Call Recertification/Deobligation/Extension Information 5 min (Fanny Pan) Attachment 7: Recertification List Attachment 8: Deobligation List A

Transcription

1 Wednesday, June 7, :30 AM Agenda Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE William Mulholland Conference Room 1. Call to Order/Roll Call Action (Fanny Pan, Brian Lam) 2. Agenda Reports by Standing Committees Information Bus Operations (Jane Leonard) Local Transit Systems (Sebastian Hernandez) Streets and Freeways (Fulgene Asuncion) TDM/Sustainability (Mike Bagheri) Attachment 1: Subcommittee Agendas Attachment 2: Subcommittee Actions 3. Chairperson s Report Information 5 min (Fanny Pan) 4. Consent Calendar Action Approval of Minutes Attachment 3: Draft May 3, 2017 Minutes 5. TIMED AGENDA 9:45 AM FTA Section 5310/5316/5317 Appeals Attachment 4: TAC Appeals Protocol & FTA Section 5310 Appeals Guidelines Attachment 5: FY 17 FTA Section 5310/5316/5317 Evaluation Criteria Attachment 6: Appeals Fact Sheets Action (Jami Carrington) 6. FY 18 Transit Fund Allocations (FAP) Action 5 min (Manijeh Ahmadi) 7. Draft Measure M Guidelines Information/Possible Action 5 min (Kalieh Honish) 8. FY 18 Metrolink Budget Information 10 min (Yvette Reeves)

2 Call Recertification/Deobligation/Extension Information 5 min (Fanny Pan) Attachment 7: Recertification List Attachment 8: Deobligation List Attachment 9: Extension List Attachment 10: May 3, 2017 TAC Appeals Summary 10. West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor Information 10 min (Fanny Pan/Teresa Wong) 11. Airport Metro Connector 96 th St Station Information 10 min (Meghna Khanna) 12. Legislative Update Information 15 min (Michael Turner/Raffi Hamparian) 13. ATP Update Handout provided in lieu of oral report 14. Other Business 15. Adjournment TAC Minutes and Agendas can be accessed at: Please call Brian Lam at (213) or lamb@metro.net with questions regarding the agenda or meeting. The next meeting will be on July 5, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. in the William Mulholland Conference Room. 2

3 Attachment 1 Subcommittee Agendas 3

4 Tuesday, May 16, 2017 Agenda Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE William Mulholland Conference Room 15 th Floor 9:30 am 1. Call to Order (1 minute) 2. Approval of April 18, 2017 Minutes (1 minute) 3. Chair s Report (5 minutes) 4. Metro Report (5 minutes) 5. FTA Update (10 minutes) 6. FAP Approval (10 minutes) 7. Update on New Low Income Program (10 minutes) 8. FY18 Budget Update (15 minutes) 9. Access Update (10 minutes) 10. Transit Industry Debriefing/Updates (5 minutes) Action Jane Leonard Action BOS Information Jane Leonard Information Annelle Albarran Information Arianna Valle/Adam Stephenson/Stacy Alameida Action Manijeh Ahmadi Information Armineh Saint Information Quintin Sumabat Information Matthew Avancena Information All 4

5 11. New Business Information All 12. Adjournment Information Items: 90-day Rolling Agenda Summary of Invoices FY 2017 Summary of EZ Pass Invoices FY 2017 Subsidy Matrix FY 2017 TDA-STA Capital Claims FY 2017 TDA-STA Claims FY 2017 FY18 Budget Update BOS Agenda Packages can be accessed online at: Please call SCOTT HARTWELL at or ANNELLE ALBARRAN at if you have questions regarding the agenda or meeting. The next BOS meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 20, 2017, at 9:30 am in the Mulholland Conference Room, 15 th Floor of the Metro Headquarters Building. 5

