back to vtaridersunion.org main page| Santa Clara VTA | Riders Union |
Editor's Note: before this meeting, there was a meeting of the VTA's Administration and Finance Committee (AFC) next door to the San Jose City Council chambers. The first paragraph features highlights from that committee meeting. The highlights from the Special VTA Budget Workshop follow. Analysis from both meetings are at the end.
The Administration and Finance Committee meeting, chaired by Campbell Mayor Jane P. Kennedy, had its main agenda item for discussing the 2003 FY budget moved to the VTA workshop later that morning. During that meeting, Michael Evanhoe, Chief Development Officer for VTA, reported that the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group (SVMG) will do a poll over the weekend of May 18 measuring public opinion for an advisory measure (or two) for committing tax dollars for various bike/pedestrian as well as other transit projects. Our founder, Eugene Bradley, as well as one other speaker for the budget agenda item chose to waive our turn to speak until the workshop.
The Special VTA Budget workshop began at 11:05am in the San Jose City Council Chambers, on the 2nd floor of San Jose City Hall. Agenda item 3, where the 2003 Fiscal Year Recommended Budget was discussed, had several people (including myself) speak out about the $30.1 million operations deficit and its current and potential effects on bus/LRT operations. Before the public presentation, there was a slide show narrated by Scott Burher, Chief Financial Officer of VTA, that showed the status of the current VTA budget, which is split into operating and capitol budgets. The $341 million operating budget proposed for the 2003 fiscal year will have a $30.1 million deficit, due mainly to low sales tax revenue.
During our founder's speech where he promoted our plan to resolve the budget deficit, he forwarded a members's concerns that $580,000 that was missing from VTA's originally-reported figure of $780,000 in savings for eliminating nine (9) positions from the Office of the General Manager. Scott Burher, CFO of VTA, said he would get back to me on that question. The extra Chief of Staff position in the Fiscal Year 2003 Recommended Budget, according to Mr. Burher, was an "entitlement" from the VTA Board to Peter Cipolla, the General Manager of VTA. (Mr. Cipolla was absent from this meeting.)
The speaker after our founder (Bob Brownstein, Policy Director for Working Partnerships USA) mentioned interesting things like $7 million in the budget for consultants, millions more for unnecessary legal personnel, etc. He referred to the proposed 2003 Fiscal Year Budget as a "doomsday budget" given all the emphasis on the capital budget for building transit projects, and little emphasis on the operations budget responsible for running everything on a daily basis.
Kim Strickland of BATLUC also expressed concern over the 2003 Fiscal Year Recommended Budget and its impact on the current level of service.
After the public had their turn to speak, several interesting comments were made by the VTA Board on hand. Notably absent is Blanca Alvarado (County Supervisor for the East San Jose area) who is replaced by Pete McHugh, County Supervisor for the northern portions of the county (northern Sunnyvale and Milpitas).
VTA Board member Tom Springer, Mayor of Gilroy, comments on how some of the operations budget deficit can be curtailed thru the Outreach program in the South County. He said that some people use Outreach to travel from the South County to the North County.
VTA Board member Forrest Williams, San Jose City Councilman, commented on Mr. Brownstein's concerns that too much of the budget is spent on office furniture, stating that furniture is needed for the daily functions of VTA staff.
The workshop adjourned at 12:15pm.
Final Analysis: it was speculated that the real reason the Administration and Finance Committee punted the budget item to the main workshop was because no one on the committee had time to go over the 2003 budget. We feel that the committee meeting should have been a forum where questions should have been raised by committee members and the public re: the proposed budget. Those questions can then be answered at the Workshop later that morning, with answers mailed to the public upon request.
Continued silence from the VTA Board regarding practical solutions to the budget deficit is not a good sign. Given all the capital projects they have built or plan on building, the VTA desperately needs revenue to run them all on a daily basis. That the VTA gives no consideration for operating costs for capital projects ultimately makes it a waste of tax dollars on those capital projects. The VTA and its Board need to realize that you need to have operating revenue to run all those capital projects on a daily basis - and soon.
back to vtaridersunion.org main page