reported expenditure to supporting documentation to ascertain whether

the costs were eligible under the VRF Funding Agreement and California Senate Bill 83 (for a sample

representing at least 50% of expenditures for that Fiscal Year). Eligible costs include congestion and

pollution mitigation expenditures and certain matching funds for transportation programs.

o For payroll charges, traced amounts to payroll records or timecards

o Determined that VRF Program financial records, books, documents, papers, accounting records

and other evidence has been maintained for five years

• Assessed whether the County expended funds on the VRF Projects identified in the Annual Reports

(for each fiscal year).

• Assessed whether the County credited VTA's funding contribution on all signage, electronic

or printed materials distributed to the public that are related to VRF Program projects.

• Assessed whether the County tracked interest earned on unexpended VRF Program funds and applied

interest to VRF Program eligible projects.

• Inquired whether there have been any material changes to the Funding Agreement, or any disputes.

9.e

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

E-8

Fiore_C

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT E



Board Meeting: N/A

BOARD MEMORANDUM


2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee



SUBJECT: Consider Exercising Option Year on Compliance Audit Contract with Macias,

Gini and O’Connell LLP

Policy-Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No

ACTION ITEM

RECOMMENDATION:

Consider exercising the option to extend the contract with Macias, Gini & O’Connell LLP

(MGO) for independent compliance auditing services to the 2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog

Committee (CWC), at a cost of $29,700 for the Fiscal Year 2019 audit cycle.

BACKGROUND:

In November 2000, the voters in Santa Clara County approved Measure A, a 30-year half cent

sales tax devoted to enhancing the county’s public transit system. The Measure A ballot

established the 2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee (CWC) and mandated that,

among other duties, this independent body must:

• Review all 2000 Measure A expenditures.

• Have an audit conducted each fiscal year by an independent auditor to ensure tax dollars

are being spent in accordance with the intent of the measure.

To fulfill these ballot-mandated responsibilities, on April 13, 2016, the CWC, based on the

results of a competitive procurement process, approved awarding a contract for compliance

auditing services to Macias, Gini & O’Connell LLP (MGO). The base term of the contract is for

two years (two audit cycles) at a fixed price of $56,050 ($28,025 per year), which covered audit

cycles for Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 and FY 2016. In addition, the contract includes five optional

one-year contract extensions at a fixed price of $29,700 per year (no escalation factor), to be

executed at the sole discretion of the CWC.

mcgraw_a

Text Box

10

of 2

On August 9, 2017, the CWC exercised the option to extend the contract with MGO for

independent compliance auditing services to the CWC for two years at a cost of $29,700 per

year/audit cycle, covering audit cycles for FY 2017 and FY 2018.

DISCUSSION:

At this juncture, the CWC will need to determine whether to exercise its contractual option to

extend the contract with MGO for compliance auditing services, or initiate the process to

determine a qualified replacement firm to perform the required compliance auditing services.

The MGO contract can be extended by one or more years (audit cycles), up to a maximum of

five years.

If the CWC chooses to not extend the MGO contract, government code requires that a

competitive bid process be conducted to solicit proposals from additional qualified independent

CPA firms to provide compliance auditing services. This process would take approximately

three to four months to complete. Because the CWC’s compliance audit process normally starts

in January, the competitive bid process would have to be initiated no later than September of the

previous year to ensure the new firm would be under contract by year end. In addition, time

would need to be factored into the audit schedule for any new firm to become familiar with the

history and status of the Measure A program and expenditures prior to performing the audit.

Staff recommends, based on the quality of the work performed and the committee's expressed

satisfaction with the reports received to date, that the CWC exercise its option to extend the

contract with MGO. For FY 2020 and FY 2021 (through June 2021) audit cycles, the Committee

would again be asked its choice to extend the existing contract or seek a replacement firm.

ALTERNATIVES:

The Committee may choose to exercise any number of the three remaining one-year options to

extend the current contract. The Committee may choose to not extend the contract, which will

require that a competitive bid process be conducted to identify qualified independent CPA firms

to provide ballot-required compliance auditing services.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Extending the contract with MGO will cost $29,700 per each one-year option, as specified in the

contract. Independent compliance auditing services for the CWC is funded entirely by the 2000

Measure A Transit Improvement Program. Appropriation for any extension through June 30,

2021 is included in the FY 2020 & FY 2021 Adopted 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement

Program Fund Operating Budgets. Appropriation for further extension of the contract will be

included in subsequent Biennial Operating Budgets as appropriate.

Prepared by: Board Office

Memo No. 7258



Board Meeting: N/A

BOARD MEMORANDUM


2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee (refer to Citizens Advisory

Committee)



SUBJECT: Review of 2000 Measure A Citizen Watchdog Committee Duties,

Responsibilities and Limitations


BACKGROUND:

In November 2000, Santa Clara County voters approved Measure A, a 30-year half cent sales tax

devoted to enhancing the county’s public transit system. The Measure A ballot mandated that an

independent citizens watchdog committee, comprised of VTA’s Citizens Advisory Committee

(CAC), must “review all expenditures.” The ballot also defined other specific responsibilities

and duties of the Committee. On April 1, 2006 the CAC assumed its duties as the Citizens

Watchdog Committee (CWC) for the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program.

To help the Committee, particularly newer members, understand their charge and focus their

work, staff provides an annual review of the CWC’s ballot-specified duties, responsibilities and

limitations. This review is given at the start of each calendar year to coincide with the CWC

beginning its process of reviewing the 2000 Measure A financial statements and reports for the

most recently completed fiscal year.

DISCUSSION:

County residents, in approving Measure A, entrusted the CWC with oversight for the tax

collected under Measure A, to ensure that those revenues are expended solely to improve transit

in the county, in accordance with the intent of the ballot. The CWC’s ballot-defined

responsibilities can be summarized as two primary duties:

1) Reviewing 2000 Measure A expenditures to ensure that the funds are being spent in

accordance with the intent of the ballot; and

2) Informing the citizens of Santa Clara County, on a regular basis, regarding the

11

of 5

Committee’s conclusion on how 2000 Measure A tax dollars are being spent.

Policy-related decisions for the 2000 Measure A Program, including the composition,

implementation, completion schedule, and funding level of projects, are the responsibility of the

VTA Board of Directors.

Duties and Responsibilities

The 2000 Measure A ballot specified certain tasks that the CWC is responsible for

accomplishing:

• Review all 2000 Measure A expenditures

This is understood to mean the use of funds, not the review of all individual expenditures, of

which there are hundreds, if not thousands, annually. Due to the magnitude of the 2000

Measure A Transit Improvement Program (2000 Measure A TIP) and the number and

complexity of its projects, it is impractical for the CWC to review every expenditure for all

projects. Instead, the Committee reviews groupings of expenditures to determine if they

were expended on behalf of 2000 Measure A projects.

There are several tools the Committee utilizes to assess whether 2000 Measure A funds are

being spent in accordance with the intent of the ballot:

▪ Reports provided by staff

➢ 2000 Measure A Program Semi-Annual Report is a six-month snapshot of the current

fiscal year and is provided to keep the Committee informed on the completion status

of projects and any issues encountered. Since the Measure A Program Semi-Annual

is a brief progress report and does not cover the entire fiscal year, it does not contain

audited final figures. The next of these reports, which covers the period of July -

December 2019, is scheduled for the Committee’s March 2020 meeting.

➢ Measure A Fund Swap Report is a component section of the Measure A Program

Semi-Annual Report. It too is a six-month snapshot, providing an update on the

status of Measure A funds exchanged with other funds, as approved by the VTA

Board of Directors. It specifically tracks disbursements and repayments of swapped

Measure A funds.

