CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) MEETING STANCOG BOARD ROOM 1111 I STREET, SUITE 308 MODESTO, CA WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 3, :00 PM

Transcription

1 City of Ceres City of Hughson City of Modesto City of Newman City of Oakdale City of Patterson City of Riverbank City of Turlock City of Waterford County of Stanislaus CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) MEETING STANCOG BOARD ROOM 1111 I STREET, SUITE 308 MODESTO, CA WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 3, :00 PM Committee Agendas and Minutes: Committee agendas, minutes and copies of items to be considered by the StanCOG Committees are available at least 72 hours prior to the meeting at the StanCOG offices located at 1111 I Street, Suite 308, Modesto, CA during normal business hours. The documents are also available on StanCOG s website at Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Committee after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at the address listed above during normal business hours. These documents are also available on StanCOG s website, subject to staff s ability to post the documents before the meeting. Public Comment Period: Matters under the jurisdiction of the Committee, and not on the posted agenda, may be addressed by the general public at the beginning of the regular agenda and any off-agenda matters before the Committee for consideration. However, California law prohibits the Committee from taking action on any matter which is not on the posted agenda unless it is determined to be an emergency by the Committee. Any member of the public wishing to address the Committee during the Public Comment period will be limited to 5 minutes unless the Chair of the Committee grants a longer period of time. At a Special Meeting, members of the public may address the Committee on any item on the Agenda at the time the item is considered by the Committee. Public Participation on a Matter on the Agenda: Please step to the podium at the time the agenda item is announced by the Chairperson. In order to ensure that interested parties have an opportunity to speak, any person addressing the Committee will be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes unless the Chair of the Committee grants a longer period of time. Reasonable Accommodations: This Agenda shall be made available upon request in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C ) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code ). Persons requesting a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in the meeting should contact Cindy Malekos at (209) during regular business hours at least 72 hours prior to the time of the meeting to enable StanCOG to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Notice Regarding Non-English Speakers: StanCOG Committee meetings are conducted in English and translations to other languages is not provided. Anyone wishing to address the Committee is advised to have an interpreter or to contact Cindy Malekos at (209) during regular business hours at least 72 hours prior to the time of the meeting so that StanCOG can provide an interpreter. Aviso con Respecto a Personas que no Hablan el Idioma de Inglés: Las reuniónes del los Comités del Consejo de Gobiernos de Stanislaus son conducidas en Inglés y traducciones a otros idiomas no son disponibles. Cualquier persona que desea dirigirse al Comité se le aconseja que traiga su propio intérprete o llame a Cindy Malekos al (209) durante horas de oficina regulares o a lo menos 72 horas antes de la reunión de la Mesa Directiva del Consejo de Gobiernos de Stanislaus, para proporcionarle con un intérprete. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL AGENDA 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS These matters may be presented only by interested persons in the audience. Discussion is limited to five minutes or at the discretion of the Chair. 1

2 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Motion to Approve Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Minutes of 11/29/17 5. PRESENTATION A. CalVans Joint Powers Authority 6. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS A. Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2016/17 Annual Listing of Federal Obligation Projects B Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Update C. Motion to Recommend Policy Board Authorize by Resolution the Execution of the Certifications and Assurances for the California State of Good Repair Program and Approve the FY 2017/2018 State Transit Assistance State of Good Repair Program Project List D. Local Partnership Program-Competitive 7. INFORMATION ITEMS The following items are for information only. A. Policy Board Minutes of 11/15/17 B. Management and Finance Committee Minutes of 11/1/17 C. Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) Minutes of 9/5/17 D. Valley Vision Stanislaus (VVS) Steering Committee Minutes of 9/5/17 E. Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Minutes of 8/2/17 8. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 9. MEMBER REPORTS 10. ADJOURNMENT Next Regularly Scheduled CAC Meeting: February 7, :00 pm StanCOG Board Room 1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA

3 CONSENT CALENDAR 3

4 CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) MEETING StanCOG Board Room 1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA Minutes of November 29, 2017 (Wednesday) 6:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: Elizabeth Claes (arrived during Item 5A), John Dinan, Terhesa Gamboa, Zach Keller, Sue Stevens Carla Alviso, Arthur Chen, Stephen Hanamaika, Cindy Malekos, Isael Ojeda, Rosa Park (StanCOG); 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Zach Keller called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS None 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Motion to Approve Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Minutes of 11/1/17 * By Motion (Member Terhesa Gamboa/Member John Dinan), and a unanimous vote, the Citizens Advisory Committee approved the Consent Calendar. 5. PRESENTATION A Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Isael Ojeda briefly described the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). He provided an overview of the four scenarios that were being considered for the RTP/SCS, and described the differences between them. The members were able to participate in a poll to give their feedback on which of the scenarios they preferred. He also let the members know that the survey was available in English and in Spanish on the StanCOG website at: A discussion followed and members questions were answered. 4

5 6. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS A. Motion to Recommend Policy Board Approve the Meeting Schedule for Calendar Year 2018 Cindy Malekos stated that it was proposed in 2018 that the Citizens Advisory Committee meetings continue to be held on the first Wednesday of the month at 6:00pm, except for the July and November meeting dates which were changed due to holiday or calendar conflicts. * By Motion (Member Terhesa Gamboa/Member Elizabeth Claes), and a unanimous vote, the Citizens Advisory Committee recommended that the Policy Board approve the meeting schedule for calendar year A. FY 2018/19 Unmet Transit Needs Assessment Stephen Hanamaikai provided background on the Unmet Transit Needs (UTN) process. He stated that there would be comprehensive targeted outreach to get public feedback. He let the members know that the Unmet Transit Needs survey was available in English and in Spanish on the StanCOG website at: and encouraged the members to fill out the survey to convey any transit concerns. He also stated that a public hearing would be held at the Policy Board meeting on January 17, A discussion followed and members questions were answered. B. Final FFY 2016/17 Obligational Authority Funds Report Isael Ojeda outlined the annual allocated Federal funding apportionments. He stated that the Stanislaus region had obligated funds at 102.6% in FFY 2016/17, which meant that due to the region s over-obligation, an additional $75,388 was received as additional funding for the region. There was a brief discussion and questions were answered. 7. INFORMATION ITEMS The following items were provided for information only. A. Policy Board Minutes of 10/11/17 B. Executive Committee Minutes of 10/2/17 C. Management and Finance Committee Minutes of 9/25/17 8. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Rosa Park provided an update on the Measure L Policies and Procedures, Measure L Strategic Plan, and Senate Bill 1 (SB 1). A discussion followed and members voiced their opinions on the possible repeal of SB MEMBER REPORTS Member Keller reported on the heavily damaged Del Puerto Canyon Road, west of Patterson. He stated the large trucks hauling the Adobe Springs water to Modesto were tearing up the road and he was concerned that it was making it harder to get to the Frank Raines Regional Park. Rosa Park explained that the County prioritized road repairs in that area. New Member John Dinan stated that his first meeting was very enlightening and that he was happy to be on the committee. 5

6 Member Claes reported on a bike lane between Westley and Grayson that needed to be repaired. Stephen Hanamaika said he would follow up on this. Member Gamboa reported on her concerns regarding drivers speeding, and not stopping at stop signs. She stated there had been a child hit in her neighborhood and wanted to know if anything could be done. Rosa Park stated that with Measure L there was money available for jurisdictions to determine to use for safety protocols. 10. ADJOURNMENT Chair Zach Keller adjourned the meeting at 7:11 pm. Next Regularly Scheduled Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting: January 3, :00pm StanCOG Board Room 1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA Minutes Prepared By: Page 3 of3 6

7 PRESENTATION 7

8 TO: Citizens Advisory Committee Staff Report Presentation FROM: Elisabeth Hahn, Principal Planner Stephen Hanamaikai, Associate Planner DATE: December 20, 2017 SUBJECT: CalVans Joint Powers Authority Recommendation Consider information presented. Background CalVans, established in 2011, is a Public Transit Agency providing commuter and farm worker vanpool services. The agency is formed through a joint powers agreement (JPA) between the councils of governments in Fresno, Imperial, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Monterey, Sacramento, San Benito, San Joaquin, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Sutter, Tulare, and Ventura counties. By joining the JPA, CalVans is authorized to own, operate and administer a vanpool transportation system in these counties. StanCOG staff has researched CalVans for considering execution of a possible future joint powers agreement with the California Vanpool Authority (CalVans) to provide vanpool services in Stanislaus County. The action would add another non-exclusive option to the current vanpool provider pool. Joining the CalVans JPA would provide residents and businesses in the Stanislaus region the use of two services: the Farmworker Vanpool Program and the General Public Vanpool program. There is no cost to joining CalVans and members can opt out/leave at any time. There are also no on-going membership fees. CalVans Board of Director s is comprised of representatives from each of the member agencies. One voting member and an alternate shall be appointed by the member agency. All debts, liabilities, and obligations would be the sole responsibility of the Transit Authority (CalVans) and not its officers, employees, agents or Member Agencies. One of the advantages that StanCOG s participation and membership in CalVans could offer is the immediate capacity to capture and report vanpool passenger miles into the National 8

9 Transportation Database (NTD). The NTD provides the basis for the allocation of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 funds that are available in urbanized areas. Based on the experience of CalVans vanpool programs operated for agencies throughout the San Joaquin Valley, the average vanpool generates approximately $18,000 per van, per year. Many of the San Joaquin Valley agencies provide a subsidy to CalVans similar to that offered by Dibs, the current Transportation Demand Management Program for StanCOG, which offers a $150 subsidy per van pool for as long as the van pool is in operation. Given that the Dibs subsidies are $1,800 per van, per year, and should the same subsidy be provided to CalVans, the estimated positive return on CalVans program is $16,200 annually per van. These new FTA 5307 funds are then made available by FTA to transit operators to support regular transit programs, and in some areas, some portion of the funds are used to support further vanpool subsidies. CalVans currently has 650 vanpools with 370 to serve farm workers and 280 to serve long distance commuters. In addition to NTD reporting to increase 5307 funds, CalVans benefits also include: Bi-lingual Support GPS and Vehicle Monitoring No credit or background check Advance notice not required to discontinue a vanpool Congestion relief strategy Low cost job access Reduction of parking demand Should you have any questions regarding this staff report, please contact Stephen Hanamaikai, Associate Planner, at or via at shanamaikai@stancog.org. 9

