Serving mystery sales tax in the county building

Remember the last time being served mystery meat? This time the county is serving something that tastes just like mystery meat: mystery sales tax. This mystery sales tax has a simple recipe:

Shall a sales tax of one-half of 1 percent be enacted for general county purposes such as:
The county hospital and clinics;
Trauma and emergency services;
Affordable homes for families and seniors;
Health insurance for uninsured children;
Prevention programs for at-risk youth, families and seniors;
Transportation improvements approved in city and countywide transportation plans;
Services for abused and neglected children;
with a Citizens Oversight Committee to ensure fiscal accountability by reviewing the Annual Audit?

From the list above, can you answer these questions:

1. Is there any guideline or assurance that any program mentioned would get the necessary funding?
2. Is there any assurance for the county that it won't use the sales tax revenue for other unstated purposes?
3. Is there any measure to protect social and geographical equity of the tax?

Carl Guardino was reportedly threatened the supervisors with opposing the 1/4 cent sales tax unless the county supports a 1/2 cent tax, along with a gentleman's agreement that half of the tax goes to Guardino's pet project: BART. Guardino and the county are refusing to admit this hidden agreement in order to sell this specific tax, which requires 2/3 voter approval, as a general fund tax, which requires 1/2 voter approval.

VTA Watch has earlier reported about the possibility of the county supporting transportation projects. With Guardino's recent influence, the currently proposed ballot measure could result in a worst case scenario, where the more than half of the new sales tax would go to the BART project without further input from voters.

While the county supervisors today may not want to spend the entire 1/4 cent, or a penny at all on BART, there will be turnovers on the board in the future that may change its spending priorities. Also, VTA could ask the county to pay for bus service with the county's new tax and then spend all the VTA's bus funding on BART. Unfortunately this proposal, which would make the sales tax in Santa Clara County highest in the state, offers no guideline nor protection against wasteful spending.

VTA basic PR screwup

VTA once again failed to timely notify a major construction project that would affect thousands of passengers.

The downtown station platform retrofit has been planned for the last five years, even appeared with a wooden mock up, after the passage of the 2000 Measure A and VTA's subsequent purchase of additional low floor vehicles to replace the high floor fleet. Despite years of planning, the public was told in less than two weeks to prepare for the temporary closure of two downtown stations as long as 10 months. As of Friday night, VTA still hasn't post anything on its website regarding the station closures.

One of the two light rail stations to be closed serves the San Jose State University. Thousands of students take light rail to avoid high parking fees and the shortage of parking spaces on campus. Despite what some of students suggest in the Mercury article, many more students may decide not to take light rail and drive instead.

A related issue that the Mercury article did not discuss is whether this project is necessary. With a mini-high platform, VTA's light rail is currently in full compliance with American with Disabilities Act and offers level boarding for wheelchair passengers without operator assistance. The only quantifiable benefit is the saving in dwell time, however small it appears to be, of cutting one step for all other passengers. Does it worth 8 to 10 months of constructions and millions of dollars in costs, along with impacts to the downtown community and the students at San Jose State? It looks like another collateral damage from the 2000 Measure A.

------

Bonus: The other permanent damage caused by the downtown platform retrofit is that the transfers between light rail and buses would be made less convenient. Due to ADA and other reasons, the high platform would be extended almost to the street curb where the bus stops are now. Because these high platforms would not allow buses to make safe boarding and to use the wheelchair lift or ramp, the bus stops would have to be relocated away further from the light rail stop. Way to go to increase transit ridership at VTA!

Carl Guardino's war against Caltrain

Recently posted in the VTA Riders' Union mailing list is an email from Carl Guardino regarding SVLG's private poll on the proposed sales tax. It will be posted in its entirety in the comment section.

Similar to the other "polls" done by SVLG, it is claiming that the BART extension is still the top priority. It is also claiming that Caltrain "service and station improvements," new light rail lines, and people mover to the airport have similar ratings, meanwhile singling out Caltrain electrification as the lowest priority. In its previous "poll," SVLG claimed that both the light rail extensions and Caltrain electrification are rated the lowest.

