Santa Clara

Additional Recommendations 13

These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.

• R1
  The members of the CAC/CWC interviewed all stated they workfor the VTA Board. The primary tenet emphasized at new CAC/CWC orientation is the different, separate duties of the CAC versus the CWC. This includes that CAC is advisory to the VTA Board, reports to the Board, and is free to express opinions and recommendations on Measure A policy decisions (project composition, funding, schedule, etc.). For the CWC, it is made clear that they are established by the electorate, report to the public, not the Page AS of9 VTA Board, and that it is not within their purview to express opinions on Measure A policy decisions. These points are reiterated and emphasized at annual training provided separately to each committee on its specific duties and responsibilities (the last training on CWC duties and responsibilities was held at the February 2009 meeting: http://www .vta.orgfinside/boards/ committee advisory/ cac/agendas minutes/2 009/02 feb /cac 021109 full?acket. odf).
• R1a
  The ewe should reevaluate its scope and expand itsfunctions beyond the minimum standards stated in 2000 Measure A and operate as a true "watchdog" committee. Response The CWC provides the public with a valuable service by ensuring that Measure A revenues are spent consistently with what the voters approved in 2000. The CWC provides this oversight for the public through its reviews and independent audits. VTA disagrees with the recommendation to expand the authority of the watchdog committee as this would require VTA to return to the voters with a list of new responsibilities.
• R1b
  The Board should provide the ewe with independent advisors, including legal counsel, to assist them in this effort. Response Per Measure A, the CWC is empowered to and does spend money on an independent compliance auditor. It is unclear why the CWC might need legal counselor other independent advisors to fulfill their responsibilities. If legal counsel were ever required, VTA's Board would provide it in the most effective manner available.
• R7
  The VTA Board should have its own staff, independent ofVTA staff, toset meeting agendas, doproject investigations, write reports, publish minutes and do other tasks required by the Board. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. The VTA Board has its own staff. As stated earlier, VTA staff supports the Board of Directors and most importantly, the citizens of Santa Clara County. The general manager serves at the pleasure of the Board. Through the Board's leadership and the work carried out by staff, VTA is able provide transportation services to the citizens of Santa Clara County. FindinJ! 8 Both the Hay Report and the State Auditor Report recommended that the VTA Board make every effort to insure that new board members have transportation experience by appointing new members with previous transportation experience and reappointing members for multiple terms. Nevertheless the Mayor of San Jose recently appointed two new board members to represent San Jose who have noprevious transportation expenence. Response VTA agrees that transportation experience on the Board is important. In fact, the Board has already taken action to encourage appointments with transportation experience. VTA disagrees with the statement that the Mayor of San Jose appointed members with no previous transportation experience. The Mayor appointed members who are experienced in community issues (including transportation), land use and planning. One member, a well respected community activist and private sector software executive made transportation improvements her second highest priority during her campaign. The other served on the San Jose Planning Commission dealing with a myriad of development issues including transportation, and served one year as chair. Since a major portion of VTA's work is planning and congestion management, these skills are also provide value for Board service.
• R8
  New VTA Board members must have transit knowledge. The VTABoard should require at least onefull year on the PAC or another VTA advisory committee prior to being appointed to the Board. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. VTA agrees that having experience in transportation is beneficial to Board members prior tojoining the Board. So too is having experience in land use planning, public policy, finance, law and construction. VTA's responsibilities are far broader and its need for meaningful policy guidance is not constrained to public transit. As mentioned above the VTA Board has taken action on these matters. Findinf! 9 VTAfailed toprovide an updated Measure A Revenue and Expenditure Plan per their published schedule. As a result, voters were deprived of critical information necessary to make an informed decision regarding 2008 Measure B, an additional 1/8-cent sales tax tofund operating costsfor a BART extension toSan Jose/Santa Clara. The VTA had sufficient time and information to complete this update and made a deliberate decision not topublish itprior to the election. As a result, voters were never told thatfull funding for the BART extension wouldjeopardize the completion of other Measure Aprojects. of 12 Response VTA disagrees with the finding. VTA elected not to update the Measure A Revenue and Expenditure (R&E) Plan as economic issues, such as the dramatic downturn in the economy and its impact on sales tax receipts for the longer term are not fully understood, even today. VTA has instead adopted a fiscally sound two year budget based on apay as you go approach to manage our way through this debilitating recession. Concerning the statement that the public was unaware that VTA needs additional revenue to complete the Measure A program, as referenced above, VTA has been clear for the past several years that an additional revenue source is needed to complete the Measure A Program. Again, the R&E that was approved by the VTA Board of Directors in 2006 stated that VTA would need additional revenues equivalent to a Y4-centsales tax to complete the Measure A Program. And, at the April 25, 2008 Board Workshop, the financial consulting firm of AECOM informed the Board that the sales tax projections were $4.9 billion less than previously expected. This was widely reported in the media.