10 DISCUSSION & ACTION ITEMS 10

11 TO: Citizens Advisory Committee Staff Report Discussion FROM: Elisabeth Hahn, Principal Planner Debbie Trujillo, Planning Technician DATE: December 20, 2017 SUBJECT: Federal Fiscal Year 2016/17 Annual Listing of Federal Obligation Projects Recommendation Consider information presented. Background As the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for the Stanislaus Region, the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) develops an annual listing of all transportation projects that received federal funding during the previous Federal Fiscal Year (FFY). Publishing the FFY 2016/17 Annual Listing of Federal Obligation (for the period from October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017) fulfills this transportation requirement by identifying all federal investments in the Stanislaus Region for improving transportation facilities. Federal obligation represents the federal government s commitment to pay or reimburse state and/or local agencies for the eligible costs of the federal share. Recognizing that only federal dollars are identified in this report, the amounts shown may not be equal to the total project cost, as local and state funds are not reported as part of this listing. In order to receive federal obligation, projects must be identified in the 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP), the four-year regional programming document identifying all transportation projects scheduled to receive federal obligation. Discussion StanCOG s 2016/17 Annual Listing of Federal Obligation indicates that approximately $53 million in federal funds were obligated for transportation improvement projects in the Stanislaus Region. Of the $53 million in federal obligations, approximately $3.3 million were roadway projects, $1.6 million were bicycle and pedestrian improvements, $29.1 million were transit related projects, $7.7 million were maintenance and operation projects and $11.2 million were bridge related projects. 11

12 Should you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Elisabeth Hahn, Principal Planner, by phone at or via at Attachment: 1. FFY 2016/17 Annual Listing of Federal Obligation Projects 12

13 Annual Listing of Federal Obligation Projects FFY City of Ceres City of Patterson City of Hughson City of Riverbank City of Modesto City of Turlock City of Newman City of Waterford City of Oakdale Stanislaus County 13

14 Page Intentionally Left Blank 14

15 TABLE OF CONTENTS Purpose of the Report... 1 About the Stanislaus Council of Governments... 2 The StanCOG Policy Board... 2 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)... 3 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP)... 3 Public Participation... 4 Annual Listing of Federal Obligation by Agency... 5 Annual Listing of Federal Obligation by Improvement Type... 6 FFY 2016/17 Federally Obligated Projects by Agency Listing... 8 FFY 2016/17 Federally Obligated Transit Projects by Agency Listing Tables and Charts Table and Chart 1 Federal Obligations by Agency... 5 Table and Chart 2 Federal Obligations by Improvement Type

16 Page Intentionally Left Blank 16

17 Purpose of the Report As the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for the Stanislaus Region, the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) is required by federal regulations (23 US.C ) to develop an annual listing of federally funded projects during Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2016/17 (October 1, 2016 September 30, 2017). Specifically, states and MPOs must produce: (a) In metropolitan planning areas, on an annual basis, no later than 90 calendar days following the end of the program year, the State, public transportation operator(s), and the MPO(s) shall cooperatively develop a listing of projects (including investments in pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) for which funds under 23 U.S.C. or 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 were obligated in the preceding program year. (b) The listing shall be prepared in accordance with (a) and shall include all federally funded projects authorized or revised to increase obligations in the preceding program year, and shall at a minimum include the TIP information under (g)(1) and (4) and identify, for each project, the amount of Federal funds requested in the TIP, the Federal funding that was obligated during the preceding year, and the Federal funding remaining and available for subsequent years. (c) The listing shall be published or otherwise made available in accordance with the MPO(s) public participation criteria for the TIP. [81 FR 34135, May 27, 2016, as amended at 81 FR 93473, Dec. 20, 2016]. Federal obligation represents the federal government s commitment to pay or reimburse state and/or local agencies for the eligible costs of the federal share. Recognizing that only federal dollars (not including state or local funds) are identified in this report, the amounts shown may not be equal to the total project cost. This report is designed to address these federal requirements by listing federal funded transportation projects in the Stanislaus County region that were obligated in Fiscal Year 2016/17. Obligation of federal funds indicates a project received a commitment from the Federal government to reimburse lead agencies for the federal costs of the project for the particular phase of the project that is ready to move forward. Obligations do not necessarily represent the total cost of the project, nor does it indicate an expenditure of dollars. It also does not signify a project initiation or completion in that year. 17

18 About the Stanislaus Council of Governments StanCOG is the Stanislaus Region's Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Regional Transportation Planning Authority (RTPA). StanCOG is a council of city and county governments comprised of the Cities of Ceres, Hughson, Modesto, Newman, Oakdale, Patterson, Riverbank, Turlock, Waterford and the County of Stanislaus. The agency is governed by a 16-member policy board consisting of representatives from each of StanCOG s ten Member Agencies and an ex-officio Caltrans delegate. StanCOG is responsible for the coordination and allocation of federal and state funds to transportation and transit projects throughout the Stanislaus Region. StanCOG is designed to be the central link between local governments within Stanislaus County. StanCOG serves to facilitate intergovernmental communication to gain a comprehensive understanding of local needs and priority transportation projects. From this collaborative effort, StanCOG coordinates transportation planning and funding resources to a variety of transportation projects that address regional and local transportation needs and objectives. The StanCOG Policy Board StanCOG is governed by a decision-making body called the Policy Board. It is comprised of sixteen elected officials from StanCOG member agencies, and a Caltrans ex-officio delegate. This includes five representatives from the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors, three representatives from the Modesto City Council, and one representative from each of the other eight City Councils in Stanislaus County. A California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) representative serves as an exofficio member on the Policy Board. The Policy Board guides policy making decisions through a collaborative and cooperative process to include interests and resources from each local jurisdiction. The Board establishes the direction and immediate policies for transportation improvement projects proposed and planned. StanCOG also works with several advisory committees that assist the StanCOG Policy Board in developing and enacting policies. These committees have been developed to assist with the development and implementation of policies that StanCOG directly oversees. These Advisory Committees include: The Executive Committee is comprised of five members of the Policy Board two members from the County Board of Supervisors, one member from the Modesto City Council and two other representatives from among the other cities. The Chair and Vice-Chair of the Policy Board serve as members of the Executive Committee as representatives from their respective agencies. The primary function of the Executive Committee is to recommend the annual budget. In addition, the Committee makes recommendations on special matters that are referred for review by the Policy Board, such as personnel issues. The Committee is also responsible for appointing members of the Standing and Ad Hoc Committees, where appropriate. 18

19 The Management and Finance Committee (MFC) is comprised of one City Management or Chief Executive Office staff member from each jurisdiction. This committee addresses each issue from a policy standpoint and makes recommendations directly to the Policy Board. The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) is comprised of up to 15 residents from Stanislaus County, which are appointed by the Policy Board. The CAC makes recommendations directly to the Policy Board. The intent of the CAC is to provide the Policy Board with input on transportation related issues from a body of residents. The Policy Board utilizes these advisory resources to formulate a comprehensive analysis to guide StanCOG's policy making decisions and work activities. Regional Transportation Plan As the agency responsible for coordinating transportation planning in nine cities, StanCOG s long range transportation plans for the region are articulated within a 25- year regional transportation plan. The current 2014 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy was developed with extensive public involvement and adopted by StanCOG s policy board in June This plan includes an assessment of overall growth and economic trends in the region, and provides a strategic direction for transportation capital investments. The RTP/SCS is updated every four years to reflect the latest state and federal transportation laws and policies. This plan presents a strategy to accommodate the significant expected growth in the region while promoting economic vitality, providing more housing and transportation choices, promoting healthy living, and improving communities through an efficient and well-maintained transportation network. In each four year update, StanCOG strives to ensure the efficient movement of people and goods, while selecting transportation projects that improve air quality throughout the region. The Stanislaus region relies on funding from federal, state, and other revenue sources to support these transportation improvement projects. Over the 25-year regional transportation plan, federal funds represent approximately 33% of all revenues. Only projects listed in the Regional Transportation Plan s financially constrained list are eligible to be placed in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for federal funding. Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Required by law, the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) is a comprehensive list of transportation projects for which federal funds are anticipated or where other federal action such as a review for impacts on air quality is required. The FTIP represents StanCOG s investments and transportation priorities as it relates to 19

20 highway, public transportation, freight, bicycle, pedestrian and other surface transportation improvement projects in the region. The majority of the projects in the FTIP are aimed at increasing the efficiency and safety of the transportation network in the region. StanCOG prepares and adopts the FTIP every two years. By law, all FTIPs must be in conformance with air quality requirements, cover at least a four year period, and contain a priority list of projects grouped by year. In addition, federal policy requires the FTIP be financially constrained by year, i.e., dollars programmed are not to exceed the available dollars estimated. StanCOG s 2017 FTIP was approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on December 16, This FTIP represents a consensus among local, state and regional officials as to what the region s transportation priorities are, and thereby establishes the bases for the eligibility for federal funding. In order for a project to receive federal obligation, the project must list its funding requirements in the FTIP. Public Participation The involvement of the public is critical to successful regional transportation planning and programming. When the public is engaged in the process, the feedback gathered helps assure projects address community needs. Likewise, the public gains a better understanding of the tradeoffs and constraints associated with transportation planning. StanCOG works extensively with the public to identify and provide solutions to the community s local and regional transportation priorities. Per federal law requirements, StanCOG provides the public with comprehensive information of their plans and an opportunity for the public to submit their comments. Public participation and comments on the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Federal Transportation Improvement Program and other plans are essential ingredients that enhance StanCOG s ability to make informed planning decisions regarding the current and future transportation needs in the region. 20