➢ BART Silicon Valley Program Semi-Annual Update is a focused six-month snapshot

that updates the Committee on the major achievements and challenges encountered

during the period as well as the current status of the BART Silicon Valley program

and its component projects. The BART Silicon Valley Program Semi-Annual Update

covering July - December 2019 is scheduled for the Committee’s March 2020

meeting.

▪ Compliance section findings for the Measure A Program reached by VTA’s independent

financial auditor Macias Gini O’Connell LLP (MGO), as contained in the Measure A

Program section of VTA’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).

▪ Findings and conclusion reached by the independent compliance auditor retained by the

Committee (discussed in the next section).

11

of 5

• Have an audit conducted each fiscal year by an independent auditor to ensure tax

dollars are being spent in accordance with the intent of the measure.

The ballot specifically requires the Committee to have an independent audit of the 2000

Measure A TIP financial statements and records performed annually. The ballot also grants

the Committee the ability to contract with a qualified independent auditor of its choice,

following competitive bidding requirements specified by government code.

An audit is defined as a systematic review or examination of the assertions or actions of a

third party to evaluate conformance to some norm or benchmark. The purpose of an

independent audit is to provide users of a set of financial statements or records with

independent assurance that the information presented in those documents is reliable. The

independent auditor obtains reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the financial statements

or records are fairly presented. To reach their audit opinion, the independent auditor

performs observations and conducts sampling, testing and inquiries.

The results of the independent compliance audit is one of the most important tools the

Committee utilizes to form its conclusion on whether 2000 Measure A tax dollars during the

subject period were spent in accordance with the intent of the ballot.

Because the fiscal year ends on June 30th and several months are required to process the final

transactions and prepare the financial statements, the independent auditor typically does not

initiate the compliance audit until January of the year following the subject fiscal year. As

such, the auditor’s draft report is not completed until mid-March, at the earliest, and thus

normally presented to the Committee at its April meeting.

For the audits of FY 2008 forward, the Committee elected to utilize the services of an

independent auditing firm not under contract to VTA, the purpose being to remove any

potential appearance of conflict of interest.

• Hold public hearings and issue reports at least annually to inform Santa Clara County

residents how the funds are being spent.

The ballot specifically requires the Committee to hold public hearings at least annually. The

public hearing provides the community the opportunity to express to the Committee its

views, opinions, and concerns on 2000 Measure A Program expenditures, the results of the

annual independent audit, and on Measure A Program reports.

The difference between the public hearing and a regular CWC meeting is that at the hearing

the Committee receives input from the public but does not debate nor engage in extended

discussion with speakers or other Committee members. After the hearing is closed, the

Committee then has the opportunity to discuss the input received.

11

of 5

The public hearing on FY 2019 expenditures is tentatively scheduled for May 13, 2020, to be

conducted in combination with the scheduled CAC/CWC meeting. At its March or April

2020 meeting, the Committee will be asked to determine the specific date and location of the

hearing based on meeting room availability and other factors.

• Publish the results of the independent audit and the annual report in local newspapers.

The ballot specifically requires the CWC to public the results of the independent audit and its

annual report in local newspapers in VTA’s service area.

To fulfill this requirement, the CWC has utilized a combination public notice that jointly

announces the public hearing and also the results of the independent audit. This strategy has

been successfully employed for many years and has yielded significant savings in newspaper

advertising costs since only one, not two separate, public notices are published.

Similarly, for the required publication of its annual report the CWC has developed a process

where three separate but interrelated versions are produced each year, each with different

focus areas and levels of detail. The three versions are:

A) Abbreviated version for publication in local newspapers.

B) Summary report that focuses on benefits and key achievements that is placed on

VTA’s website and is also distributed in hard copy format to libraries, hospitals and

other public buildings throughout Santa Clara County.

C) Comprehensive report for placement exclusively on VTA’s website that includes

extensive explanations, descriptions, history, background, graphics, and project

status pages including photos.

This approach was implemented to enhance the effectiveness of the report by allowing the

reader to choose the topic area of interest and the level-of-detail that best suits their needs

while concurrently making better use of Measure A funds by reducing ad placement costs

while ensuring broad distribution and availability of the report to the public. All three

versions indicate the Committee’s conclusion on whether during the subject period 2000

Measure A tax dollars were spent in accordance with the intent of the ballot. However, it

should be noted that the Committee independently decides each year on the format and

content of its Annual Report.

Authority

The 2000 Measure A ballot confers to the CWC the ability to contract for specific services and to

expend funds to complete certain requirements, all of which were previously discussed. These

are:

Hire an outside audit firm

• Independent compliance auditor to audit the 2000 Measure A financial statements and

records.

11

of 5

Expend 2000 Measure A Funds

• Publication in general circulation newspapers in VTA’s service area of:

➢ Public notice announcing when and where the CWC’s public hearing will be held.

➢ Results of the independent audit (typically combined with the public hearing

notice to reduce ad publication costs).

➢ CWC Annual Report, to inform county residents of the CWC’s conclusion on

how funds are being spent and to also inform them on the Measure A TIP’s

milestones and accomplishments.

Limitations

The 2000 Measure A ballot also places certain limits or restrictions on the CWC. Most notable

of these are:

• The CWC’s responsibility is limited to reviewing 2000 Measure A expenditures to ensure

funds are being spent in accordance with the intent of the ballot and to inform residents of

the county of its findings. All 2000 Measure A TIP policy-related decisions are the

purview of the VTA Board of Directors, including the composition, implementation,

schedule and funding level of projects.

• The CWC’s ability to expend funds is limited to ballot-defined activities, such as having

the annual independent audit performed, publishing the CWC’s Annual Report, etc.

Expending funds on any other purpose or activity is not permitted.

Prepared By: Board Office

Memo No. 7235

11

Date: December 30, 2019


Board Meeting: N/A

BOARD MEMORANDUM




FROM: Chief External Affairs Officer, Jim Lawson

SUBJECT: 2020 Citizens Advisory Committee/2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog

Committee Meeting Schedule

Policy-Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No

ACTION ITEM

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the 2020 Citizens Advisory Committee/2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee

(CAC/CWC) Meeting Schedule.

BACKGROUND:

The CAC/CWC generally meets on the Wednesday following the first Thursday of the month at

4:00 p.m. The following meeting dates are proposed for 2020:

DATE TIME

Wednesday, January 15 (3rd Wed.) 4:00 PM

Wednesday, February 12 4:00 PM

Wednesday, March 11 4:00 PM

Wednesday, April 8 4:00 PM

Wednesday, May 13 4:00 PM

Wednesday, June 10 4:00 PM

Wednesday, July 8* 4:00 PM

Wednesday, August 12 4:00 PM

Wednesday, September 9 4:00 PM

Wednesday, October 7 4:00 PM

Tuesday, November 10** 4:00 PM

Wednesday, December 9* 4:00 PM

13

of 2

*Meetings for the months of July and December will be held to hear urgent items only. **November meeting being held on Tuesday, due to the Veterans' Day Holiday on

November 11th.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no Fiscal Impact.

Prepared by: Board Office

Memo No. 7227

13




BOARD MEMORANDUM





SUBJECT: Express Bus Partnership Program Service Plan

Policy-Related Action: Yes Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No

ACTION ITEM

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommend that the VTA Board of Directors adopt a new Express Bus Partnership Program and

a new pilot Vanpool Subsidy Program for implementation in April 2020.