• R9a
  The VTA Board should explain why thesefacts were withheld from thepublic. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. The shortage of funding required to complete all Measure A projects has been discussed repeatedly during 2008 and was widely reported in the media. No facts were withheld from the public.
• R9b
  Infuture elections, the VTA Board should ensure that VTA staffprovides thepublic with a comprehensive explanation of the ramification of each measure, including the impact on both capital and operating fund, projections and budgets, as well as the effect on other projects. Response VTA agrees with the finding. The finding is consistent with the history and policy of VTA. Again, VTA does not withhold information from the public at any time nor will we in the future. Findinf! 10 VTA effectively suspended the shovel-ready light rail extension to Eastridge, without informing the VTA Board or the ewe in advance. Additionally, they used evasive language toprevent the Board and thepublic from understanding the true status ("reaffirming" support) of theproject. Thepeople of the east Valley deserve betterfrom the representatives of San Jose on the VTA Board. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. Large construction projects are frequently advanced and slowed down due to avariety of factors including but not limited to: funding availability, property acquisition, contractor availability and funding opportunities. The project of 12 continues to move forward in aphased approach. Furthermore, VTA is actively seeking potential funding opportunities at the regional, state and federal levels for this project.
• R10a
  The Board should amend the CAC/CWC bylaws toprovide the CWC with the authority to review and make recommendations regarding any changes to thepriority and status of all 2000 Measure Aprograms. This is a specific request over and above the responsibilities assigned by the 2000 Measure A ballot wording. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. VTA already provides the ewe with regular updates on Measure A projects. The finding is arecommendation that the Board of Director's abdicate their public policy responsibility for Measure A projects to the ewe. As stated earlier, the ewe provides the public with avaluable tool in ensuring that Measure A revenues are spent consistent with what the voters approved in 2000. The ewe provides this oversight for the public through its reviews and audits. Expanding the authority of the watchdog committee would require VTA to return to the voters with a list of new responsibilities.
• R10b
  The staff should not make unilateral changes regarding Measure Aprojects without prior CWC review and Board approval. Specific procedures should beput into place to assure that the VTA Board has reviewed and approved all changes to the scope, funding and schedule ofMeasure Aprojects before VTAstaff proceeds. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. Staff makes recommendations but does not make significant changes to projects without the Board's approval. All Measure A updates relating to the ewe's authority are brought to the committee. Findinf! 11 The Board approved Measure Cand D to beplaced on the November 2009 ballot aspart of the consent agenda and without prior review by advisory committees. This occurred on the dayprior to the deadline for the submittal of ballot measures for the November 2008 election. Response VTA agrees with the finding. VTA is required by law to place Measure e on the ballot and did so. Measure D was placed on the ballot as acost savings mechanism. The Board acted within the scope of their capacity. VTA did take the contents of Measure e (Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2035) to the advisory committees multiple times prior to placing Measure e on the ballot. None of the advisory committees expressed significant concern with the contents ofVTP 2035.
