$6.3B transportation tax is legal

Some technical issues must be resolved before money can be freed up

The Measure B sales tax approved by nearly 72 percent of Santa Clara County voters two years ago has been upheld as legal but some technical issues must be resolved before $6.3 billion can be freed to cover the costs of filling potholes, rebuilding old interchanges, extending BART through downtown San Jose and a massive upgrade of Caltrain.

“There is a God. And He is good,” said Carl Guardino, the head of the Santa Clara Valley Leadership Group who led the successful campaign for the 30year measure and called the lawsuit “frivolous.”

The ruling by the 6th District court of Appeals was announced Thursday.

Collection of the ½- cent sales tax began in April 2017 and as the Valley Transportation Authority was preparing to distribute the funds, an appeal of a previously dismissed lawsuit regarding the 2016Measure B was filed. Cheriel Jensen of Saratoga appealed the lower court’s dismissal to the appeals court.

Jensencouldnot be reached for comment.

VTA began collecting the tax last year but has been required to keep all collections in an escrow account until the legality of the tax is finally resolved. That amounts to nearly $240 million just waiting to be spent.

The news was cheered by some drivers such as Michael Singer of San Jose who is fed up with the rough pavement on Nieman Boulevard and nominates the stretch between Maloney Drive andWendover Lane as the worst road in San Jose but that now could be repaved.

“Put on a helmet and take a drive up that section of Nieman,” Singer said. “Even the satellite view of that section shows all of

We acknowledge the purposes set forth inMeasure B are broad andwould permit VTA to use the tax proceeds for awide range of transportation-related initiatives. — The court

the holes.”

Jensen brought three claims against VTA. The first two related to the substance of Measure B, and on each of those, the trial court’s decision to dismiss those claims was upheld.

It was on the third claim that the court of appeals reversed the trial court, relating to a public record act request that Jensen made.

It’s not an issue or claim that has anything to do with the validity of Measure B.

“So in substance, the trial court was upheld, and not reversed,” San Jose Mayor and VTA board chairman Sam Liccardo said,, “and VTA prevailed at the appellate level.”

VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said “pending no further appeal by Ms. Jensen, thismilestone gets us closer to accessing the money collected underMeasure B and delivering on the promises to voters. “

The court said “we acknowledge the purposes set forth in Measure B are broad and would permit VTA to use the tax proceeds for a wide range of transportation-related initiatives.

“However, the breadth of Measure B’s stated pur- poses does not invalidate the measure.”

The court added that revenues generated by a special tax can only be used for the purpose or service for which it was imposed.

“Thus, she insists the provision inMeasure B permitting VTA’s Board of Directors to make changes to the ‘program’ as defined in Measure B is unlawful. We find no merit in Jensen’s claims.”

To view opinion document for this case, go to: www.courts.ca.gov/ opinions/nonpub/H044974.