BACKGROUND:

This memo is the culmination of a two-year effort to transition VTA’s Express bus routes into a

new partnership program that will:

1. increase service responsiveness to changing market conditions,

2. develop new public-private partnerships for commute solutions, and

3. carry more riders per dollar than today’s Express bus network.

This Background section describes the development of the program.

VTA currently operates ten Express bus routes. One of these, Express 181, serves the Warm

Springs BART station in Fremont and will be discontinued upon the start of BART service to

Berryessa. A second, Express 168, provides a regionally important link between South County

and the core transit network. For this reason, Express 168 will remain in operation and will not

be impacted by this program (separately, staff will work with the South County community in

2020 to develop service improvements to this route for implementation in 2021). The remaining

eight Express bus routes are the subject of this memo, which recommends transitioning them to a

new Express Bus Partnership Program. A map of these routes can be found attached as

Appendix A. The process to develop this program was:

14

of 6

2015 – 2018: Next Network Service Plan. The two-year planning effort established a

new local transit network and did not propose any changes to the Express bus routes. The

Next Network plan included the reallocation of resources from the four Alameda County

BART Express routes into VTA’s local network, per longstanding planning assumptions

as part of the BART Silicon Valley project. The Next Network was never implemented.

Spring 2018: Express Performance Report. Staff brought an Express Bus performance

report to the VTA committees and Board in Spring 2018. This report explored the

performance of the Express Bus network, particularly its high cost per rider due to

fundamentals of the service design.

2019: New Transit Service Plan. Per direction from the VTA Board as recommended by

the Ad Hoc Financial Stability Committee, staff developed a revised service plan. The

new plan was based on the Next Network plan, but followed new parameters set by the

Board, notably a reduction in service levels to achieve a $14.7M annual operating cost

savings. The draft version of the plan included the elimination of many Express Bus trips,

a proposal that was unpopular with community members. The adopted final plan included

a reduction of the Express Bus network cost by approximately 50 percent but deferred the

changes to the adoption of the forthcoming partnership program (this memo). While the

Express bus network remains unchanged and in operation today, the remainder of the

new service plan was implemented on December 28.

2019: Express Bus Study. Per Board direction, staff explored a wide range of options for

the Express Bus Program and carried forward the feasible options for further

development, including the Express bus partnership model and the vanpool subsidy

program as proposed in this plan.

Spring – Fall 2019: Discussions with Potential Partners. Staff engaged institutions

throughout the county to explore the potential for service partnerships. Although

primarily focused on medium and large employers currently served by VTA Express bus

service, staff also engaged institutions such as colleges and universities, municipalities,

business groups, and non-profit organizations. Staff held dozens of discussions with

interested parties, refining the terms of potential service partnerships. Although

discussions were not limited to markets currently served by VTA Express buses, these

markets emerged as the only ones with a reasonable chance of partnership at this time.

Fall 2019: Express Bus Status Update. Staff brought an informational status update

item to the VTA standing and advisory committees in September 2019. The status update

outlined the basic structure of the forthcoming partnership program as well as a status of

discussions with potential partners.

Fall 2019: Rider Engagement. Although the partnership program will be based on

partnerships with institutional sponsors, staff also engaged riders directly to gather

feedback and refine the program. Given the commuter schedules of Express bus riders,

staff made extra efforts to meet the riders on their schedule – by utilizing a project

website for feedback, flyers handed directly to riders onboard buses, notices posted at all

Express bus stops, and multi-lingual engagement staff riding Express trips and talking

face-to-face with riders. The Express bus rider community gave valuable feedback.

14

of 6

Winter 2019: Title VI Service Equity Analysis. Once the service partnerships were

confirmed, staff conducted a service equity analysis to determine the impact on minority

and low-income residents, per VTA’s Transit Service Guidelines and Title VI program.

As shown in the full report attached as Appendix B, the service plan as proposed

would have no disparate impacts on minority residents or disproportionate burden

on low income residents.

The result of this two-year effort is the plan as proposed in this action.

DISCUSSION:

This action would transition VTA’s Express bus network to a new program that invites third-

party partnerships to provide more effective and focused Express bus service. In addition to the

Express bus program, this action also proposes a 12-month pilot vanpool subsidy program for

markets that will not be served by Express bus service.

Parameters of the Express Bus Partnership Program

The partnership program will entail partnerships with employers and other institutions who will

provide a financial subsidy to VTA in order to offset the high cost of operating Express bus

service. The program would have the following features:

1. The program will rely on third-party partnerships; VTA will not operate Express bus

routes without a partner (excluding Express 168, which will remain). The financial

subsidy will be set as a fixed percentage of VTA’s operating cost of the route. For the

initial rollout of the program with the partners and service as detailed below, the third-

party subsidy will be 25% of each route’s fully-allocated operating cost.

2. The service level on each route (i.e. the number of daily trips offered) will be up to the

partners, based on the their financial ability to pay, since the subsidy will be determined

by the total cost of the route.

3. The program will be open to any third-party institution willing to partner, including

employers, government entities, business groups, and non-profits. In addition to

employees/members of the partners who will ride free, all routes will be open to the

public, who would pay the standard Express fare to ride.

4. The Express bus route network will evolve over time as the partners may change from

year to year. The program will operate on a calendar year basis, with major changes to

service implemented each February, coincident with VTA’s annual transit service plans.

5. Route design will largely be up to the partner and will not be limited to routes operated

presently or in the past. Service to new areas will be welcome. During the initial rollout,

the service market would be limited to routes within Santa Clara County, though future

iterations of the program could consider service outside the county with Board consent.

6. The program’s direct financial subsidies will replace the Express Add-On product in

VTA’s SmartPass Program. Employees/members of the partner organizations will ride

VTA Express bus routes for free as a benefit of the partnership. Members of the public

will continue to pay the standard $5 Express bus fare.

14

of 6

7. The Express bus routes will be tailored specifically for the partners. VTA Service

Planning staff will use input from partners to determine the schedule, route alignment,

and stop patterns for each route. The routes will be more flexible and attractive for riders.

Initial Partners and Service

Following intensive discussions with potential partners and several rounds of service refinement,

a service plan has been developed and confirmed that meets the goals of the program. The

service and partners for an initial rollout in April 2020 are listed below (refer to Appendix A map

for these routes).

1. Express 101 (Camden & Highway 85 — Stanford Research Park), sponsored by

Stanford Research Park. Two round trips daily.

2. Express 102 (South San Jose — Stanford Research Park), sponsored by Stanford

Research Park. Five round trips daily.

3. Express 103 (Eastridge — Stanford Research Park), sponsored by Stanford

Research Park. Three round trips daily.

4. Express 104 (Penitencia Creek Station — Stanford Research Park), sponsored by

Stanford Research Park. Two round trips daily.

5. Express 121 (Gilroy/Morgan Hill — Lockheed Martin), sponsored by Lockheed

Martin and Juniper Networks. Three round trips daily.

Financials and Performance

The total cost of the proposed Express bus network is $3.2 million (FY19 fully-allocated cost),

and the partners have agreed to subsidies that will total $795,000 (25% of the cost of service).

The financials would bring these routes into compliance with VTA’s Service Guidelines and the

Board-adopted goal of a 25% farebox recovery ratio.

The proposed Express bus network will achieve the cost reductions necessary per the New

Transit Service Plan adopted by the Board, while maintaining (and improving) service to VTA’s

top commuter Express markets. In fact, 90% of the combined ridership across VTA’s Express

bus network will have their route preserved under the new program. Due to very low ridership

and demand, VTA Express routes 122, 182, and 185 attracted no interested partner and will be

discontinued until those market develop to a sufficient demand to attract a sponsor.