• R11
  The Board should ensure the ballot measures are submitted for Board approval on the regular agenda (never the consent agenda) after thorough review and discussion at both advisory and standing committee meetings. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. VTA has aprescribed process that takes agenda items to one of three board standing committees prior to the item moving forward to the full board. The committee considers the item carefully and makes any recommended policy changes to the item. The item is then sent to the full board for their approval. The committee recommends the item be placed either on the consent or regular agenda. Any item on the consent agenda may be removed and placed on the regular agenda by any board member, member of the public or staff request. Committee members use their judgment to determine if an item should be placed on the consent or regular agenda. The authority to place an item on the consent or regular agenda will remain at the discretion of the committee. Due to issues of timing or the public interest (such asballot measures) the Board mayor may not solicit the input of advisory committees. Findinz 12 The Board put 2008 Measure D on the ballot, assigning the responsibility for citizen review offuture VTA long-range strategic plans to the ewe, without notifYing the ewe of its intent to do so. In addition, the ewe will cease to exist on June 30, 2036, leaving the subsequent responsibility for review of the long-range plan in limbo. Response VTA agrees with the first statement of the finding. Please see the response to "Finding 11" above. The second sentence is factually inaccurate. The committee continues to exist as long as it has the legal requirement granted by Measure D to do so.
• R12
  The hastily implemented Measure D needs to be rethought before 2036. The Board should assign the responsibility for reviewing the long-range strategic plan to an organization that will remain in existence permanently. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. Measure D was not hastily implemented, in fact it is yet to be implemented as the CWC will not be required to review VTA's long-range transportation plan for five years. Measure D was not hastily put together, as the Administration & Finance Committee analyzed the issues carefully.
• R14
  The Board should give the ewethe opportunity to review all 2000 Measure Afund transfers. The eweshould point out such usage offunds to thepublic in their reports. The eweshould make apublic decision whether this usage offunds in consistent with the intention of the voters with respect to 2000 Measure A. of 12 Response VTA agrees with the finding. VTA does provide this information to the CWC. Findim! 15 Measure B on the 2008 Ballot approved a lI8-cent sales taxfor BART operations. Tax collection is slated tostart when the BART project receives full federal and statefunding. However, VTA intends tostart collecting this tax when only thejirst 2.2 miles of the BART project arefunded, not the complete project. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. VTA will begin collecting the tax once the requirements contained in Measure B are met.
• R15
  The Board should consider the intention of the voters as well as the specifics of the ballot measure when considering the issue. This tax should only be collected whenfundingfor thefull 16.1- mile BART extension is obtained from the state andfederal government. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. As stated above, VTA will begin collecting the tax once the requirements contained in the 2008 Measure B are met. Also the first phase is 9.9 miles (not 2.2). \1 ~i~CerelY, .. ~L".0 ,..----1{; O-l'Ldu ". ..--/ I ~ ./"0,__ / Dolly Sandoval, Chairperson Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority of 12 ATTACHMENT A VTA Response 2008-09 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) Report Errors, Omissions, Exaggerations NOTE: The following detailed analysis and responses to the 2008-09 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) Report follows the structure of the Grand Jury Report. The specific page number, heading, title, and, where applicable, item number are listed for easy cross-reference to the CGJ Report. Statements quoted from the report are shown in italics. "VTA is a multi-billion dollar enterprise ... " This implies VTA is a company organized for commercial purpose, no mention VTA is a special district, etc. "At anyone point in time, nine cities are not represented. " All cities are in fact represented through their city grouping. The city groupings hold meetings outside of the Board meetings to discuss VTA issues. A correct statement: that "...nine cities are not directly represented." VTA Committee Structure Regarding the CAC appointment process, it states that "San Jose chooses two, County Board of Supervisors choose one, ..." In fact, these entities appoint their members and the Board ratifies the appointment. VTA Committee Structure (continued) It is stated that the National Association ofIndustrial and Office Properties (NAIOP) is an appointing authority for CAC, which is incorrect. Approximately