SVLG's earlier poll, which the initial tax proposal was based on, received criticisms from the San Jose City Hall in which the councilmembers believed that their city deserves all the countywide transportation tax revenue. Unsurprisingly this "poll" reflects the City Hall's beliefs.

SVLG claimed that the respondents maintain their priorities when given with project costs and ridership figures. What SVLG probably did not reveal to the respondents is that the ridership projections, especially for the BART project, is over-estimated beyond proportions.

SVLG also took a stab at the County poll regarding its proposed 1/4 cent general sales tax for county services. The group is suggesting that the "likelihood of passage of a quarter-cent general purpose tax in a contested campaign is on the bubble." The County poll says that there's 60% voter support for either a 1/2 or a 1/4 cent general sales tax, which requires 50% voter approval.

What Guardino did not report is how much voter support is out there for a sales tax.

. . .

By singling out Caltrain electrification and suggesting it as the lowest-priority project, SVLG has clearly declared a war on transit advocates that include Sierra Club and BayRail Alliance, which strongly supported Caltrain electrification and related improvements.

Two months ago, Laura Stuchinsky, SVLG's transportation aide, wrote to a Sunnyvale neighborhood mailing list that Caltrain electrification doesn't have to be funded by VTA because the funding would be provided by the California High Speed Rail project. In the meantime, SVLG was also spearheading a "coalition" for supporting a southern alignment for HSR that would use the entire Caltrain alignment from San Jose to Gilroy.

SVLG's concept for electrification would work, just like the BART project, under a lot of assumptions. The issue currently at stake in Sacramento is whether HSR will happen at all. With all the debates between the San Jose folks and the Train Riders Association of California over the HSR alignments between the Central Valley and the Bay Area, HSR is not on most politicians' radar in the capital. The massive infrastructure (highway) bond proposed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger did not include any funding for the HSR project. Also, some Democratic legislators are also recommending to cancel the HSR bond vote scheduled this November and be replaced by a compromised version of the infrastructure bond which includes little of no funding for HSR.

If SVLG's coalition really supports HSR and Caltrain electrification, where are they in Sacramento to lobby for this? Why aren't the legislators who signed on to this "coalition" speak out in support of more funding to HSR? Or is SVLG just using the HSR as a smokescreen to take local tax funding away from Caltrain and spend it on the BART project?

VTA tax vote to be delayed?

On Friday, VTA board chair Cindy Chavez and general manager Michael Burns issued a memo recommending to delay the vote to place the 1/4 cent sales tax to March. Originally the tax vote was scheduled to be held in its February meeting. The staff cited insufficient time between the presentations to various groups and the originally scheduled vote in February 2nd to "to analyze and thoroughly consider all of the feedback and comments."

Although the new chairperson Cindy Chavez brings to the VTA board a less hostile leadership style than Ron Gonzales, there's isn't much room left to make a bad sales tax plan a good one.

The County Board of Supervisors, scheduled to meet Tuesday, January 24, will discuss and vote whether to support the VTA sales tax proposal. A staff memo was prepared showing that the Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy has over-estimated the sales tax revenue growth for the 1996 Measure A/B 1/2 sales tax program, which is scheduled to expire this April. This is the same firm that VTA cited for predicting a higher revenue projection for its sales taxes in an attempt to deceive the voters.

Becoming an early lame duck

San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales, scheduled to become a lame duck in November following the next mayoral election due to the term limit, has removed himself from key committees, including the VTA board. He was censured by the City Council last month for his actions in regards to the garbage collection contract with Norcal Waste Systems.

Before the revelation of the garbage scandal and the subsequent censure, Gonzales was considered on track for a state office. With his reputation tarnished, his resignation from the VTA board could be a move to try to save the BART project by dis-associating his pet project from himself. Since 1999, he has pushed the BART project through years of political bullying, including the endorsement of over-projected ridership and tax revenue.