Through more focused and flexible service design and the elimination of low ridership trips, the

program is projected to increase the Express bus network’s productivity (boardings per hour) by

at least 15% and to reduce VTA’s net cost per rider from $30 to $20.

Per VTA’s Service Guidelines, performance of the Express bus network will be regularly

monitored and reported using the following key performance indicators:

• Boardings per hour (primary standard)

• Net cost per rider

• Farebox recovery ratio

14

of 6

Implementation

The Express Bus Partnership Program network of routes will be implemented on April 6, 2020.

Partners of the initial launch of service have committed to subsidize 12 months of service as

proposed. Future changes to the Express bus network will be developed in coordination with

sponsors as part of the development of VTA’s annual transit service plans (beginning in the

summer of each year).

Vanpool Subsidy Pilot Program

There are commuter markets in the county that do not have sufficient demand to support a fixed

Express bus route, but could be great markets for vanpools as an alternative to driving alone. (A

vanpool is essentially a group of riders that organize themselves and elect to commute to work

using a vanpool vehicle of either 7-seats or 15-seats; the riders determine the schedule and

operate the vehicle themselves, and they split the cost of fuel and the vehicle, which is paid to

Enterprise CarShare.)

In fact, there is already a small but established network of vanpools that riders use to commute

throughout the Bay Area. There are currently over 550 known vanpools that commute across the

Bay Area’s nine counties. Of these 550, there are 4 that begin and end entirely within Santa

Clara County.

This proposal includes a 12-month pilot vanpool subsidy program to supplement the new

Express bus network and provide an additional commute solution for solo drivers. The program

would also be an attractive option for riders of the Express bus routes that will be discontinued.

The vanpool subsidy pilot would have the following general parameters:

1. In order to capitalize on an already established program and to reduce administrative

costs, VTA’s program will supplement the existing regional vanpool subsidy program

from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).

2. In order to be eligible for the VTA subsidy, the vanpool must also be qualified for and

participate in MTC’s Vanpool Program. The vanpool routes must also be open to the

public and they must begin and end within Santa Clara County.

3. VTA will provide a subsidy payment of $350 per month per vanpool (currently equal to

the subsidy provided by MTC) in order to offset more of the riders’ out-of-pocket costs

(currently between $1,100 and $1,575 per month depending on van size and mileage).

4. VTA’s pilot program will be limited to the first 20 vanpools, thereby limiting the pilot

program’s total cost to $100,000. The funds for the vanpool program are available in

VTA’s operating budget, using excess savings achieved through the Express Bus

Partnership Program.

5. Staff will provide participation updates to the VTA Board and committees at regular

intervals throughout the pilot. Staff will also prepare a recommended Board action to

continue, revise, and/or end the program prior to the end of the initial 12-month pilot.

The vanpool subsidy program would be implemented in April 2020, coincident with the Express

Bus Partnership Program.

14

of 6

ALTERNATIVES:

Alternatively, the VTA Board of Directors could:

1. Adopt the Express Bus Partnership Program but not the vanpool subsidy pilot program.

2. Elect to maintain the existing Express bus network. There are not sufficient funds in

VTA’s FY20 transit operating budget to continue service at this level, so staff would

return to the Board with options to close the gap. Without a SmartPass Express Add-On

Program in place, employees of the partner companies would be expected to pay $2.50

per boarding out-of-pocket. VTA would also have to return the advance Express bus

subsidy payment paid by Lockheed Martin to VTA in late 2019.

3. Direct staff to achieve the necessary cost reductions through the specific reductions in

service as proposed in 2019 as part of the draft New Transit Service Plan. Without a

SmartPass Express Add-On Program in place, employees of the partner companies would

be expected to pay $2.50 per boarding out-of-pocket. This option would also require

VTA to return the advance Express bus subsidy payment paid by Lockheed Martin to

VTA in late 2019.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Adopting the Express Bus Partnership Program and pilot Vanpool Subsidy Program would have

no fiscal impact on the operating budget as adopted, since the FY20 and FY21 adopted budgets

already include the cost reductions that these programs would achieve.

Prepared by: Janice Soriano

Memo No. 7023

ATTACHMENTS:

• Appendix A Map of VTA Express Bus Service (PDF)

• Appendix B Express Bus Partnership Program Title VI Analysis (PDF)

• Presentation - Express Bus Partnership (PDF)

14

Appendix A: Map of VTA’s Current Express Bus Service (excluding Express Routes 120, 140, 180,181 serving Warm Springs BART)

14.a

Title VI Service Equity Analysis Express Bus Partnership Service Plan

Transit Service Planning December 2019

14.b

Title VI Service Equity Analysis of Express Bus Partnership Service Plan

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 2

2 Background .................................................................................................................................................. 2

3 Service Proposal ......................................................................................................................................... 5

4 Title VI Policies ............................................................................................................................................ 5

5 Adverse Effects ............................................................................................................................................ 6

6 Data ................................................................................................................................................................ 7

7 Disparate Impact Analysis (minority passengers) ............................................................................... 7

8 Disproportionate Burden Analysis (low income passengers) ......................................................... 9

9 Restoration of Service ............................................................................................................................. 10

Appendix: VTA Title VI Policy and Adoption Record ........................................................................ A

14.b


2

1 INTRODUCTION

Title VI (codified at 42 U.S.C. §2000 et seq.) was enacted as part of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.

In order to comply with Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Title VI Circular 4702.1B and Environmental Justice Circular 4703.1 requirements, VTA is required to perform a Service Equity Analysis to evaluate the impacts of all major service changes on minority and low income passengers. The Service Equity Analysis must be conducted in accordance with the VTA Major Service Change, Disparate Impact, and Disproportionate Burden policies, which were adopted by the VTA Board of Directors on November 7, 2013 (see Appendix A).

After completing a Service Equity Analysis for the proposed Express Bus Partnership Service Plan, VTA staff concludes that this major service change does not impose a disparate impact on minority passengers or a disproportionate burden on low income passengers.

2 BACKGROUND

VTA operates 13 express bus routes specifically design to serve commuters making long-distance trips to major employment centers. These 100-series routes typically offer a few one-way trips during each weekday commute period. These long-distance routes complement VTA’s non-Express bus and light rail routes that focus on the shorter-distance travel market. VTA is developing the Express Bus Partnership Program, which invites third-party funding partnerships to help offset the high cost of Express bus operation and bring these routes into compliance with VTA’s performance standards. In light of this forthcoming Express Bus Partnership Program, each of VTA’s thirteen Express bus routes fall into one of three categories:

1. Four routes will be discontinued when BART begins revenue service (Express 120, 140, 180, 181)

2. One route will be transitioned to Rapid service in the local transit network (Express 168) 3. The remaining eight routes will be eligible for sponsorship under the Express Bus

Partnership Program The remaining eight Express bus routes eligible for sponsorship under the Express Bus Partnership Program are:

Express 101: Camden & Highway 85 to Stanford Research Park

Express 102: South San Jose to Stanford Research Park

Express 103: Eastridge to Stanford Research Park

Express 104: Penitencia Creek to Stanford Research Park

Express 121: Gilroy to Lockheed/Moffett Park

14.b


3

Express 122: South San Jose to Lockheed/Moffett Park

Express 182: Palo Alto to IBM/Bailey Ave (Gilroy)

Express 185: Gilroy to East Whisman/Shoreline VTA was able to confirm sponsorships on Express Routes 101, 102, 103, 104, and 121, and these routes are proposed for inclusion in the Express Bus Partnership Service Plan in early 2020. Sponsorships for Express Routes 122, 182, and 185 were not secured, resulting in this proposal to discontinue these three routes. Staff conducted this Service Equity Analysis to determine if this reduction in Express bus service (elimination of some routes, and individual trips on other routes) would disproportionately impact low income or minority groups.