21 Annual Listing of Federal Obligation by Agency This report indicates that approximately $53 million in federal funds were obligated for transportation projects in the Stanislaus Region between October 1, 2016 and September 30, Agency Table 1: Federal Obligation by Agency Federal Obligation Percentage of Federal Obligation Ceres $2,538, % Hughson $200, % Modesto $24,299, % Newman $58, % Oakdale $237, % Patterson $848, % Riverbank $1,146, % Turlock $7,753, % Waterford $0 0.00% Stanislaus County $15,767, % StanCOG $242,372.46% Total $53,091, % 21

22 Annual Listing of Federal Obligation by Improvement Type Of the total $53 million in federal obligations for the Stanislaus region, approximately $3.3 million were roadway projects, $1.6 million were bicycle and pedestrian improvements, $29.1 million were transit related projects, $7.7 million were for maintenance and operations and $11.2 million were bridge related projects. Table 2: Federal Obligation by Improvement Type Percentage of Total Improvement Type Federal Obligations Obligation Roads $3,349, % Bicycle/Pedestrian $1,642, % Transit $29,163, % Maintenance & Operations $7,713, % Bridge $11,222, % Total $53,091, % 22

23 For more information about the listing of federally funded projects from the 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP), please visit the 2017 FTIP document via the following link, Further Information For additional information, or if you have any questions about this report or federal programming and obligations in general, please contact us at: Debbie Trujillo, Planning Technician (209) Rosa De León Park, Executive Director (209)

24 FFY 2016/17 Federal Obligation Projects Fund Source City of Ceres TIP ID Federal Project ID Location Work Description Obligation Date Obligation Amount FFY 16/17 Program Amount Total Project Funds Remaining Active Transportation Projects ATP Ceres Canal Bike and Pedestrian Path, Phase IV Bike and Pedestrian 7/21/2017 $658,000 $665,000 $0 X CMAQ (050) CMAQ (060) CMAQ (056) Mitchell Rd/TID Main Phase IV (Roeding Rd to Service Rd) Bike/Pedestrian Path for Commuters 7/20/2017 $280,375 $316,700 $0 Traffic Signal Modification at Roeding Road and Mitchell Road Traffic Flow Improvements 8/24/2017 $349,162 $377,400 $0 Roundabout at Central Avenue/Pine St/Industrial Way and Morgan/Aristocrat Traffic Flow Improvements 8/1/2017 $573,949 $648,310 $0 CMAQ (065) Morgan and Service Road Signalize 2/22/2017 $33,250 $47,500 $0 STBGP (051) STBGP (066) HSIP (067) City of Hughson Mitchell Road Overlay Phase IV - Roading Road to Service Road Overlay 7/25/2017 $551,618 $629,863 $0 Blaker Road from Service Road to Hackett Road Overlay 4/14/2017 $70,000 $79,069 $0 Various intersections - Install pedestrian countdown heads, ADA compliant push buttons, and crosswalk striping and marking improvements Install pedestrian countdown heads, ADA compliant push buttons, and crosswalk striping and marking improvements 7/31/2017 $22,500 $0 STBGP (021) Whitmore Avenue - Tully to Charles Street Pavement Rehabilitation 5/26/2017 $200,000 $225,912 $0 City of Modesto ATP (209) STBGP (205) CMAQ (187) CMAQ (190) STBGP (195) Modesto Junior College Class 1 Bicycle Path (Phase II) Bike Path 7/14/2017 $512,000 $582,000 $0 X La Loma Avenue from James Street to Rowland Avenue, Miller Avenue from El Vista Avenue to N. Riverside Drive, Burney Street from 18th Street to Jennie Street, 17th Street from G Street to Burney Street, J Street from 9th Street to 17th Street Pavement Rehabilitation 4/18/2017 $1,584,493 $1,584,493 $0 Prescott Road and Plaza Parkway Right Turn Lane Traffic Flow Improvements 5/19/2017 $260,000 $0 Prescott Rd & Mt. Vernon Dr., Floyd Ave & Milbrook Ave., Roselle Ave & Belharbour - Install New Traffic Signals Signalize 5/19/2017 $174,000 $0 1) Scenic Rd; 2) Claus Rd; 3) Coffee Rd; 4) Scenic Rd Pavement Rehabilitation 9/13/2017 $316,767 $0 24

25 Fund Source TIP ID City of Modesto (cont'd) Federal Project ID Location Work Description Obligation Date Obligation Amount FFY 16/17 Program Amount Total Project Funds Remaining Active Transportation Projects CMAQ (198) STBGP (198) WB D Street to NB 9th Street (SR 132) Install Right Turn Lane (TC) Traffic Flow Improvements 6/5/2017 $34,000 $0 WB D Street to NB 9th Street (SR 132) Install Right Turn Lane (TC) Pavement Rehabilitation 6/5/2017 $220,000 $0 HSIP (221) HSIP (227) City of Newman CMAQ (027) CMAQ (028) City of Oakdale STBGP (039) City of Patterson ATP (034) CMAQ / STBGP (027) City of Riverbank CMAQ (055) CMAQ (054) CMAQ (056) CMAQ / STBGP (052) 1 - Scenic Drive just east of Bodem Street 2 - Orangeburg Avenue just west of Martin Avenue. Install high friction surface treatment. Oakdale Road at Claratina Avenue. Install new traffic signal, traffic signs and pavement markings. Install high friction surface treatment. 7/20/2017 $301,200 $0 Install new traffic signal, traffic signs and pavement markings. 6/22/2017 $60,000 $0 Merced Street from Inyo Avenue to Driskell Avenue Bike/Pedestrian Improvements 4/24/2017 $30,207 $30,207 $0 Merced Street from N Street to Sherman Pkwy, Pedestrian Facility and Class II Bike Lane Bike/Pedestrian Improvements 4/24/2017 $27,969 $27,969 $0 C Street Pavement Rehab Phase 2 - From Yosemite to 1st Street Pavement Rehabilitation 3/17/2017 $237,526 $268,300 $0 Pedestrian Safety Improve along Las Palmas Avenue and Ward Avenue Pedestrian Safety Improvements 5/26/2017 $51,000 $60,000 $0 X Roadway Improvementas at Sperry Ave. and S. Del Puerto Ave to configure turn lanes in all directions and improve traffic flow Traffic Flow Improvements 8/3/2017 $797,046 $1,140,257 $0 Along Patterson Road from First Street to Claus Road along the south side Along Roselle Avenue from Patterson Road to Pocket Avenue along the east side Pedestrian Access & ADA Improvements 11/16/2016 $13,678 $15,450 $0 Pedestrian Access & ADA Improvements 11/16/2016 $26,559 $30,000 $0 Traffic Management Intersection Improvements at Roselle Avenue and Morrill Road, sidewalk infill to link pededstrian commute access along Morrill Road Traffic Flow Improvements 3/10/2017 $53,118 $60,000 $0 Patterson Road and Roselle and Coordinated Pedestrian Railroad Safety Crossing including Sidewalks Signalize 8/10/2017 $1,053,105 $1,061,223 $0 25

26 Fund Source City of Turlock TIP ID Federal Project ID Location Work Description Obligation Date Obligation Amount FFY 16/17 Program Amount Total Project Funds Remaining Active Transportation Projects ATP / CMAQ (085) Christoffersen Parkway - Class II Facilities Bike and Pedestrian 4/14/2017 $20,000 $20,000 $0 X CMAQ (087) N. Denair Avenue and Hawkeye Avenue Signalize 1/23/2017 $28,640 $28,640 $0 CMAQ (086) W. Main Street and West Avenue Signalize 1/23/2017 $35,042 $35,042 $0 STBGP (082) Stanislaus County E. Monte Vista Avenue, from Geer Road to eastern city limits Rehabilitation 7/19/2017 $761,269 $859,900 $0 CMAQ (239) Keyes Road/Faith Home Road Intersection Signalize 7/24/2017 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $0 STBGP (240) Faith Home Rd from Hatch Rd to Garner Viaduct Construct New 4 Lane Expressway 12/7/2016 $622,500 $1,600,000 $0 HBP (076) HBP (188) HBP (196) Crows Landing Road over San Joaquin River (Bridge 38C0010) Bridge Replacement 6/5/2017 $995,963 $0 $0 Santa Fe Avenue over Tuloumne River (Bridge 38C0003) Seismic Retrofit 5/19/2017 $10,092,420 $0 $0 Tegner Road over Turlock Irrigation District Lateral #5 (Bridge 38C0302) Bridge Replacement 2/6/2017 $134,347 $0 $0 CMAQ (222) Intersection of Geer Rd and Whitmore Avenue Signalize 9/7/2017 $300,000 $300,000 $0 CMAQ (224) Intersection of Geer Rd and Santa Fe Avenue Signalize 9/7/2017 $300,000 $300,000 $0 HSIP (234) Intersection of Bradbury Rd & S. Walnut Rd and Central Ave & Grayson Rd Beacons, lighting, & widen shoulders 3/17/2017 $366,000 $0 $0 HSIP (245) Various Roads HSIP (246) Various Locations StanCOG STBGP (072) Planning and Monitoring Activities Install fluorescent sign, and wet/dry enhanced thermoplastic striping updgrades 9/13/2017 $360,000 $0 $0 Install edge-lines and centerlines using enhanced wet/dry thermoplastic striping 9/13/2017 $360,000 $0 $0 Planning and Monitoring Activities 5/26/2017 $ 60,000 $67,774 $0 26