A transit project shouldn't be controversial, but BART itself has been controversial due to its extreme high cost in contrast to the area density, abnormal incompatibility to other rail systems, and a paper trail of cost-overruns and failure of meeting ridership projections. Is BART one of no-so-smart political decisions that Gonzales made just like the garbage scandal? Does he cares about our tax dollars just like the garbage scandal? Does removing himself from the VTA board make the BART extension, which requires another sales tax increase, no longer his pet project?

Becoming a lame duck or not, we shouldn't live with the legacy of having an over-priced and under-performed rail line that will be a drain on our tax dollars for decades to come.

Same old 2000 Measure A trick (VTA document)

This is the link to the VTA general manager's memo to the board of directors regarding the increase in sales tax projection. This online copy can be found at the Board of Supervisors' web site. The Board of Supervisors will be discussing the tax proposal on January 10 at 10:00am.

One of the troubling issues in the new projection is that VTA only anticipates increased revenue until 2015. These are supposedly the critical years of BART construction. If the actual revenue misses the projection anytime during those years, the projection will be way off and VTA will not be able to keep its promises. It seems apparent that VTA is making its revenue projections up to make the BART extension work, at the expense of other transit projects.

Same old 2000 Measure A trick

Although it has not been appeared on the VTA web sites yet, this plan demostrates the same old trick that deceived voters in November 2000 for Measure A.

VTA is claiming that it can fund everything that everyone wants in the proposed 1/4 cent tax increase because of new sales tax projection, which was revised upward of course.

In addition to extending BART from Fremont to San Jose in 11 years,the new plan allows for 10 Caltrain round trips to Gilroy by 2010,more than $800 million for a new road repair program and senior transit services, a people mover to the Mineta San Jose International by 2018, and $500 million in the bank when all projects are finished,assuming county voters approve a quarter-cent sales tax next November...

...The plan is based on assumptions that county sales tax revenues will grow by as much as 6 percent a year between 2008 and 2015, compared to projections of 2.9 percent in the fiscal year ending June 2006 and 4.5 percent for the year ending June 2007.

The worse part is that the County Supervisor Don Gage is appearing to fall for the new "projection."

"I'm supportive of the plan as long as we get everything we need in South County," he said. I'm willing to live with the schedule. The only thing is [other board members] may get greedy and say we want more, but I don't think they will."

The problem here is not greed, but trust. There is a lesson to be learned from the 2000 Measure A. Back in 2000, Measure A supporters claimed that the 2000 tax was sufficient to deliver all the projects and then some, even through the Pete Cipolla, VTA's General Mananger of the time, said that an extra tax was necessary:

Published Wednesday, October. 18, 2000, in the Palo Alto Daily News
BART tax will erase VTA losses
By Mark Shahinian Daily News Staff Writer

BART tax supporters said yesterday the booming economy will raise sales tax receipts enough to erase the Valley Transportation Authority's projected losses and will fully fund all operations if voters approve the $6 billion tax.

Sandy Eakins, an alternate VTA board member, said the VTA projects budget shortfalls after 2006. But Measure A, helped by rising sales tax revenues, will bring in enough money to cover the losses, she said.

Eakins said the new sales tax estimates were made by Booz-Allen & Hamilton, a major consulting firm...

...VTA General Manager Peter Cipolla advocated an additional quarter-cent sales tax to make up the shortfall in an August memo Strickland provided to the Daily News.

Of course in less than 3 years after Measure A passed, many officials finally admitted that an additional tax was needed to build BART, but after the presentation of the 1/4 cent tax proposal a few months ago, the City of San Jose and VTA are still refusing to make hard decisions to cut some of San Jose's projects. Instead, it is now making another "new estimate" to deceive voters and other non-San Jose politicians.

While VTA and the City of San Jose could say that they plan to share the benefits of increased revenue to other cities in the county, they are still ignoring the question of how they plan to share the pain. What if the increased projection does not pan out, which is guaranteed to happen, would other cities be giving away tax reveune to build an underused subway in San Jose?

The initial plan, even though it was uninspired, outlined the "pain" (i.e. cutting SJC peoplemover and Downtown East Valley LRT) for the City of San Jose in the minimum. The current proposal that is reported now ignored the issue of pain. What it means is that if the new sales tax passes, the issue of which projects to cut would be discussed in the next few years afterwards along with a new talk for yet another sales tax.