14.b


4

FIGURE 1 – MAP OF CURRENT EXPRESS BUS SERVICE (EXCLUDING EXPRESS ROUTES 120, 140, 180, 181 SERVING BART)

14.b


5

3 SERVICE PROPOSAL

This proposal was developed for the purpose of reducing overall VTA transit operating costs, with a focused goal of reducing Express bus operating costs by approximately half, per directive from VTA’s Board of Directors on the 2019 New Transit Service Plan. Ultimately, these Express bus routes were identified for discontinuation because sponsorships for these routes were not secured. Some trips of Express bus routes that will continue operating in the new Express Bus Partnership Service Plan were identified for elimination based on the amount of funds VTA and the sponsoring company(ies) were able to allocate for Express bus routes. The proposal consists of the discontinuation of three Express bus routes:

Express 122 (1 morning trip, 1 evening trip)


Express 185 (3 morning trips, 3 evening trips)

The proposal also consists of the elimination of a certain number of trips for the following Express bus routes:




No changes are proposed for the number of trips offered for Express bus routes 101 and 104.

4 TITLE VI POLICIES

DISPARATE IMPACT POLICY The Disparate Impact Policy establishes a threshold for determining if a given service or fare change would result in a fair distribution of positive and negative effects on minority passengers. VTA’s Disparate Impact Policy states:

For Service or Fare Equity Analyses conducted by VTA, a disparate impact threshold of 10 percent shall be used to determine if minority riders are more negatively affected – or less positively affected – by the proposed change(s) than VTA riders as a whole. The 10 percent threshold applies to the difference between the aggregate impacts of the proposed change(s) on minority passengers and the aggregate impacts of the proposed change(s) on overall VTA ridership. Analysis shall be based on the most recent VTA passenger survey data, but may also use census data if survey data is inadequate or unavailable.

14.b


6

DISPROPORTIONATE BURDEN POLICY The Disproportionate Burden Policy establishes a threshold for determining if a given service or fare change would result in a fair distribution of positive and negative effects on low-income passengers. VTA’s Disproportionate Burden Policy states:

For Service or Fare Equity Analyses conducted by VTA, a disproportionate burden threshold of 10 percent shall be used to determine if low-income riders are more negatively affected – or less positively affected – by the proposed change(s) than VTA riders as a whole. The 10 percent threshold applies to the difference between the aggregate impacts of the proposed change(s) on low-income passengers and the aggregate impacts of the proposed change(s) on overall VTA ridership. Analysis shall be based on the most recent VTA passenger survey data, but may also use census data if survey data is inadequate or unavailable.

MAJOR SERVICE CHANGE POLICY All major service changes – both improvements and reductions – are subject to a Title VI Service Equity Analysis. As approved by the VTA Board of Directors on November 7, 2013, VTA defines the following modifications as “major” service changes:

The establishment of a new transit line or service;

The elimination of a transit line or service;

A route change that impacts 25 percent or more of a line’s route miles;

Span of service or frequency changes affecting 25 percent or more of a line’s revenue vehicle hours;

A series of changes on a single route which are included in the two-year Transit Service Plan and cumulatively meet any of the above criteria;

Proposed changes that are anticipated to be controversial with a particular community or interested parties based on public feedback; and

A systemwide change concurrently affecting 5 percent or more of the total system revenue hours.

Based on the “elimination of a transit line or service” and “potentially controversial changes” criteria, this proposal is considered a major service change.

5 ADVERSE EFFECTS

The reduction of Express bus service will have adverse effects for passengers that currently ride these Express bus routes. Some passengers will no longer have an Express bus option directly or adjacently serving their place of residence and/or work, and will have to rely on local bus trips and transfers between routes, resulting in longer travel times. Other passengers will still have the same express bus service, but with potential minor changes in route alignment and bus stop locations, and fewer trip times to choose from. Most passengers in this latter scenario would have to adjust their travel plans to meet other morning and afternoon express bus trips they were not accustomed to riding before if their original trip time is one of the eliminated trips.

14.b


7

Staff will work closely with sponsoring companies on retaining the most utilized bus stops and highest-ridership trips on each Express bus route they sponsor. Bus stop locations and trip times will be consolidated where possible to increase service productivity and cost efficiency of the Express bus route.

6 DATA

The Service Equity Analysis of the proposed service discontinuation was based upon demographic data from VTA’s most recent rider survey, which was conducted by an on-board survey of all light rail and bus routes and completed in late 2017. To ensure compliance with LEP requirements and promote minority representation, the surveys were conducted in four different languages. The survey data was selected over Census data because the survey data provided more precise demographic profiles of the actual passengers on each route. However, U.S. Census American Community Survey demographic data was used to conduct a geographic review of where minority and low-income residents live to re-affirm the survey data’s conclusions.

Survey data for Express Routes 102, 103, 121, 122, and 182 was used to determine the demographic profile of passengers that would be impacted by the service change1, as the Express bus trips proposed for elimination are of these Express bus routes. Survey data for all VTA routes was used to determine the demographic profile of systemwide passengers. From the survey, staff determined the percentage of minority and low-income passengers of the eight Express bus routes (based on 200% of the federal poverty threshold) for comparison to the number of minority and low-income passengers systemwide. Census data was used to corroborate the demographic profile of passengers of the eight Express bus routes.

1 Survey data for Express Route 185 was not collected as the service did not exist when the survey was first administered. Therefore, a weighted average of the survey data of the other seven Express bus routes was assumed for Express Route 185.

7 DISPARATE IMPACT ANALYSIS (MINORITY PASSENGERS)

A disparate impact analysis was conducted to determine if minority passengers would be more negatively impacted by the service discontinuation than VTA riders as a whole. While the analysis followed VTA’s Disparate Impact Policy as a guide, the policy’s methodology is not appropriate to accurately assess the disparate impact and disproportionate burden of isolated changes to individual routes such as this proposal. Therefore, the methodology was tailored to focus on the collective impacts caused by affected Express bus routes only, in order to more accurately assess the impact of this proposal while continuing to use the policy’s standard of 10 percent as a guide. Contextual maps depicting the minority (non-white) populations in the areas along each Express bus route are shown as Figures 2 through 7.

As shown in Table 1, minority (non-white) groups comprise 59% of all passengers on the Express bus routes proposed for change, and 76% of passengers systemwide. Therefore, the percentage of minority passengers that would be impacted by the service change is lower

14.b


8

than the VTA systemwide average. Therefore, the discontinuation of light rail express service would not meet VTA’s 10 percent disparate impact threshold.

TABLE 1 - SERVICE EQUITY ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED REDUCTION OF EXPRESS BUS SERVICE

Route Description of Change Net Change in Daily Service

Hours

Impacted Daily

Boardings

Minority Percent of Impacted Passengers

Low Income Percent of Impacted

Passengers

102 Discontinue 2 of 7 trips -8.8 -56 66% 5%



122 Discontinue entire route -4.0 -30 59% 0%



Sum of Express Bus Network Reductions

-74.0

-353

% of Minority or Low-Income Express Bus Passengers (Routes 102, 103, 121, 122, 182, 185)

59% 6%

Current Systemwide Average 76% 37%

Difference From Systemwide Average -17% -31%

Disparate Impact (>10%)? NO

Disproportionate Burden (>10%)? NO

Notes: (1) Ethnicity and low income data based on VTA 2017 on-board survey; (2) VTA defines “low income” as passengers with annual household incomes of less than twice the Federal Poverty Threshold.