27 FFY 2016/17 Transit Projects by Agency FTA 5307 TIP ID City of Modesto Work Description Federal Funds Obligated FFY 16/17 Total Dollar Amount in FTIP Total Project Funds Remaining Transit Center $100,000 $120,000 $432, Demand Response Transit (Capital Cost of Contracting for Demand Response) $2,562,891 $3,075,469 $11,499, Bus Stop Rehabilitation and Renovation $400,000 $480,000 $1,620, Purchase 28 Buses (7 Transit Buses per FFY) $4,245,000 $5,094,000 $16,988, Transit: Equipment, Tools, Machines $319,440 $383,328 $1,086, ADA Paratransit Operations $161,243 $193,492 $688, Transit Facility Operations $74,536 $89,443 $320, Preventative Maintenance $3,600,000 $4,320,000 $14,256, Training and Education $29,282 $35,138 $489, Technology Improvements $319,440 $383,328 $1,213, Capital Cost of Contracting for Stanislaus County $1,201,987 $1,201,987 $762, Transit Planning - Short and Long Term $400,000 $480,000 $312,000 City of Turlock BLAST/DART Operations $720,000 $1,440,000 $1,500, Purchase Buses $2,400,000 $3,798,271 $2,150, Preventative Maintenance $100,000 $200,000 $200, Support Equipment $50,000 $2,030,000 $700, Transit Facility Improvements and Construction $2,740,000 $3,624,000 $0 27

28 FTA 5309 TIP ID City of Modesto Work Description Federal Funds Obligated FFY 16/17 Total Dollar Amount in FTIP Total Project Funds Remaining Bus Stop/Station Improvements $700,000 $700,000 $750, Bus Purchase for Replacement $650,000 $780,000 $2,700, Multimodal Transportation Center $3,000,000 $3,600,000 $216, Bus Purchase for Replacement $3,000,000 $3,600,000 $13,080,000 City of Turlock Purchase Buses $898,271 $3,798,271 $2,150,000 FTA 5311 TIP ID Stanislaus County Work Description Federal Funds Obligated FFY 16/17 Total Dollar Amount in FTIP Total Project Funds Remaining StaRT Operating Assistance $557,457 $1,114,914 $1,114,914 CMAQ Transit Projects TIP ID City of Modesto Work Description Federal Funds Obligated FFY 16/17 Total Dollar Amount in FTIP Total Project Funds Remaining Rideshare Program $73,000 $73,000 $81,000 Stanislaus County Transit Fare Subsidy Program $78,792 $89,000 $94, Regional Commuter Express Bus Route $600,000 $1,975,000 $1,975,000 Stanislaus Council of Governments Regional Rideshare Program $182,372 $206,000 $210,000 28

29 TO: Citizens Advisory Committee Staff Report Discussion FROM: Elisabeth Hahn, Principal Planner DATE: December 21, 2017 SUBJECT: 2018 RTP/SCS Update Recommendation Consider information presented. Background Every four years the State of California and the federal government require that regional transportation planning agencies/metropolitan planning organizations, including StanCOG, update their respective Regional Transportation Plans/Sustainable Communities Strategies (RTP/SCS). In Stanislaus County, the stakeholder driven process of developing and updating the RTP/SCS is referred to as Valley Vision Stanislaus. The RTP/SCS for the Stanislaus County Region was last updated in In order to meet State and Federal update requirements, the 2018 RTP/SCS update must be completed before October The Regional Transportation Plan is the region s 25-year, financially-constrained blueprint for future transportation improvements and investments based on specific transportation goals and objectives defined by StanCOG with input from the public and its member agencies. A successful RTP should help promote the safe and efficient management, operation and development of an intermodal transportation system including roadways, transit, goods movement, bicycle\pedestrian, and aviation facilities. Transportation helps shape a region s economic health and quality of life; it influences the pattern of growth and economic activity through accessibility to land. Transportation also affects other public policy issues such as air quality, affordable housing, and public safety. The RTP is more than a mere listing of highway and transit projects to be pursued over 25 years; it requires developing strategies for operating, maintaining, and financing the region s transportation system in such a way as to advance the region s long term goals. 29

30 Transportation planning and land use became more closely linked in California following the passage of Senate Bill 375 in As a result of this legislation, each of California s 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations, including StanCOG, must prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy as part of their RTP. The Sustainable Communities Strategy sets forth a forecasted development pattern for the region which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles and light trucks to achieve emission reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board. The future land use and transportation scenario presented in the Sustainable Communities Strategy must accommodate forecasted population, employment, and housing sufficient to meet the needs of all income groups, including the State-mandated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), while considering State housing goals. The Air Resources Board must review and accept each MPO s determination that, if implemented, the Sustainable Communities Strategy would meet the region s respective emissions reduction targets. Discussion In August, StanCOG developed four RTP/SCS scenarios covering a range of transportation investments coupled with supportive land use growth strategies. Since that time, these scenarios have been analyzed over a range of performance measures to illustrate the relative differences of the scenarios. StanCOG has been soliciting input from the public on the four scenarios. The next phase of the 2018 RTP/SCS will be to select a preferred scenario. StanCOG will be presenting a summary report of the public outreach and the performance measure results at the upcoming January 3, 2017 Valley Vision Stanislaus Steering Committee and will be soliciting the VVS Committee s recommendation on a preferred scenario. This recommendation will then be brought to the Policy Board who will ultimately identify the preferred scenario at their regularly scheduled meeting on January 17, The preferred scenario will become the basis of the 2018 RTP/SCS and the preferred alternative for the 2018 RTP/SCS EIR. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2018 RTP/SCS was released on December 20, StanCOG will be hosting a public scoping meeting from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm on January 10, 2018 at the following location for the purpose of soliciting public input on the scope and content of the environmental analysis that will be included in the Draft EIR. EIR Scoping Meeting Date: January 10, 2018 Time: 4:00 to 6:00 PM Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) 1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA

31 Next Steps A draft Environmental Impact Report will be released for public review in April 2018 with the final 2018 RTP/SCS document completed by summer Should you have any questions regarding this staff report, please contact Elisabeth Hahn, Principal Planner, by phone at (209) or via at ehahn@stancog.org. 31

32 TO: Citizens Advisory Committee Staff Report Motion FROM: Stephen Hanamaikai, Associate Planner DATE: 12/14/2017 SUBJECT: Recommendation By Motion: Certifications and Assurances for the California State of Good Repair Program and the FY 2017/2018 State Transit Assistance State of Good Repair Program Project List Recommend that the Policy Board Authorize by Resolution the Execution of the Certifications and Assurances for the California State of Good Repair Program and Approve the FY 2017/2018 State Transit Assistance State of Good Repair Program Project List. Background Established by Senate Bill 1, the State Transit Assistance - State of Good Repair (STA-SGR) Program provides approximately $105 million annually to eligible recipients for transit maintenance, rehabilitation and capital projects that keep the public transit system in a state of good repair. Eligible STA-SGR projects include: - Transit capital projects or services to maintain or repair a transit operators transit vehicle fleet or transit facilities; - The design, acquisition and construction of new vehicles or facilities that improve existing transit service; and - Transit services that complement local efforts for repair and improvement of local transportation infrastructure. In order to receive STA-SGR funds, eligible recipients must submit an annual list of projects to Caltrans, which are due to Caltrans by January 31, Prior to receiving their first allocation, agencies must also submit executed Certification and Assurances and Authorized Agent Forms. The STA-SGR Guidelines, project list template, Certifications and Assurances, and Authorized Agents forms can be found at the following website: For FY 2017/2018, StanCOG will receive $727,995 (PUC 99313) for allocation to projects in the 32

33 region. In addition to these regional funds, Stanislaus County (StaRT) and the cities of Modesto (MAX), Turlock (Turlock Transit), and Ceres (CAT) will receive direct allocations, via Public Utility Code 99314, detailed in the table below. FY 2017/2018 State Transit Assistance State of Good Repair Direct Allocations (PUC 99314) Ceres (CAT) $912 Modesto (MAX) $34,928 Stanislaus County (StaRT) $6,544 Turlock (Turlock Transit) $1,899 Pursuant to STA-SGR Guidelines, funds allocated per PUC shall be sub-allocated to public transit operators who have submitted the required project list, based on the amounts above, as published by the State Controller s Office. Discussion In November, staff met with the transit managers from Stanislaus County (StaRT) and the cities of Modesto (MAX), Turlock (Turlock Transit), and Ceres (CAT) to discuss the use of STA-SGR funds allocated to StanCOG via Public Utility Code (PUC) There was consensus among all transit operators in favor of expanding the existing regional transit shelter cleaning project to include the cleaning and maintenance of all transit shelters and bus stops in the region, as well as the Transit Centers in Modesto and Turlock. The expansion of the regional bus shelter cleaning project will help to attract and retain ridership by keeping transit facilities in a state of good repair and will reduce facility maintenance costs for all of the transit operators within the region. It is anticipated that the full allocation of 2017/18 STA-SGR funds will be used for the regional transit shelter maintenance and cleaning project; however, if there are remaining funds this project list can be amended to include new projects. Staff will ensure the transit managers are kept aware of any remaining funds. Should you have any questions regarding this staff report, please contact Stephen Hanamaikai, Associate Planner, at or via at shanamaikai@stancog.org. Attachment: 1. Draft Resolution 33

34 STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES FOR THE CALIFORNIA STATE OF GOOD REPAIR PROGRAM AND APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2017/2018 STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE-STATE OF GOOD REPAIR PROGRAM PROJECT LIST WHEREAS, the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) is a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and is an eligible project sponsor and may receive State Transit Assistance funding from the State of Good Repair Account (SGR) now or sometime in the future for transit projects; and WHEREAS, the statutes related to state-funded transit projects require a local or regional implementing agency to abide by various regulations; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (2017) named the Department of Transportation (Department) as the administrative agency for the SGR; and WHEREAS, the Department has developed guidelines for the purpose of administering and distributing SGR funds to eligible project sponsors; and WHEREAS, StanCOG wishes to delegate authorization to execute these documents and any amendments thereto to the Executive Director; and WHEREAS, the Department requires that eligible project sponsors provide a project list on an annual basis. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the StanCOG Policy Board that the fund recipient agrees to comply with all conditions and requirements set forth in the Certification and Assurances document and applicable statutes, regulations and guidelines for all SGR funded transit projects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the StanCOG Fiscal Year 2017/2018 State Transit Assistance - State of Good Repair Program project list, contained in Exhibit A, is hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Executive Director is authorized to execute all required documents of the SGR program and any Amendments thereto with the California Department of Transportation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Executive Director is authorized to make administrative changes as needed, to ensure that the program is implemented in the most efficient and cost effective manner possible. 34