three years ago (June 2006) the Board approved replacing NAIOP, with Building Owners &Managers Association - Silicon Valley (BOMA-SV). The correct membership structure is reflected multiple places on VTA's website (roster, CAC bylaws, etc.). The current CAC/CWC Vice Chair Bob Jacobvitz is BOMA's representative "Regarding the CWC, ... this committee would be comprised of the existing VTA's Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC)." Although the report acknowledges that the ballot established the CWe's membership structure, later in the report when it states the membership structure is somehow a problem (former elected officials, etc.). The report fails to recognize the cost of a ballot measure (estimated at about $1 million) that would be required to modify the CWC membership structure. "The Eastridge light rail extension, which is shovel-ready is on hold." The statement is not correct. "Measure Cwas an advisory vote. It asked the voters to approve VTP 2035. " It is not an accurate statement that Measure C asked voters to approve VTP 2035. Measure C was an affirmation ofVTA and county-wide transportation services, and passed with 69.7% of voters voting in favor. Measure C was required by the 1976 cent sales tax measure. VTP Y2 2035 is not approved by the voters but by the Board. "The Hay Group Report proposed a comprehensive overhaul of VTA's organization and practices. " End of statement gives reader impression VTA did not pursue and/or achieve recommendations set forth. This gives an impression to the public that VTA has not made significant progress on addressing the recommendations (not overhaul) ofVTA's organization. "Thus even as VTA attempts to reform its governance structure it continues tofollow apractice the Hay Group report specifically criticized; namely, advisory committees do not have an opportunity to consider policy and plans in the early stages of development ... " Not true. Examples of early and frequent committee participation are the Comprehensive Operational Analysis (bus), Bus Rapid Transit, HOT Lanes, etc. "The Hay Report made a number of recommendations that would improve the VTA Board's ability to exercise its responsibilities with "reasonable care and loyalty'. " End of statement implies Board of Directors ignored recommendation. Report fails to acknowledge Board Workshop on Fiduciary Responsibility and the work of the original Governance Subcommittee on these issues. Citv Representation "San Jose, withfive members on the Board, dominates the Board." San Jose cannot technically dominate the board as they do not hold a majority. A total of seven affirmative votes are required to pass any measure except those with higher threshold requirements mandated by statute. Page A2 of9 "For a Board that ispledged to have a countywide outlook irrespective of city boundaries the current structure of representation does notpromote this ideal and lends itself to the question of just where allegiances should lie." This statement is refuted by Light Rail expansion, Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA), BART, Caltrain, Capital Corridor, ACE, Highway 17service, etc. "...was ultimately shuffled to the Audit and Finance Committee for burial. " This statement is false. First, it was sent to the Administration & Finance (A&F) Committee, not "Audit". Second, the A&F Committee discussed the item in August, September and October 2009, as well as in April 2009. The A&F committee has instructed staff to return with the item in August 2009. It is not "buried." "Meeting agendas areprepared by VTAstaffwith inputfrom the Board chairperson. " This contradicts other statements in the report and the report's "staff driven" references. Every Board agenda has a standing item entitled "Items of Concern and Referral to Administration" where members may bring up any item not on the agenda for future discussion. Token committees • Does not cite specific examples, although report states, "This Grand Jury uncovered examples that support this conclusion. " • The statements" ... Committees arepresented with items to review only after the Board and/or staff (emphasis added) has already made a decision" and "Thus, theAdvisory Committee is only asked to bless the decision after thefact" are inaccurate. Except for unusual circumstances where urgency precludes the normal process, items are vetted with the appropriate Advisory Committee(s) and their input is transmitted to the Board and, in many cases, incorporated into the proposal. Also, the Board is responsible for decisions, not staff. • The report does not reflect Advisory Committee Enhancement (ACE) Process or the changes it has recommended. These include adding Advisory Committee votes and the addition of major comments from Committees to the Board memo. • The report does not acknowledge that the CAC Chairperson Report and the similar PAC Chairperson Report are standing items on every Board agenda. This provides the Advisory Committee chair the opportunity to apprise the Board of his committee's comments and concerns on items considered or on future issues. (The CAC Chair Report to the VTA Board was a specific recommendation