As shown in Table 2, the proposed 59% reduction in hours compares favorably to the 50% reduction in ridership, illustrating the proposal’s focus on maintaining transit efficiency.

14.b


9

TABLE 2 – COMPARISON OF HOURS AND BOARDINGS

Annual Service Hours Annual Boardings

102 7,837 68,128

103 4,305 36,816

121 12,618 67,094

122 1,020 7,541

182 893 5,893

185 5,223 11,748

Existing Express Bus Service 31,896 197,220

102 5,595 48,638

103 3,230 27,623

121 4,206 22,365

122 0 0

182 0 0

185 0 0

Proposed Express Bus Service 13,031 98,625

Net Change -59% -50%

8 DISPROPORTIONATE BURDEN ANALYSIS (LOW INCOME

PASSENGERS)

A disparate impact analysis was conducted to determine if low income passengers would be more negatively impacted by the service discontinuation than VTA riders as a whole. For the same reasons as the Disparate Impact Analysis, VTA’s policy methodology was tailored to focus on the collective impact caused by affected Express bus routes only, in order to more accurately assess the impact of this proposal while continuing to use the policy’s standard of 10 percent as a guide. To adjust for the relatively high cost of living in Santa Clara County, low income passengers are defined as those living in households that earn less than twice the federal poverty threshold. A contextual map depicting the low-income populations in the areas along the express service route is shown in Figures 8 through 13.

As shown in Table 1, low income passengers comprise 6% of all passengers on the Express bus routes proposed for change and 37% of passengers systemwide. Therefore, the percentage of low income passengers that would be impacted by the service change is lower than the VTA systemwide average. Therefore, the discontinuation of light rail express service would not meet VTA’s 10 percent disproportionate burden threshold.

14.b


10

9 RESTORATION OF SERVICE

Presently, VTA has no plan to restore Express bus service to the same service levels offered today. However, the Express Bus Partnership Program will continue to evolve beyond its first year of implementation. Increased Express bus service levels could be considered if additional funds from sponsoring companies become available, and/or if more sponsors partnered with VTA on the program in the future.

14.b


11

FIGURE 2 – MAP OF MINORITY RESIDENTS ALONG EXPRESS ROUTE 102

14.b


12


14.b


13


14.b


14


14.b


15


14.b


16


14.b


17

FIGURE 8 – MAP OF LOW INCOME RESIDENTS ALONG EXPRESS ROUTE 102

14.b


18


14.b


19


14.b


20


14.b


21


14.b


22


14.b

Resolution for BoardAdoption of MajorService Change, Disparate Impact, andDisporportionateBurden Policies

VTA Title VI Program November 2016

Appendix: Title VI Policy and Approval14.b

From: Baltao, ElaineTo: Board.Secretary; Subject: November 7, 2013 Board of Directors MeetingDate: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:06:27 PM

The VTA Board of Directors met last night and took the following actions: Removed from agenda: Item #3.4 – TAEA labor contract Approved all remaining items on the Consent and Regular Agenda. The Board of Directors adjourned the meeting in memory of VTA Employee, Anita Jacobson. Office of the Board SecretarySanta Clara Valley Transportation Authority3331 N. First StreetSan Jose, CA [email protected]


mailto:/O=SCCTA/OU=N. FIRST STREET/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=BALTAO_E

mailto:/O=SCCTA/OU=N. First Street/cn=Recipients/cn=BOARD_SEC

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

Thursday, November 7, 2013

5:30 PM

Board of Supervisors’ Chambers

County Government Center

70 West Hedding Street

San Jose, CA 95110

**REVISED AGENDA**

3331 North First Street ∙ San Jose, CA 95134-1927 ∙ Administration 408.321.5555 ∙ Customer Service 408.321.2300

To help you better understand, follow, and participate in the meeting, the following

information is provided:

Persons wishing to address the Board of Directors on any item on the agenda or not on

the agenda should complete a blue card located at the public information table and hand it

to the Board Secretary staff prior to the meeting or before the item is heard.

Speakers will be called to address the Board when their agenda item(s) arise during the

meeting and are asked to limit their comments to 2 minutes. The amount of time allocated

to speakers may vary at the Chairperson's discretion depending on the number of

speakers and length of the agenda. If presenting handout materials, please provide 25

copies to the Board Secretary for distribution to the Board of Directors.

The Consent Agenda items may be voted on in one motion at the beginning of the

meeting under Orders of the Day. If you wish to discuss any of these items, please

request the item be removed from the Consent Agenda by completing a blue card at the

public information table and handing it to the Board Secretary staff prior to Orders of the

Day, Agenda Item #1.2.

**Changes from previous version:

- Agenda Item #7.7- 2014 STIP Program Adoption requires 2/3 vote

- Agenda language updated for Agenda Item #8.2 –Santa Clara Alum Rock Bus Rapid

Transit Project- Civil and Station Improvements Contract, to reflect the recommended

contractor and contract amount.


AGENDA

VTA Board of Directors


Page 2 of 6

Disclosure of Campaign Contributions to Board Members (Government Code Section 84308)

In accordance with Government Code Section 84308, no VTA Board Member shall

accept, solicit, or direct a contribution of more than $250 from any party, or his or her

agent, or from any participant, or his or her agent, while a proceeding involving a license,

permit, or other entitlement for use is pending before the agency. Any Board Member

who has received a contribution within the preceding 12 months in an amount of more

than $250 from a party or from any agent or participant shall disclose that fact on the

record of the proceeding and shall not make, participate in making, or in any way attempt

to use his or her official position to influence the decision.

A party to a proceeding before VTA shall disclose on the record of the proceeding any

contribution in an amount of more than $250 made within the preceding 12 months by

the party, or his or her agent, to any Board Member. No party, or his or her agent, shall

make a contribution of more than $250 to any Board Member during the proceeding and

for three months following the date a final decision is rendered by the agency in the

proceeding. The foregoing statements are limited in their entirety by the provisions of

Section 84308 and parties are urged to consult with their own legal counsel regarding the

requirements of the law.

All reports for items on the open meeting agenda are available for review in the Board

Secretary’s Office, 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California, (408) 321-5680, the

Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday prior to the meeting. This information is available on

our website, www.vta.org, and also at the meeting. Any document distributed less than

72-hours prior to the meeting will also be made available to the public at the time of

distribution. Copies of items provided by members of the public at the meeting will be

made available following the meeting upon request.

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VI of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, VTA will make reasonable arrangements to ensure meaningful access to

its meetings for persons who have disabilities and for persons with limited English

proficiency who need translation and interpretation services. Individuals requiring ADA

accommodations should notify the Board Secretary’s Office at least 48-hours prior to the

meeting. Individuals requiring language assistance should notify the Board Secretary’s

Office at least 72-hours prior to the meeting. The Board Secretary may be contacted at

(408) 321-5680 or : [email protected] or (408) 321-2330 (TTY only).

VTA’s home page is on the web at: www.vta.org or visit us on Facebook at:

www.facebook.com/scvta. (408) 321-2300: 中文 / Español / 日本語 / 한국어 / tiếng

Việt / Tagalog.

NOTE: THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MAY ACCEPT, REJECT OR MODIFY

ANY ACTION RECOMMENDED ON THIS AGENDA.