35 MEETING DATE: January 17 th, 2018 ATTEST: ROSA DE LEÓN PARK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BILL ZOSLOCKI, CHAIR 35

36 FY 2017/2018 StanCOG State Transit Assistance-State of Good Repair Program Project List Recipient Project Title Description StanCOG Regional Transit Stop Cleaning and Maintenance Project Total STA- SGR (99313) Total Project Cost Cleaning and maintenance of all transit stops in the region to help attract and retain ridership by maintaining transit stop facilities in a state of good repair. $727,995 $727,995 36

37 TO: Citizens Advisory Committee Staff Report Discussion FROM: Stephen Hanamaikai, Associate Planner Elisabeth Hahn, Principal Planner DATE: December 14, 2017 SUBJECT: Local Partnership Program-Competitive Recommendation Consider information presented. Background Established by Senate Bill 1, the Local Partnership Program (LPP) provides $200 million annually in matching funding to support transportation investments that local communities are already making in their region. These matching funds will support cities and counties that have voterapproved transportation tax measures, such as Measure L. Funds will be distributed by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) via a 50% competitive and 50% formula basis The LPP Competitive Program will cover FY through in the initial cycle and the funding will be programmed every two-years in future cycles with a minimum request of $2 million and will fund only construction. Projects funded through the LPP require a one-to-one match of private, local, federal, or state funds. The match may be from any funds that are not allocated by the Commission on a project specific basis with the exception of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding. The matching funds must be expended concurrently and proportionally to the Local Partnership Program funds. Costs incurred prior to allocation will not be counted towards a local match. For competitive grants, the CTC will compare projects based on the population of jurisdictions across which the tax or fee is applied. Based on the population of Stanislaus County, projects in the region will be compared with projects nominated by other eligible jurisdictions with populations of 300, ,999. Projects nominated by jurisdictions with a population of 300, ,999 have a minimum funding request of $2 million. StanCOG, as the taxing 37

38 authority, may submit multiple project applications for competitive grants and projects must be clearly prioritized. For the LPP Competitive Program, projects will be prioritized based on the following criteria: - Cost-effectiveness as analyzed using the Caltrans' Life-Cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis Model 6.0 (Cal B/C) - Commence construction or implementation early - Leverage more committed funds per program dollar - Demonstrate quantifiable air quality improvements, including a significant reduction in vehicle-miles traveled - Demonstrate regional and community project support - Further the implementation of the sustainable communities strategy (applicable to projects within an MPO) LPP Competitive Program Grant Applications are due to CTC on January 30, Qualifying projects must be submitted to StanCOG by December 29, Projects that meet the above criteria will be brought before the committees and Policy Board in January Discussion Since the inception of the SB 1 programs, staff has informed the agencies on the various programs available for funding. The CTC adopted the LPP guidelines at their October meeting. On December 19 th staff apprised the Planning, Programming Working Group (PPWG) of the opportunity to submit projects for nomination consideration. All project received by StanCOG by the December 29, 2017 deadline will be brought to committees for discussion. Project nominations will be prioritized based on LPP evaluation criteria stated in the guidelines and brought to the Policy Board for approval on January 17, Should you have any questions regarding this staff report, please contact Stephen Hanamaikai, Associate Planner, at or via at shanamaikai@stancog.org. Attachment: 1. Local Partnership Program Guidelines 38

39 Attachement 1 CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION platnn:mg agencies, CITOIICTAI"\A l 1i,:>."I"C to '"'"'"'''""''"'"" NOW, Commission adopts the attached 2018 Local these guidelines is to the Commission's policy and expectations for the Local Partnership and to provide a i"'fi11''1"111"iiptp. and statement the policy, standards, and the Commission ~nr.onr'lc to use to determine how Local Program allocated; Commission guidelines; and and guidelines do not preclude any project is consistent with implementing legislation; 39

40 to 40

41 2018 LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM GUIDELINES Adopted October 18, 2017 Resolution G California Transportation Commission 41

42 CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2018 LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM GUIDELINES TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Background Program Objectives Program Schedule... 1 Funding Source Programming Cycle Distribution Incentive for New and Renewed Sales Tax Measures Matching Requirements Funding Restrictions Reimbursement... 6 Eligibility Eligible Applicants Eligible Projects Eligible Components... 7 Project Selection Process Screening Criteria Project Rating Process Competitive Program Evaluation Criteria Project Nominations... 9 Programming Committed/Uncommitted Funds...12 Project Amendments Amendment Requests...12 Allocations Allocation Requests...13 Project Delivery Letter of No Prejudice Timely Use of Funds Delivery Deadline Extensions Project Inactivity Project Cost Savings Project Reporting Project Tracking Database Project Auditing Workforce Development Requirements and Project Signage

43 Introduction 1. Background The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill [SB] 1, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) created the Local Partnership Program and continuously appropriates two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) annually to be allocated by the California Transportation Commission (Commission) to local or regional transportation agencies that have sought and received voter approval of taxes or that have imposed fees, which taxes or fees are dedicated solely for transportation improvements. The Local Partnership Program was subsequently amended by Assembly Bill (AB) 115 (Chapter 20, Statutes of 2017) and AB 135 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 255, Statutes of 2017). These guidelines, modeled after the Commission s Proposition 1B State-Local Partnership Guidelines for Fiscal Year , describe the policy, standards, criteria, and procedures for the development, adoption and management of the 2018 Local Partnership Program. Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 2033, these guidelines were developed in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), transportation planning agencies, county transportation commissions, local agencies and other transportation stakeholders. The Commission may amend these guidelines after first giving notice of the proposed amendments and conducting at least one public hearing. The Commission will make a reasonable effort to amend the guidelines prior to a call for projects or may extend the deadline for project submission in order to comply with the amended guidelines. 2. Program Objectives The objective of the Local Partnership Program is to reward counties, cities, districts, and regional transportation agencies in which voters have approved fees or taxes solely dedicated to transportation improvements or that have enacted fees solely dedicated to transportation [based on Government Code Section (b)(1)]. Consistent with the intent behind SB 1, the Commission intends this program to balance the need to direct increased revenue to the state s highest transportation needs while fairly distributing the economic impact of increased funding [SB 1 section 1(l)]. 3. Program Schedule The following schedule lists the major milestones for the development and adoption of the 2018 Local Partnership Program: Draft Guidelines Presented to the Commission August 16, 2017 Commission Adoption of Guidelines October 18-19, 2017 Call for Project Applications October 20,

44 Formulaic Program: Agencies Submit Voter Approval Information October 27, 2017 Publish Proposed Distribution of Shares November 13, 2017 Commission Adopts Formulaic Distribution of Shares December 6-7, 2017 Projects Applications Due December 15, 2017 Release Staff Recommendations January 10, 2018 Commission Adopts Program January 31, 2018 Competitive Program: Applications Due (postmark date) January 30, 2018 Release Staff Recommendations April 25, 2018 Commission Adopts Program May 16, 2018 Future cycles of the formulaic program will include adoption of formulaic shares each August and program adoption each December. Future competitive programs will be adopted biennially. Funding 4. Source The Local Partnership Program will receive two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) annually from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account. 5. Programming Cycle For the Formulaic Program, the initial cycle will cover and , and will be programmed annually after the first cycle is complete. For the Competitive Program, the initial program cycle will cover through Future cycles will be programmed every two-years. 6. Distribution In the initial programming cycle, through , program funds will be distributed 50% via formula and 50% via a competitive program. The methodologies for distribution of funds will be revisited in the subsequent programming cycle. Formulaic Program: Jurisdictions with voter approved taxes, tolls, and fees will be eligible for a formulaic distribution of funds if the taxes, tolls, or fees are dedicated solely to transportation. The initial cycle of the formulaic program will cover and , with annual programming cycles thereafter. 44

45 At the beginning of each programming cycle, the Commission will adopt the funding share for each eligible taxing authority, rounded to the nearest whole thousand dollars, as follows: A. The Commission will establish a northern California and southern California share by attributing the proportional share of revenues from voter-approved sales taxes, voterapproved parcel or property taxes, and voter-approved tolls dedicated to transportation improvements and imposed in counties in northern California to the northern share, and by attributing the proportional share of revenues from voter-approved sales taxes, voterapproved parcel or property taxes, and voter-approved tolls imposed in counties located in southern California to the southern share. The determination of whether a county is located in northern or southern California shall be based on the definitions set forth in Section 187 of the Streets and Highways Code. B. Program funds made available to the southern share will be distributed as follows: Program funds generated by voter-approved tolls, voter-approved parcel or property taxes, and other voter approved taxes, excluding sales taxes, dedicated to transportation improvements shall be distributed to the taxing authority based on the proportional share of revenues generated by the toll or tax by that entity in comparison to the total revenues generated by voter-approved sales taxes, voter-approved parcel or property taxes, and voter-approved bridge tolls dedicated to transportation improvements in southern California. Program funds generated by voter-approved sales taxes dedicated to transportation improvements shall be distributed to the taxing authority in proportion to the population of the county in which the entity is located compared to the total population of southern California counties with voter-approved sales taxes dedicated to transportation improvements. C. Program funds made available to the northern share will be distributed as follows: Program funds generated by voter-approved tolls, voter-approved parcel or property taxes, and other voter approved taxes, excluding sales taxes, dedicated to transportation improvements shall be distributed to the taxing authority based on the proportional share of revenues generated by the toll or tax by that entity in comparison to the total revenues generated by voter-approved sales taxes, voter-approved parcel or property taxes, and voter-approved tolls dedicated to transportation improvements in northern California. Program funds generated by voter-approved sales taxes dedicated to transportation improvements shall be distributed to the taxing authority proportion to the population of the county in which the entity is located compared to the total population of the northern California counties with voter-approved sales taxes dedicated to transportation improvements. All jurisdictions eligible for a formulaic funding share will receive a minimum annual share of $100,000. The Commission may adjust this minimum funding share in subsequent programming cycles. In establishing funding shares, the Commission will use the most current data available as follows: For local sales tax revenues, the sum of gross revenues for the most recent four quarters as reported for each local tax by the Board of Equalization. 45