of the Bureau of State Audits report and the Board approved amending the CAC bylaws to add this provision in September 2008. Both the CAC and PAC Chairperson Reports are standing items on every Board agenda.) • "VTA's attitude toward these committees ..." The statement cannot be verified, no specific examples are cited. This is especially true for "retaliation for independent thinking". • "One of the key criticisms is that the Advisory Committees arepresented with items to review only after the Board and/or staff has already made a decision. " The statement is not correct. • "One advisory committee member, responding to the question of whether the Board provided direction to the committee said, The Board does not even know we exist '." PageA3of9 VTA understands the sentiment conveyed by this statement and has taken action to address it. Examples are ACE process, VTA Chair & Vice-Chair meetings with Advisory Committee chairs, advisory committee meeting minutes in Board agenda packet, advisory committee input on items included inboard memorandums, and the orientation and training materials provided to new Board members. Board/Committee communication • Staff collaborates with the Committee chairperson on setting the Advisory Committee meeting agendas. For example, the CAC/CWC Chairperson reviews, provides input, and approves the draft agenda prior to distribution. • Formal review of the Advisory Committee Work Plan with the committee is done at every meeting to receive committee input and direction. It is a standing item on every agenda, and is the last agenda item in order to incorporate any committee changes or requests made earlier at that meeting. • The Board Chair reviews and approves the Consolidated Board & Committee Work Plan every six months. This planning document includes the items projected to be reviewed and considered by the Advisories (and Standing Committees) prior to Board consideration, including those requiring Board adoption. • The report does not reflect the recently-implement ACE recommendation that the vote and the addition of major comments from the Advisory Committees on the memo submitted to the Board and that becomes the official record. Due to timing constraints, the vote and major comments are provided to the Standing Committees via a summary report. Prior to this, Advisory Committees comments were verbally relayed to the Standing Committees. • It is not a correct statement: "... the PAC and CAC Chairs were recently invited to make a short presentation at each meeting". The PAC Chairperson Report was added approximately five years ago and the CAC in September 2008. PAC and CAC: Committee views not valued • "PAC is the only place in VTAgovernance where there is equal representation for each city without an overwhelming advantage to San Jose. " This is factually inaccurate. There is no advisory committee where the City of San Jose with over fifty percent of the population has "an overwhelming advantage." The TAC has one member representing each Member Agency (the 15cities and the County of Santa Clara); TAC members are staff of the Member Agency they represent. The BPAC also has one member representing each Member Agency; BPAC representatives are private citizens appointed by the Member Agency they represent; CTA membership has representatives from City Groupings. • "The VTA Board has recently formed ACE, the Advisory Committee Enhancement Committee, to develop a new structure and methodology by which the Advisory Committees can start toprovide some form of useful service to the Board. " This is inaccurate. Numerous examples can be cited to disprove it. These include but are not limited to the valuable input provided by CAC and PAC on the Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA), CAC's initiative to ban smoking at all VTA facilities, the BPAC's input PageA4of9 and expertise on development of technical works such as the Bicycle Technical Guidelines, Pedestrian Technical Guidelines, etc. • Referencing PAC, "... itfrequently serves as a breeding ground for new Board Members." This contradicts the statement that Board members have little transit experience. Role of the CAC/CWC in VTA Governance The CAC bylaws (as well as those for BPAC, PAC and TAC) provide that items may be placed on the agenda by the committee chairperson (which is done consistently and frequently) and by the vote of a majority of the committee. The same group of citizens is assigned to both committees • This structure was defined by the 2000 Measure A ballot. The voters put it in place and an election would be required to change it. • Report fails to delineate the major differences between CAC and CWC: CAC is an advisory committee established by, and reporting to the VTA Board. Membership is derived from a variety of community stakeholder groups including business and labor. The CWC is an oversight committee established by the electorate that reports to county residents, not the VTABoard. • The statement" ... the same people, serving as the CWC, have the duty to communicate to the public, hold hearings, issues reports, " fails to acknowledge these responsibilities apply only to 2000 