70 West Hedding St., San Jose, California is served by bus lines *61, 62, 66, 181, and Light Rail.

(*61 Southbound last trip is at 8:55 pm for this location.)

For trip planning information, contact our Customer Service Department at (408) 321-2300

between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

on Saturday. Schedule information is also available on our website, www.vta.org.


http://www.vta.org/

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=&daddr=70+W+Hedding+St,+San+Jose,+CA+95110&geocode=FY70OQIdWuW7-Cmda4BNfsuPgDHnRbS0n3yDaQ&hl=en&mra=ls&dirflg=r&ttype=dep&date=04%2F22%2F10&time=9:18am&noexp=0&noal=0&sort=&sll=37.35259,-121.903782&sspn=0.01

http://www.vta.org/

AGENDA



Page 3 of 6

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

1.1. ROLL CALL

1.2. Orders of the Day - approve Consent Agenda (Item #7)

2. AWARDS AND COMMENDATION

2.1. INFORMATION ITEM -Recognize Maria Luisa Sanchez-Ku, Human Resources

Analyst, River Oaks Administration; Ronald Langston, Coach Operator, Chaboya

Division; and Jose Hernandez, Senior Track Worker, Guadalupe Division, as

Employees of the Month for November 2013.

3. CLOSED SESSION

3.1. Recess to Closed Session

A. Existing Litigation - Conference with Legal Counsel

[Government Code Section 54956.9(a)]

Name of Case: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority v. Eastridge

Shopping Center (Eminent Domain)

(Santa Clara Superior Court Case No.: 1-11-CV-209524)

B. Existing Litigation - Conference with Legal Counsel

[Government Code Section 54956.9(a)]

Name of Case: Truck Rail Handling, Inc., et al. v. Santa Clara Valley

Transportation Authority, et al.

(Alameda County Superior Court Case No.: RG12628077)

C. Anticipated Litigation - Conference with Legal Counsel

Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c).

Number of potential cases: 1

Name of potential opposing party: Union Pacific

D. Anticipated Litigation - Conference with Legal Counsel

Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section

54956.9(b).

Number of potential cases: 1

E. Conference with Labor Negotiators

[Government Code Section 54957.6]

VTA Designated Representatives

Bill Lopez, Chief Administrative Officer

Robert L. Escobar, Deputy Director, Administrative Services

Joseph Smith, Chief Financial Officer


AGENDA



Page 4 of 6

Employee Organizations

Transportation Authority Engineers and Architects Association (TAEA),

IFPTE, Local 21

3.2. Reconvene to Open Session

3.3. Closed Session Report

3.4. ACTION ITEM - Approve and authorize the General Manager to execute the

amended successor labor agreement negotiated between the Santa Clara Valley

Transportation Authority (VTA) and Transportation Authority Engineers and

Architects Association (TAEA), IFPTE, Local 21.

4. PUBLIC COMMENT

This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Board of

Directors on any item within the Board's jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to 2 minutes.

The law does not permit Board action or extended discussion of any item not on the

agenda except under special circumstances. If Board action is requested, the matter can

be placed on a subsequent agenda. All statements that require a response will be referred

to staff for reply in writing.

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS

There are no public hearings.

6. REPORTS

6.1. Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Chairperson's Report. (Verbal Report)

(Brownley)

6.2. Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Chairperson's Report. (Verbal Report)

(Price)

6.3. General Manager Report. (Verbal Report)

6.3.A. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive Silicon Valley Rapid Transit (SVRT)

Program Update.

6.3.B. Receive updates regarding Metropolitan Transportation Commission

(MTC) and California Transportation Commission (CTC) activities.

6.4. Chairperson's Report. (Verbal Report)

7. CONSENT AGENDA

7.1. Approve the Board of Directors Workshop Meeting Minutes of

September 27, 2013.


AGENDA



Page 5 of 6

7.2. Approve the Board of Directors Regular Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2013.

7.3. ACTION ITEM -Review and accept the Fiscal Year 2013 Quarterly Statement of

Revenues and Expenses for the period ending June 30, 2013.

7.4. ACTION ITEM -Revise the VTA Permit Policy to authorize the General Manager

to waive fees for parties making transit improvements for VTA and adopt a

resolution amending the VTA Permit Fee Schedule, adjusting fees to be collected

for Construction Access Permits and Restricted Access Permits to be consistent

with the revision of VTA allocated rates.

7.5. ACTION ITEM -Adopt the 2013 VTA Congestion Management Program (CMP).

7.6. ACTION ITEM -Approve the allocation of $5,460,000 of Local Program Reserve

(LPR) to:

SR 680 Corridor Study $250,000

I-280 Corridor Study $250,000

I-280/Winchester Blvd Off-Ramp $250,000

US 101 Auxiliary Lanes Project $260,000 and

SR 237, SR 85 and US 101 Express Lanes $4,450,000

7.7. ACTION ITEM -Adopt a resolution to program 2014 State Transportation

Improvement Program (STIP) capacity to projects; approve a funding exchange of

$14.5 million in STIP funds for $14.5 million in Measure A funds; increase the

2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Fund Capital Budget by $14.5

million; and authorize the General Manager to execute appropriate funding

agreements to receive STIP funds.

Note: Motion must be approved by at least 2/3 of the Board (8 members).

7.8. ACTION ITEM -Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with

GECMS Inc. dba Gyeron Construction, the second lowest responsible bidder, in

the amount of $337,400 for the construction of Pedestrian Swing Gates

Replacement, and relieve the low bidder of its obligation to perform the contract.

7.9. ACTION ITEM -Review and receive the Auditor General's internal audit report

on Investment Program Controls.

7.10. ACTION ITEM -Approve the following Internal Audit Work Plans developed

and recommended by the VTA Auditor General:

1. Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 for a maximum amount of $358,800. This item

replaces the Interim FY 2014 Internal Audit Work Plan approved by the

Board on June 6, 2013 for a maximum amount of $290,500.

2. FY 2015 for a maximum amount of $364,500.

7.11. ACTION ITEM -Review and receive the Auditor General's report on the Silicon

Valley Rapid Transit Program Project Delivery Method and Project Execution

Assessment.


AGENDA



Page 6 of 6

7.12. ACTION ITEM -Review and receive the Auditor General's report on the Sheriff's

Office Contract Compliance Internal Audit.

7.13. INFORMATION ITEM -Review the Monthly Legislative History Matrix.

7.14. INFORMATION ITEM -Review VTA's adopted Sound Barrier Program.

7.15. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive a status update on implementation of the VTA

Integrity Helpline.

8. REGULAR AGENDA

8.1. ACTION ITEM -Adopt the proposed Major Service Change, Disparate Impact

and Disproportionate Burden Policies and the System-wide Service Standards &

Policies as mandated by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Title VI

guidelines.

8.2. ACTION ITEM -Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with

Goodfellow Top Grade, the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of

$54,163,685 for the construction of the Santa Clara Alum Rock Bus Rapid Transit

Project - Civil and Station Improvements.