46 For parcel and property tax revenues, the revenues for the most recent fiscal year, as reported to the State Controller pursuant to Government Code Section For toll and other revenues, the sum of revenues for the most recent fiscal year, as reported in the agency s most recent audited financial statements. For population, the annual population estimate for cities and counties issued by the Department of Finance in May prior to the beginning of each fiscal year. To verify eligibility, an agency must submit the following information by October 27, 2017: Ballot information. A copy of the ordinance or resolution seeking voter approval of the tax, toll, or fee. Election results (Official Statement of Votes Cast). For tolls, fees, and taxes other than sales taxes, a copy of the relevant section of the jurisdiction s most recent audited financial statements indicating the revenue generated by the tax, toll, or fee, including posting location on the internet and information about how the revenues are reported to the state. The Commission will determine a funding share for each eligible taxing authority with a voterapproved tax or toll that was approved prior to the adoption of the funding shares and will be collected during the fiscal year. Where a city has a voter-approved local sales tax and is located within a county without a countywide sales tax, the Commission will adopt a funding share for the city based on the city s population and the city s sales tax revenue. Where a city has a voter-approved local sales tax and is located within a county with a voter-approved local sales tax, the Commission will adopt a single countywide funding share based on the population for the county and both the city and county s sales tax revenue. Where there are multiple eligible taxing authorities with a voter-approved local sales tax within a county with a countywide sales tax, the Commission will adopt funding shares for each taxing authority based on the relative tax rates of each voter-approved sales tax. If the program of projects adopted by the Commission does not program the full amount of a taxing authority s formulaic funding share, the balance will remain available for later program amendments supported by eligible project nominations. A balance not programmed in one programming cycle will carry over and be available in the following programming cycle. Funds that remain unprogrammed for two programming cycles will be redistributed (as described in this section) in the subsequent programming cycle. Competitive Grant Program: Jurisdictions with voter approved taxes, tolls, and fees, or with imposed fees, will be eligible for the competitive grant program if the taxes, tolls, or fees are dedicated solely to transportation. The initial programming cycle will cover through The Competitive Grant Program will revert to a two-year program after the first cycle is complete. The Competitive Grant Program will be divided in two parts: one for jurisdictions with voterapproved taxes, tolls, or fees; and the second for jurisdictions with only imposed fees. The Competitive Grant Program will be divided into these two groups based on the relative tax, toll, 46

47 and fee revenue of the taxing authorities. In no case will the portion for jurisdictions with only imposed fees be less than $5,000,000. To verify eligibility, an agency that is not eligible for formulaic funds or that does not apply for formulaic funds must submit the following information with their project application: A copy of the ordinance or resolution seeking to impose the fee. A copy of the relevant section of the jurisdiction s most recent audited financial statements indicating the revenue generated by the imposed fee, including posting location on the internet and information about how the revenues are reported to the state. 7. Incentive for New and Renewed Sales Tax Measures, Tolls, or Fees To recognize new or renewed voter approved self-help efforts and to incentivize jurisdictions to pursue future sales tax measures, tolls, or fees, a one-time incentive grant will be provided to jurisdictions that seek and receive voter approval of new or renewed sales tax measures, tolls, or fees, if those tax measures, tolls, or fees have a minimum period of ten-years, are solely dedicated to transportation, and for sales taxes are equal to or greater than one quarter cent. The total amount of incentive grants awarded will not exceed $20,000,000 annually. The incentive grant amount will be based upon the projected annual revenue of the voter approved tax initiative (based on the voter approved tax rate and the sum of gross revenues for the most recent four quarters as reported by the Board of Equalization). If the projected revenue is less than $100,000, the incentive grant amount will be $100,000. For jurisdictions that generate tax revenues above $100,000, the incentive grant amount will not exceed $5,000,000. Should the sum of the incentive amounts (based on the above) exceed $20,000,000 in any year, each incentive amount will be reduced proportionally while still maintaining the $100,000 minimum grant amount. If this occurs, in the following year, the Commission may elect to provide grants equal to the reductions if incentive grant funding is available (that is, if the incentive grants in that following year do not exceed $20,000,000). Amounts for the incentive grants will be included in the formulaic shares adopted in August of each year. Funding for the incentive grants will be deducted from the subsequent round of Competitive Grant Program funding. 8. Matching Requirements Projects funded from the Local Partnership Program will require at least a one-to-one match of private, local, federal, or state funds except jurisdictions with a voter approved tax or fee which generates less than $100,000 annually need only provide a match equal to 50% of the requested Local Partnership Program funds. For the purpose of calculating the required match, the Commission will, except for State Transportation Improvement Program funding, only consider funds that are not allocated by the Commission on a project specific basis. The matching funds must be expended concurrently and proportionally to the Local Partnership Program funds. Costs incurred prior to allocation will not be counted towards match. 47

48 The implementing agency must provide a project funding plan through construction that demonstrates the supplemental funding in the plan (local, federal, state, private sources) is reasonably expected to be available and sufficient to complete the project. 9. Funding Restrictions Competitive Grant Program funds and funds in the initial cycle of the Formulaic Program shall not supplant other committed funds and are not available to fund cost increases except as noted below. In the Formulaic Program, a project nomination may be for supplemental funding of a project that was allocated Formulaic Program funding in a prior year, provided that the supplemental Formulaic Program funding and the match for that supplemental funding will not be expended until after the allocation of the supplemental funding. The supplemental Formulaic Program funding may be to replace local funding already committed to the project, subject to the required one-to-one match. These guidelines do not preclude the transfer of formulaic funding shares between agencies. 10. Reimbursement The Local Partnership Program is a reimbursement program for eligible costs incurred. Costs incurred prior to Commission allocation and, for federally funded projects, Federal Highway Administration project approval (i.e. Authorization to Proceed) are not eligible for reimbursement. Eligibility 11. Eligible Applicants Eligible applicants are the taxing authorities that have sought and received voter approval of taxes, tolls, or fees, or that have imposed fees, including uniform developer fees as defined by subdivision (b) of Section of the Government Code, which taxes or fees are dedicated solely to transportation improvements. Taxing Authorities that have imposed fees and have not received voter approval of taxes, tolls, or fees are only eligible for the competitive grant program. A nomination may identify an entity other than the applicant to be the project implementing agency. The implementing agency assumes responsibility and accountability for the use and expenditure of program funds. Applicants and implementing agencies must comply with all relevant federal and state laws, regulations, policies, and procedures. 12. Eligible Projects The Local Partnership Program eligible projects will be consistent with Government Code Section [A through F below] and Streets and Highways Code Section 2032(a) [G through I below]. Eligible projects shall include all of the following: A. Improvements to the state highway system including, but not limited to, all of the following: 48

49 Major rehabilitation of an existing segment that extends the useful life of the segment by at least 15 years; New construction to increase capacity of a highway segment that improves mobility or reduces congestion on that segment; and Safety or operational improvements on a highway segment that are intended to reduce accidents and fatalities or improve traffic flow on that segment. B. Improvements to transit facilities, including guideways, that expand transit services, increase transit ridership, improve transit safety, enhance access or convenience of the traveling public, or otherwise provide or facilitate a viable alternative to driving. C. The acquisition, retrofit, or rehabilitation of rolling stock, buses, or other transit equipment, including, but not limited to maintenance facilities, transit stations, transit guideways, passenger shelters, and fare collection equipment with a useful life of at least 10 years. The acquisition of vans, buses, and other equipment necessary for the provision of transit services for seniors and people with disabilities by transit and other local agencies is an eligible project under this paragraph. D. Improvements to the local road system, including, but not limited to, the following: Major roadway rehabilitation, resurfacing, or reconstruction that extends its useful life by at least 15 years; New construction and facilities to increase capacity, improve mobility, or enhance safety; and Safety or operational improvements that are intended to reduce accidents and fatalities or improve traffic flow on that segment. E. Improvements to bicycle or pedestrian safety or mobility with an extended useful life. F. Improvements to mitigate the environmental impact of new transportation infrastructure on a locality s or region s air quality or water quality, commonly known as urban runoff, including management practices for capturing or treating urban runoff. G. For purposes of the Local Partnership Program, a separate phase or stage of construction for an eligible project may include mitigation of the project s environmental impacts, including, but not limited to, sound walls, landscaping, wetlands or habitat restoration or creation, replacement plantings, and drainage facilities. H. Sound walls for a freeway that was built prior to 1987 without sound walls and with or without high occupancy vehicle lanes if the completion of the sound walls has been deferred due to lack of available funding for at least 20 years and a noise barrier scope summary report has been completed within the last 20 years. I. Road maintenance and rehabilitation. J. Other transportation improvement projects. 13. Eligible Components The Commission will only program the construction component of a project in the Competitive Grant Program, except for those projects expected to be delivered using the design-build method, where a portion of the funds may be in design. 49