Measure A-related activities. cwe Performance • "VTA Staffreleased an auditfor FY2008 performed by the VTA auditor (VTD) without review or approval by the CWc." This is factually inaccurate. This was the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), which presents VTA's financial statements for the period. Itwas brought to the CWC, as an information item at its 2/11/09 meeting where Leonard Dana, aVTD partner, presented the item and explained the audit's findings. The CWC does not have the authority to approve this report since it covers all aspects of VTA ("Comprehensive"), not just Measure A. • "cwe reports to thepublic have been neither comprehensive, timely nor complete. " VTA disagrees with this statement. The Committee responsible for preparing them, the CWC, judged they were comprehensive, complete and as timely aspossible. Neither CWC members nor VTA have received negative comments or complaints about the reports. What's Wrong with the Citizens Watchdog Committee? 1. The members of the CAC/CWC interviewed all stated they workfor the VTA Board. The primary tenet emphasized at new CAC/CWC orientation is the different, separate duties of the CAC versus the CWC. This includes that CAC is advisory to the VTA Board, reports to the Board, and is free to express opinions and recommendations on Measure A policy decisions (project composition, funding, schedule, etc.). For the CWC, it is made clear that they are established by the electorate, report to the public, not the Page AS of9 VTA Board, and that it is not within their purview to express opinions on Measure A policy decisions. These points are reiterated and emphasized at annual training provided separately to each committee on its specific duties and responsibilities (the last training on CWC duties and responsibilities was held at the February 2009 meeting: http://www .vta.orgfinside/boards/ committee advisory/ cac/agendas minutes/2 009/02 feb /cac 021109 full?acket. odf). 2. "CAC/CWC members are approved by the Board, compromising independence of thought and action. " The Board ratifies the appointments made by stakeholder groups, such as BOMA-Silicon Valley or the Chamber of Commerce Coalition; this procedure was in place when voters approved Measure A that established the membership process for the CWe. The statement that this appointment process compromises independence of thought and action cannot be not substantiated. 3. "Many CAe/CWC members complained and confirmed that the VTA staff shows them little or no respect. The VTA staff does not return their calls or answer their questions." This statement cannot be substantiated by VTA. Members have indicated that there is a substantial amount of information contained in their agenda packets but have not stated that it is "overwhelming." A substantial amount of information in each agenda packet is to be expected since it is for two committees and given the importance and magnitude of the oversight responsibilities of the CWC. CAC/CWC does control its own agenda. The committee and the committee chair, not individual members that make the decision. The final item on each agenda is the Committee reviewing and modifying its work plan as it sees fit. It is common for the Committee to add! delete or change the timing of specific items. In addition, the draft agenda is sent to the committee chair and vice chair each month for review, input and approval prior to publication. Under ORDERS OF THE DAY the Committee has, and often utilizes, the ability to defer or change the sequencing of items on that specific agenda. 4. "A conflict of interest ispresent, whether actual orperceived, in the discharge of their duties as a member of the CWe. " This statement cannot be substantiated. 5. The statement that the bylaws for the CWC "were written by staff" is not correct. Staff drafted the bylaws and submitted them for Committee review and adoption. The CWe's bylaws (which are apart of the CAC bylaws) were primarily derived from, and, in many cases, quoted the Measure A ballot. The CWC is not free to select duties and responsibilities other than those specified in the ballot. "An additional sales tax of cent was proposed to the voters in November, 2006 but was ;I; rejected. " While the statement is factually accurate it implies this was a VTA measure. The referenced measure was placed on the ballot by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors for general fund purposes, not VTA. While the campaign literature (not in any way connected to VTA) did mention the BART project, the measure was not aVTA ballot measure. Page A6 of9 Date of June 2008 Downtown/East Valley Policy Advisory Board is wrong. (should be June 11) "Particularly noteworthy was thefact that VTA staff suspended theproject (DTEV) without prior Board authorization." Construction projects are frequently advanced and slowed down to account for a variety of factors including but not limited to: funding availability, property acquisition process, contractor availability, competition for resources, etc. "However, property acquisition, utility relocation construction and completion of bid documents for construction contracts