If you believe that fiscal responsibility and regional equity is important, please let Don Gage know at don.gage@bos.co.santa-clara.ca.us. Fool us once, shame on VTA. Fool us twice, shame on Gage.

VTA withdraws BART extension from FTA's New Starts process

In VTA's press releases, VTA claims that their decision to withdraw the BART project in FTA's New Start process is a tactical move.

Year after year of "not recommended" status given by FTA to the BART project, it is easy to figure out how FTA feels about the BART project and how well this project competes with other transit projects around the country.

Knowing that it will receive another "not recommended" status again when VTA and SVLG is likely to be campaigning for another tax, VTA is withdrawing the BART project from the process to improve the tax's chances for voter approval.

Or more importantly, without FTA close scrutiny under the New Start process, VTA would likely to frontload more local tax dollars for the BART project and then say that there's no affordable alternative to building BART. It is like the Bay Bridge fraud: when enough money is spent on designing a bad bridge, some would argue that it is cheaper to build a bad bridge than to redesign and build a good bridge.

However, it is never too late to get things right, especially in this case.

County pushing out the VTA with one of its own?

While the SVLG's sales tax poll is private information, a different sales tax poll paid by Santa Clara County is now public information.

A part of the County's survey deals with the public's attitude on major issues. On page 4 of the poll presentation, Education is now a top concerns among the voters. Transportation, used to be the rated as the most important problem back in the late 1990's, has now ranked 3rd behind education and the economy.

The poll asked voters whether to support a general county sales tax either at 1/4 cent or 1/2 cent, which the voter threshold is 50%, over 60% of the respondents said that they support the tax.

Given that the County and the VTA each want its own sales tax increase, the question is who will win and who will lose. Basically, if the County and VTA each have a tax on the ballot in November, most likely both of them will lose. Although these two taxes could be staggered with one in the primary election and the other in the general election the same year, the latter one, which ever that is, would likely to have a higher chance of defeat if the other one passes in the primary.

No wonder why, according to this article, Jim Beall suggested to postpone the VTA tax until 2008.

Since the county proposal is calling for a general tax, it is possible for the county on its own to create a trust fund to support VTA. There's already a precedent with the 1996 Measure A/B tax, which the County Board of Supervisors and the VTA Board hold joint meetings at least once a year to approve transportation projects. On the other hand, the VTA cannot levy a tax that would provide some funds for health care and social services programs.

If the county chooses to support transit (at whatever direction they wanted to) with its general tax, then there is no need for VTA to have its own tax. The City of San Jose (which holds 5 seats on VTA) would not have as much power as they wanted. Perhaps the county could change the course away from the disastrous path since the approval of the 2000 Measure A.

Answer to the people mover question: More money for San Jose

In an attempt to squeeze more funding to support the real people mover between the Santa Clara freight yard, where BART is supposed to end, and the San Jose Airport, San Jose official is now suggesting that part of the non-transit portion of the proposed 1/4 cent sales tax could be suspended to support the people mover.

In a way it is a defiance against SVLG, in which it first suggested to provide funding for non-transit expediture as a way to woo voters. If it is true that there's enough funding for pothole repairs, then why include it in the tax if not to mislead voters?

On the other hand, non-San Jose politicians were opposed to this idea. Not as much as whether the funding is needed, but where the money goes. County Supervisor Don Gage said it correctly in the article, "San Jose wants the big chunk.This is all San Jose." Generally, maintenance funding is spread around the county based on population or need; however, the people mover project mostly involve San Jose, therefore there would be a transfer of wealth if this project were funded instead.

Also, it leads to a more frightening prospect that more transfer of wealth could happen if other non-BART/non-San Jose projects have to be scarificed due to BART and/or people mover cost-overruns.

Finally, the City of San Jose could step further up to the plate by using city or airport funds, instead of taking a larger portion of the county sales tax. Or, the City could suggest eliminating the extra extortion fees for BART based on deceptive ridership projection. Or, in the extreme, a 1/4 city-wide sales tax for whatever project San Jose wants.