50 For the Formulaic Program, funds may be used for any component of a project, however, projects must commence right-of-way acquisition or construction within 10 years of receiving preconstruction funding through the Local Partnership Program, or the implementing agency must repay the Local Partnership Program funds. Repaid funds will be made available for redistribution (see Section 5 above) in the subsequent programming cycle. Project Selection Process 14. Screening Criteria Nominations will receive an initial screening by the Commission for completeness and eligibility, before moving to the evaluation process. Incomplete or ineligible applications may not be evaluated. An agency submitting multiple project applications must clearly prioritize its projects. All projects must be included in an adopted regional transportation plan and, if applicable, consistent with an approved Sustainable Communities Strategy. Formulaic Program The Commission will include in the annual program of projects each project nominated by an eligible applicant for a formulaic funding share provided that the Commission finds that the nomination meets the requirements of statute and Commission guidelines, and that the project has a commitment of the required match. 15. Project Rating Process Competitive Grant Program: To ensure a more equitable competition, the Commission will compare projects based on the population of jurisdiction(s) across which the tax or fee is applied. In most cases, this will be a county or city. For voter-approved tolls, the population will be the sum of the population of the jurisdictions that voted on the toll. The following population categories will be used: Category I: 1,500,000 Category II: 700,000 to 1,499,999 Category III: 300,000 to 699,999 Category IV: 100,000 to 299,999 Category V: <100,000 To maximize the effectiveness of program funds, the minimum request for Competitive Grant Program funds that will be considered is indicated below based on the aforementioned population totals: Category I (population 1,500,000): $5,000,000 Category II (population 700,000 to 1,499,999): $3,000,000 Category III (population 300,000 to 699,999): $2,000,000 Category IV (population 100,000 to 299,999): $1,000,000 Category V (population <100,000): No minimum requirement. An agency applying for multiple competitive grants must prioritize its applications. The Commission may elect to only evaluate the highest priority application(s) submitted by each agency. 50

51 In approving grants for inclusion in the program of projects, the Commission will give consideration to geographic balance over multiple programming cycles. 16. Competitive Program Evaluation Criteria The Commission will give higher priority to the following: Projects that are more cost-effective. Projects that can commence construction or implementation earlier. Projects that leverage more committed funds per program dollar. Projects that can demonstrate quantifiable air quality improvements, including a significant reduction in vehicle-miles traveled. Projects that can demonstrate regional and community project support. Within a Metropolitan Planning Organization, projects that further the implementation of the sustainable communities strategy. 17. Project Nominations Project nominations and supporting documentation must be submitted to the Commission by the deadlines in Section 3. Nominations will be treated in accordance with California Public Records Act requirements and information, subject to those requirements, may be publicly disclosed. The Commission will post basic project application information on its website prior to adopting the final program of projects. After projects are selected for programming, the Commission will post the status of all project applications to its website. Applicants should submit two hard copies of the application package and one electronic copy. All application materials should be bound, addressed, and delivered to: Susan Bransen, Executive Director California Transportation Commission 1120 N Street, MS-52 P.O. Box Sacramento, CA Caltrans is working to develop an online application for this program. This online application may not be completed in time for use in the initial application cycle. The Commission will notify potential applicants through its website and through the RTPA Group when the online application is available. Each project application should be limited to 25 pages (excluding the Project Programming Request form) and must include: A. A cover letter, with signature of the Chief Executive Officer or other officer authorized by the taxing authority s governing board, authorizing and approving the application. Where 51

52 the project is to be implemented by an agency other than the taxing authority, documentation of the agreement between the taxing authority and the implementing agency must be submitted with the application and include the signature of the Chief Executive Officer or other authorized officer of the implementing agency. B. A confirmation that any capacity-increasing project or a major street or highway lane realignment project was considered for reversible lanes pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section C. An explanation of the project and its proposed benefits, including the following: i. Project title, which should be a brief non-technical description of the project type, scope, and location, and a map (or maps) of the project location denoting the project site. ii. iii. iv. The amount of Local Partnership Program funds requested. The amount and source of matching funds. Each nomination must list each federal, state, local, and private funding source by project component and fiscal year. Project background and a purpose and need statement. v. A concise description of the project scope and anticipated benefits (outcomes and outputs) proposed for funding. vi. vii. viii. ix. A description of the project s current status, including the current phase of delivery, and the schedule for the completion of the project. A project cost estimate which includes the amount and source of all funds committed to the project and the basis for concluding that the funding is expected to be available. If uncommitted funding is identified, the requirements as outlined in Section 16 must be included. Cost estimates should be escalated to the year of proposed implementation and be approved by the Chief Executive Officer or other authorized officer of the implementing agency. Each taxing authority should provide documentation that the expected benefits of the proposed project justify its costs, recognizing that some costs and benefits can be difficult to quantify. Each application should include analysis utilizing the appropriate module or modules of Caltrans Life-Cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis Model 6.0. This model can be found at: If another model is more applicable the application should describe why and also provide the analysis based on the alternate model. A description of how the project is consistent with transportation, land use and housing planning goals within the region. For projects within a region with a currently adopted California Air Resources Board approved Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), the eligible taxing authority will discuss how their project is consistent with the SCS. This will include a quantitative and/or qualitative assessment of how the project will facilitate implementation of the SCS and support achieving the region s greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. x. A description of the greenhouse gas impacts and the community impacts of the project and how those impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level. This should include a quantification of the effects of the project on diesel 52

53 particulate (PM 10 and PM 2.5), nitrogen oxides, greenhouse gases and other pollutant emissions using the Caltrans Life-Cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis Model 6.0. (Cal B/C), the SB 1 Intermodal Tool, or the SB 1 Other Projects Tool. Report emissions saved in both tons and dollars. The SB 1 Intermodal Tool and the SB 1 Other Projects Tool are currently under development. These tools will be provided by December 15 th by Caltrans at: D. Each application must include a Project Programming Request Form. Each Project Programming Request Form must list federal, state, local, and private funding categories by project component and fiscal year. An excel template of this form may be found at Caltrans is working to develop a web-based Project Programming Request Form and expects to make this available by November 1, The Commission will notify potential applicants through its website and through the RTPA Group when the web-based form is available. E. Each project nomination for the Competitive Grant Program shall also include: i. A description and quantification of the benefits the project will provide for disadvantaged communities and low-income area(s). Include a map to identify whether or not the project is located in a disadvantaged community or lowincome community using the Disadvantage and Low-income Community Maps found at: nts.htm. An applicant may also use a region specific definition of a disadvantaged community. ii. iii. iv. A description of the community and regional support for the project. For uncommitted funds, the taxing authority must indicate its plan for securing a funding commitment; explain the risk of not securing that commitment, and its plan for securing an alternate source of funding should the commitment not be obtained. If a project with uncommitted funds is programmed, all funding commitments must be secured prior to July 1 of the year in which the project is programmed or it will be removed from the program. A description that demonstrates the taxing authority s ability to absorb any cost overruns and deliver the proposed project with no additional funding from the Competitive Grant Program. v. A description of the project delivery plan, including a description of the known risks that could impact the successful implementation of the project and the response plan of the known risks. The risks considered should include, but not be limited to, risks associated with deliverability and engineering issues, community involvement, and funding commitments. vi. Programming The project priority (if agency is submitting multiple applications). The program of projects for each fiscal year will include, for each project, the amount to be funded from the Local Partnership Program, and the estimated total cost of the project. Project costs in the Local Partnership Program will include costs for each of the following components: (1) permits and environmental studies; (2) plans, specifications, and estimates; (3) right-of-way; and (4) 53

54 construction. The cost of each project component will be listed in the program no earlier than in the fiscal year in which the particular project component can be implemented. For Caltrans implemented projects, the cost of right-of-way support and construction support will be separated out and programmed separately from the right-of-way capital and construction capital cost. Formulaic Program The Commission s program of projects shall not include projects that exceed a taxing authority s formula funding share. 18. Committed/Uncommitted Funds The Commission will program and allocate funding to projects in whole thousands of dollars and will include a project only if it is fully funded from a combination of Local Partnership Program funds and other committed funds and, for the Competitive Grant Program, uncommitted funds as described below. In the Formulaic Program, the Commission will program and allocate funding to a project only if it is fully funded from a combination of Local Partnership Program and other committed funding. Uncommitted funds may only be from the following competitive programs: Active Transportation Program, Solutions for Congested Corridors Program, Trade Corridor Enhancement Program, or the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program. The taxing authority must indicate its plan for securing a funding commitment, explain the risk of not securing that commitment, and its plan for securing an alternate source of funding should the commitment not be obtained. If a project with uncommitted funds is programmed, all funding commitments must be secured prior to July 1 of the year in which the project is programmed or the project will be removed from the program. Projects programmed by the Commission in the Local Partnership Program will not be given priority in other programs under the Commission s purview. The Commission will regard funds as committed when they are programmed by the Commission or when the agency with discretionary authority over the funds has made its commitment to the project by ordinance or resolution. For federal formula funds, including Regional Surface Transportation, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, and federal formula transit funds, the commitment may be by federal Transportation Improvement Program adoption. For federal discretionary funds, the commitment may be by federal approval of a full funding grant agreement or by grant approval. Project Amendments 19. Amendment Requests Competitive Grant Program: Project amendments will be considered for the Competitive Grant Program as follows: Scope Changes The Commission will not consider changes to the scope of the project unless the change is minor and has no impact to the project benefits or the scope change increases the benefits of the project. Cost Changes The Competitive Grant Program will not participate in any cost increases to the project. Any cost increases should be funded from other fund sources. If there is a change in the cost estimate, the Commission should be notified in writing as soon as 54