were not authorized." VTA does not agree with this statement, it is factually inaccurate. These items are authorized via adopted budget. "The public was not informed of the 2000 Measure A 30-year financial situation before the November 2008 election." This comment is a well-utilized ballot argument The Board and public were informed of the financial implications of the economic downturn by VTA and the news media (KCBS, KGO, Mercury News and other local newspapers). "If the 30-year Revenue and Expenditure Plan had been updated asplanned, it likely would have shown that if the BART extension was built asplanned, the remaining 2000 Measure Aprojects would require massive additional investment ..." "If the updated Revenue &Expenditure Plan had been readily available to thepublic, Measure B might not have passed. " These are speculative comments. The fact that more funding is needed to complete Measure A has been publicly stated by VTA. In fact, the 2006 Revenue & Expenditure Plan assumed the equivalent funding of revenue equivalent to a new 1/4 cent sales tax to complete the plan. Furthermore, at the April 25, 2008 Board workshop, the financial consulting firm AECOM reported that sales tax projections were $4.9 billion less than previously expected. This was widely reported in the news media and was discussed public ally at several VTA Board meetings. "According to the Measure A Semi-Annual Report (internal) dated June 2008 ..." Implies document was not made available to the public and did not go to the Committee, which is not factually correct. "Now that virtually all Measure A tax revenue is being reserved for the shortened BART extension project, the light rail to Eastridge project has beenput on hold until otherfunding sources can be identified." The statement is false. Page A7 of9 "The VTA Board has approved the exchange (swap) of approximately $107M ofMeasure A funds ... Thepayback from the state depends on state approval of two Measure Aprojects for state (STIP) funding, ..." The projects have been approved by the state. Copies of the State Transportation funding database listing (CTIPS) are available. "There was noprior discussion or notification to the Citizen Watchdog Committee. The CWC was informed after thefact in a reportfrom VTAstaff. " This is only partially correct. There were two exchange actions. The first, approved by the VTA Board in February 2007, was presented to the CAC at its January 10, 2007 meeting. This item was correctly submitted to CAC for consideration since it provides advice and counsel to VTA Board, whereas the CWC does not. It would be inappropriate for the CWC to provide comment on this item since Measure A policy decisions (project composition, schedules and funding levels) are the responsibility of the VTA Board and the CWC is solely responsible for reviewing Measure A expenditure to ensure they were spent in accordance with the ballot. The CAC discussed the first exchange at its January 2007 meeting and unanimously recommended approval to the VTA Board, as reflected in the approved minutes. The second exchange did not go to the CWC in advance. The timing of the 2008 STIP information from the State was such that VTA staff was unable to bring the program to any of the VTA advisory committees and standing committees prior to its review and subsequent approval by the VTA Board in December 2007. VTA staff made a follow-up report to the CWC at its next (January 2008) meeting and there was no comment. Minutes are available. The CWC subsequently determined that the fund swaps were appropriate as long as the funds were repaid in full, with appropriate interest, and that other projects in Measure A were not adversely affected by the swap. In effect, the swap is a loan subject to future repayment - the funds were loaned to a non-Measure A project and STIP funds will be used to repay Measure A. "At its February 11, 2009 meeting, a discussion regarding the CWC's responsibilities in this area was initiated by a CWC member, and stifled by VTAstaff." VTA disagrees with this statement. Items not on the published agenda may not be discussed at the meeting. Allowing the unagendized discussion to move forward would have violated the Brown Act. The committee chose not to pursue this discussion further. "VTP 2035 wasfirst presented to thepublic eight days after the November 2008 election. " The statement is factually incorrect. The draft VTP 2035 had been presented to the board, advisory committees and public several times. Also, draft chapters were available online during the fall, before the election. The time frames for formal adoption ofVTP 2035 were driven by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). "2008 Measure B Sales Tax - Promised 16.1 miles, Delivering 2.2 miles" The statement is factually incorrect. PageA8of9 "The Board tolerates behaviors that do not encourage informed public debate ... " The statement is factually incorrect. "VTA staff develops plans internally with little or nopublic (orBoard) input at the early stages ..." The statement is factually incorrect. "The board has taken apassive role, ..." VTA disagrees with this statement. PageA9of9