9. OTHER ITEMS

9.1. ITEMS OF CONCERN AND REFERRAL TO ADMINISTRATION

9.2. Reports from VTA Committees, Joint Powers Boards (JPB), and Regional

Commissions

9.2.A. VTA Standing Committees

9.2.B. VTA Advisory Committees

9.2.C. VTA Policy Advisory Boards (PAB)

9.2.D. Joint Powers Boards and Regional Commissions

9.3. Announcements

10. ADJOURN in memory of Anita Jacobson, former VTA Employee.


Express Bus Partnership ProgramStaff Recommendation

VTA Board Advisory CommitteesJanuary 2020

14.c

2

Market-responsive transit service

Partnerships for commute solutions

Carry more riders per dollar

Goals for Partnership Program

1

2

3

14.c

Express Bus Partnership Program Framework

3

• Partner contributes a fixed percent of route’s operating cost (25%)

• VTA and partner design route and schedule

• Service levels (number of trips) based on partner’s financial contribution

Performance Monitoring

VTA + PartnerCollaboration

VTA Express BusRiders

• Employees/members of partners ride for free

• Members of the public continue to pay Express fare ($5)

• Boardings per hour (primary standard)

• Net cost per rider

• Farebox recovery ratio

14.c

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Note that this is a general framework that will guide this program; the Express bus route network is expected to evolve over time (e.g. partners may change year-to-year, new commute markets that warrant Express bus service even outside our County may emerge, etc.)

Proposed 2020 Express Bus Service Plan

4

101 102

103 104

121Campbell,

Camden & Hwy 852 daily round trips

&

90% of VTA’s Express bus riders have their routes preserved

through this plan

South San Jose(Santa Teresa)

5 daily round trips

Gilroy, Morgan Hill 3 daily round trips

East San Jose(Eastridge)

3 daily round trips

Berryessa, Milpitas(Penitencia Creek

Station)2 daily round trips

14.c

Presenter

Presentation Notes

For the program’s initial rollout this year…

5

2020 Sponsorship

$3.2MTotal cost of proposed Express bus network

- $795,000 Total partner subsidies

$2.4MVTA net cost

(included in FY20 & FY21 budgets)

Program Projections

15%Express bus productivity

(boardings per hour)

$30 $20VTA net cost per rider

14.c

Presenter

Presentation Notes

$3.2M cost of proposed express bus network (reduced program expenses by approx. half) 25% subsidy = compliance w/service guidelines & board-adopted goal of 25% farebox recovery

7-15 people commuting together

Qualify for & participate in MTC’s Vanpool Program ($350 per vanpool per month)

Remain open to public

Begin & end within Santa Clara County

Vanpool Subsidy Pilot Program

6

VTA’s Pilot Program Requirements

MTC provides subsidy;VTA matches subsidy

Apply for MTC’sVanpool Program

Form or join a vanpool

Commute together;split commute costs

2020 Pilot Program

Limit to first 20 vanpools

Caps VTA cost at $100,000

Pilot Program to supplement MTC’s Vanpool Program

14.c

January Committee recommendation of Express Bus Partnership Program

February Board adoption of Express Bus Partnership Program

February - March Express bus network service details finalized with sponsors

April 6, 2020 Implementation of new Express Bus Partnership Program + Vanpool Subsidy Pilot Program

Summer 2020; Discuss next year’s Express bus program with sponsorsannually thereafter

Next Steps

7

14.c

Rod Diridon, Sr.

Emeritus Executive Director

Mineta Transportation Institute

From 1993 to 2014, Rod Diridon, Sr., was executive director of

the Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI), a transportation policy

research center created in 1991 by Congress. He is known

as the father of modern transit service in Silicon Valley and has

chaired more than 100 international, national, state, and local

programs, most related to transit and the environment. He frequently

provides legislative testimony on sustainability.

Mr. Diridon was appointed in 2001 and 2005 by Governors Davis and Schwarzenegger,

respectively, to the California High Speed Rail Authority Board of which he is chair emeritus. He

helped found and is chair emeritus of the American Public Transportation Association’s (APTA)

High Speed Intercity Rail Committee and National High Speed Rail Corridors´ Coalition. He

served as president of the national Council of University Transportation Centers (CUTC) and is

the elected chair of the US High Speed Rail Association’s (US HSRA) Board.

In 1992, he served as the chair of APTA in Washington DC and for six years as North American

vice chair of the International Transit Association (UITP) in Brussels. In 1976, he chaired the

state’s first successful local half-cent sales tax for transit and subsequently chaired a state-wide

and four successful regional transportation financing and bond elections.

In 1996 he founded and chaired the Transportation Research Board´s study panel, “Combating

Global Warming through Sustainable Transportation Policy.” He advised the Federal Transit

Administration and in 1995 chaired the National Research Council´s Transportation Research

Board´s Transit Oversight and Project Selection Committee. He provided keynotes, especially for

high speed rail and sustainability, in more than 50 US cities and for a dozen international

conferences, and he has published numerous related articles. He has driven electric cars since

1996 and his home’s photovoltaic array is a net contributor to the grid. Since 1995 he’s chaired

the region’s League of Conservation Voters Board and is a Life Member of the Sierra Club. He

received lifetime achievement awards from APTA, CUTC, National Association of Counties, San

Jose State’s College of Business, US HS Ground Transport Association, US HSRA, and others.

His political career began in 1971 as the youngest person ever elected to the Saratoga City

Council. He retired in 1995 because of term limits after completing six terms as chair of

both the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and the Transit Board. He was the only

person to chair the San Francisco Bay Area´s (119 cities, 27 transit agencies, and 9 counties)

three regional governments: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Air Quality

Management District, and the Association of Bay Area Governments. He chaired nine

successful rail system development project boards. In 1995 the region’s main train station

was renamed the “San Jose Diridon Station” upon his retirement from elected office.

After receiving a BS in accounting and MSBA in statistics in 1963 from San Jose State

University, he served two combat tours as a naval officer in Vietnam. In 1968 he founded the

Decision Research Institute which was sold in 1977 after his election. Mr. Diridon has two

successful children, Rod Jr. and Mary Margaret, and four grandchildren. He is married to Dr.

Gloria Duffy, former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense and now president and CEO of

the Commonwealth Club of California. In July of 2014 he shifted to emeritus status at MTI.

mcgraw_a

Text Box

15

Doc ID Origin Short TitleCAC

1/15

CWC

1/15

BOD

1/24

BOD

2/6

CAC

2/12

CWC

2/12

BOD

2/21

BOD

3/5

CAC

3/11

CWC

3/11

BOD

4/2

CAC

4/8

CWC

4/8

BOD

4/17

BOD

5/7

CAC

5/13

CWC

5/13

BOD

6/4

7023 Dept - Transportation

Planning / Janice Soriano

Express Bus Partnership Program

Service Plan

A A

7141 Division - Planning and

Programming / Amin

Surani

Vehicle Registration Fee Countywide

Program Cycle 3

A A

7227 Citizens Advisory

Committee (CAC) / Thalia

Young

2020 Citizens Advisory Committee

Meeting Schedule

A

7116 Division - Planning and

Programming / Amin

Surani

Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF) Annual

Report

I I

7226 Dept - Board Secretary /

Anita McGraw

CAC 2019 Year-End Attendance

Report

I


Michelle Oblena

Option Year (FY 2019) on MGO

Compliance Audit Contract

A


Michelle Oblena

Review CWC Duties, Responsibilities &

Limitations

I


Michelle Oblena

Compliance Auditor Kickoff of FY19

Audit

I

7182 Dept - Technical Services /

Edwin Castillo

VTP Hwy Program Semi-Annual Report

Ending December 31, 2019

I I

7183 Dept - Technical Services /

Edwin Castillo

Measure A Semi-Annual Report ending

December 31, 2019

I I

7245 Dept - Transportation

Planning / Brent Pearse

Central Bikeway Study A A

7255 Dept – Environmental

Programs / Ann Calnan

Sustainability Plan and Annual Report I I

CAC/CWC Work Plan

January 2020 - May 2020

mcgraw_a

Text Box

16

citizens advisory committee and 2000 measure a

Documents