55 possible. The written notification should explain the change and the plan to cover the increase. Schedule Changes Schedule changes to a project will not be considered unless a time extension was approved as specified in Section 19. For projects programmed in the last year of the Local Partnership Program, the implementing agency may request to reprogram the project only once with justification. Project amendments requested by implementing agencies shall receive the approval of all partner and funding entities before presentation to the Commission. Amendment requests should be submitted in a timely manner and include documentation that supports the requested change and its impact on the scope, cost, schedule and benefits. Caltrans shall coordinate all amendment requests and utilize the Project Programming Request to help document the change. Implementing agencies must notify Caltrans in writing of proposed project amendments. This notification must include an explanation of the proposed change, the reason for the proposed change, the impact the proposed change would have to the project, and an estimate of the impact the proposed change would have on the potential of the project to deliver the project benefits as compared to the benefits identified in the project application (increase or decrease in benefits) and an explanation of the methodology used to develop the aforementioned estimate. A revised Project Programming Request Form must be included in the notification. Caltrans will review the proposed amendment change and forward the proposed amendment change with Caltrans written analysis and recommendation to the Commission for the Commission s approval. Commission staff will present recommended changes deemed by staff to be minor changes, such as those with little or no impact to project benefits or which increase the benefits of the project, to the Commission as a part of the project allocation request. Staff will present all other amendment changes to the Commission as project amendments. Formulaic Program: In the initial programming cycle, the Formulaic Program may not be used to fund cost increases of ongoing projects. Allocations 20. Allocation Requests When an agency is ready to implement a project or project component, the agency will submit an allocation request to Caltrans. The typical time required from receipt of the request to Commission allocation is 60 days. Caltrans will review the request and determine whether or not to recommend the request to the Commission for action. The Commission will consider the allocation of funds for a project when it receives an allocation with a recommendation from Caltrans. The recommendation will include a determination of project readiness, the availability of appropriated funding, and the availability of all identified and committed supplementary funding. When Caltrans develops its construction allocation recommendation, the Commission expects Caltrans to certify that a project s plans, specifications and estimate are complete, environmental and right-of-way clearances are 55

56 secured, and all necessary permits and agreements (including railroad construction and maintenance) are executed. In compliance with Section of the Public Resources Code, the Commission will not allocate funds for design, right-of-way, or construction prior to documentation of environmental clearance under the California Environmental Quality Act. As a matter of policy, the Commission will not allocate funds for design, right-of-way, or construction of a federally funded project prior to documentation of environmental clearance under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Exceptions to this policy may be made in instances where federal law allows for the acquisition of right-of-way prior to completion of NEPA review. The Commission will approve the allocation if the funds are available and the allocation is necessary to implement the project as included in the adopted Local Partnership Program. If there are insufficient program funds to approve an allocation, the Commission may delay the allocation of funds to a project. Allocations must be requested in the fiscal year of project programming. Agencies should not request Commission allocations unless prepared to award contracts related to the allocation within six months. Whenever programmed funds are not allocated within the fiscal year programmed or within the time allowed by an approved allocation extension, the project will be deleted from the Local Partnership Program and the funds will be made available for redistribution (see Section 5 above) in the subsequent programming cycle. Where the project is to be implemented by an agency other than the taxing authority, the allocation request must include a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding or Interagency Agreement between the taxing authority and implementing agency. When Caltrans is the implementing agency, right-of-way support and construction support costs must be allocated separately from right-of-way capital and construction capital costs. Project Delivery 21. Letter of No Prejudice The Commission will consider approval of a Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) to advance a project programmed in the Local Partnership Program. Approval of the LONP will allow the agency to begin work and incur eligible expenses prior to allocation. The Amended LONP Guidelines were adopted in October 2017 and are on the Commission s website. 22. Timely Use of Funds Local Partnership Program allocations must be requested in the fiscal year of project programming. Construction allocations are valid for award for six months from the date of allocation unless the Commission approves an extension. Any funds for which a contract has not been awarded within six months or prior to the expiration of an extension to the period of allocation, will be deallocated and be made available for redistribution (see Section 5 above) in the subsequent programming cycle. 56

57 The Commission may extend a deadline only once for allocation only if it finds that an unforeseen and extraordinary circumstance beyond the control of the responsible agency has occurred that justifies the extension. The extension will not exceed twelve months. Funds allocated for project development or right-of-way costs must be expended by the end of the second fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the funds were allocated. The implementing agency must invoice Caltrans for these costs no later than 180 days after the fiscal year in which the final expenditure occurred. The Commission may extend a deadline only once for contract award and only if it finds that an unforeseen and extraordinary circumstance beyond the control of the responsible agency has occurred that justifies the extension. The extension will not exceed twelve months. After award of the contract, the implementing agency has up to 36 months to complete (accept) the contract. At the time of fund allocation, the Commission may extend the deadline for completion of work and the liquidation of funds if necessary to accommodate the proposed expenditure plan for the project. The Commission may extend the deadlines for expenditures for project development or right-ofway, or for contract completion no more than one time, only if it finds that an unforeseen and extraordinary circumstance beyond the control of the responsible agency has occurred that justifies the extension. The extension will not exceed the period of delay directly attributed to the extraordinary circumstance and cannot exceed more than 20 months for project completion and 12 months for expenditure. Except for the allocation of funds, the request to extend the deadline for any of the above must be received by Caltrans prior to the expiration date. For allocation of funds, the time extension must be approved by the Commission by June 30 th of the year the funds are programmed; otherwise the funds will lapse as specified in this section. Where a project component will not be ready for allocation as programmed in the current fiscal year, the implementing agency should request an extension of the allocation deadline rather than a project amendment. For the Formulaic Program, funds may be used for any component of a project, however, projects must commence right-of-way acquisition or construction within 10 years of receiving preconstruction funding through the Local Partnership Program, or the implementing agency must repay the Local Partnership Program funds. Repaid funds will be made available for redistribution (see Section 5 above) in the subsequent programming cycle. 23. Delivery Deadline Extensions The Commission may extend a delivery deadline, as described in Section 19, upon the request of the implementing agency. No deadline may be extended more than once. However, there are separate deadlines for allocations, contact award, expenditures, and project completion. Each project component has its own deadlines. The Commission may consider the extension for each of the deadlines separately. All requests for project delivery deadline extensions shall be submitted directly to Caltrans for processing. The extension request should describe the specific circumstance that justifies the 57

58 extension and identify the delay directly attributable to the circumstance. Caltrans will review and prepare a written analysis of the proposed extension requests and forward the written analysis and recommendation to the Commission for action. 24. Project Inactivity Once funds for a project are encumbered, project applicants are expected to invoice on a regular basis (for federal funds, see 23 CFR and the Caltrans' Inactive Obligation Policy). Failure to do so will result in the project being deemed "inactive" and subject to de-obligation and deallocation if proper justification is not provided. 25. Project Cost Savings Project cost savings generated by a project in the Formulaic Program will be returned to that regional programming target. Savings at contract award may be used to expand the scope of the project only if the expanded scope provides additional quantifiable benefits. The expanded scope must be approved by the Commission s Executive Director prior to contract award. All other contract award savings will be returned proportionally. Savings at project completion must be returned proportionally except when an agency has, subsequent to project programming, committed additional funds to the project to fund a cost increase. In such instances, savings at project completion may be returned to other fund types first, until the proportions match those at programming. Any additional savings at project completion must be returned proportionally. 26. Project Reporting SB 1 places responsibility on the Commission to track the performance and report to the public how well funding recipients are delivering projects receiving Local Partnership Program funds. Additional reporting requirements will be outlined in the Commission s upcoming Accountability and Transparency Guidelines. Caltrans, in cooperation with the implementing agencies, will report to the Commission on a semiannual basis. The reports will include information on the activities and progress made toward implementation of the project, including those project activities taking place prior to an allocation and the commitment status of supplemental funding identified at the time of programming. The reports will at a minimum include: A summary describing the overall progress of the project since the initial programming action. Expenditures to date for all project phase costs, segregated by fund. A summary of milestones achieved during the prior year and milestones expected to be reached in the coming year. Identify any changes to the scope, cost, schedule, and benefits of the project. 58

59 Within one year of the project becoming operable, a final delivery report must be submitted. The implementing agency must provide the following information to Caltrans for inclusion in the final delivery report to the Commission: The scope of the completed project as compared to the programmed project. Before and after photos documenting the project. The final costs, by component and fund type, as compared to the approved project budget at allocation and baseline agreement if applicable. Project duration as compared to the project schedule in the project application. Performance deliverables (outputs and outcomes) derived from the project as compared to those described when the decision was made to fund the project. This should include an explanation of the methodology used to quantify and qualify the benefits. For the purpose of this section, a project becomes operable when the construction contract is accepted or acquired equipment is received. The purpose of the reports is to ensure that the project achieves the objectives of the program, is executed in a timely fashion, is within the scope and budget identified when the decision was made to fund the project and is on track to deliver the expected benefits. 27. Project Tracking Database Caltrans is responsible for developing, upgrading and maintaining an electronic database record of the adopted Local Partnership Program and Commission actions. The database will include project specific information, including project description, location, cost, scope, schedule, expected benefits, and progress of the project and a map. The project information from the database will be accessible through Caltrans website. 28. Project Auditing Caltrans must audit, in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards, a representative sample of the Local Partnership Program projects. The scope of these audits will be performed to determine whether: Project costs incurred and reimbursed are in compliance with the Commission s Local Partnership Program Guidelines, the Commission s Accountability Guidelines, contract provisions, and state and federal laws and regulations. Project deliverables (outputs) and outcomes are consistent with the project scope, schedule, and benefits described in the project nomination used to program the project. A report on the projects audited, their findings and status of any corrective action must be submitted to the Commission by October 1 of each year. 29. Workforce Development Requirements and Project Signage Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 2038, by July 1, 2023, agencies receiving Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account funds will need to describe how projects will address participation and investment in new or existing pre-apprenticeship training programs that focus on outreach to women, minority participants, underrepresented subgroups, formerly incarcerated 59

60 individuals, and local residents to access employment opportunities. Therefore, this information should be included in the semi-annual reports submitted to Caltrans. Additionally, the implementing agency must, for all projects, include signage stating that the project was made possible by SB 1 The Road Repair and Accountability Act of The signage should be in compliance with applicable federal or state law, and Caltrans manual and guidelines, including but not limited to the provisions of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 60

61 INFORMATION ITEMS 61