6 NOTE TIME: 1:00 PM Agenda Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Thursday, May 18, 2017, 1:00 P.M. LOCAL TRANSIT SYSTEMS SUBCOMMITTEE Gateway Building OMB Conference Room (24th floor) Call in (213) In house call ext Call to Order Action Sebastian Hernandez, Chair 2. Approval of Minutes Action Sebastian Hernandez, Chair 3. OMB Budget presentation Information Tim Mengle, Metro 4. FY18 Funding Marks (FAP) 4th Draft Action Susan Richan, Metro Manijeh Ahmadi, Metro 5. Measure M Local Return Guidelines Follow up on Feedback Discussion Sebastian Hernandez, Chair 6. NTD shared-ride policy on Taxicabs (voluntary reporting) Open Discussion 7. New Business, Date of Next LTSS Meeting Sebastian Hernandez, Chair Note that the item: Metro Transfers Design Study recommendations, Georgia Sheridan, Metro, will be presented in July/August as they are experiencing project delays 6

7 Thursday, May 18, :30 a.m. Agenda Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Streets and Freeways Subcommittee William Mulholland Conference Room 15 th Floor 1. Call to Order 1 min 2. Approval of Minutes Attachment 1: April 20, 2017 Minutes Attachment 2: Sign-in Sheet/Attendance Sheet Attachment 3: 90-Day Rolling Agenda 3. Chair Report 5 min 4. Metro Report 5 min 5. Caltrans Update 5 min 6. CTC Update 5 min 7. West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor Update 20 min 8. Rail to Rail/River Active Transportation Corridor Update 10 min Action (Bahman Janka) Action (Subcommittee) Information (Bahman Janka) Information (Fulgene Asuncion) Information (Steve Novotny) Information (Zoe Unruh/Patricia Chen) Information (Teresa Wong) Information (Robert Machuca) 7

8 9. I-710 South Corridor Project Update 10 min 10. I-605 Corridor Hotspot Program Update 10 min 11. State and Federal Legislative Update 10 min Information (Lucy Olmos) Information (Carlos Montez) Information (Raffi Hamparian/ Marisa Yeager/ Michael Turner) 12. New Business 5 min 13. Adjournment 1 min The next meeting for the Streets and Freeways Subcommittee will be held on June 15 th at 9:30 a.m. on the 15 th floor, Mulholland Conference Room. Please contact Fulgene Asuncion at (213) should you have any questions or comments regarding this or future agendas. Agendas can be accessed online at: 8

9 Attachment 2 Subcommittee Actions 9

10 Disposition of Subcommittee Actions May 2017 Bus Operations Subcommittee: Approved the April 2017 meeting minutes Approved the FY 2018 FAP Local Transit Systems Subcommittee: Approved the April 2017 meeting minutes Approved the FY 2018 FAP Streets and Freeways Subcommittee: Approved the April 2017 meeting minutes TDM/Sustainability Subcommittee: Did not meet in May

11 Attachment 3 May 3, 2017 TAC Minutes May 3, 2017 Sign-In Sheets 11

12 Wednesday May 3, :30 A.M. Meeting Minutes Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1. Call to Order/Roll Call Brian Lam (Alternate Chair) called the meeting to order at 9:34 A.M., took roll and declared a quorum was present. 2. Agenda Reports by Standing Committees Bus Operations Subcommittee (BOS) Last met on April 18, 2017 Received updates on: o State Transit Assistance (STA) Efficiency Test o Senate Bill 1 (SB-1) Benefits o Draft Measure M Guidelines o Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section % Discretionary Capital and 1% ATI Funds Allocation Next meeting is scheduled for May 16, 2017 Local Transit Systems Subcommittee (LTSS) Last met on April 20, 2017 Received updates on: o Funding Marks for FY 2018 Subregional Paratransit 2 nd Draft o FY 2018 Budget Development o Measure M Local Return Guidelines Feedback Next meeting is scheduled for May 18, 2017 Streets and Freeways Subcommittee Last met on April 20, 2017 Received updates on: o Airport Metro Connector o Draft Measure M Guidelines o Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Planning Grant Round 5 Next meeting is scheduled for May 18, 2017 TAC Minutes, March 1,

13 Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Sustainability Subcommittee Last met on April 26, 2017 Received updates on: o Bikeshare Program Update Metro/Pasadena o Metro Complete Streets and First/Last Mile Next meeting is scheduled for June 2017 (tentative) 3. Chairperson s Report (Fanny Pan, Metro) A handout of the April 20, 2017 Metro Board meeting recap was distributed in lieu of an oral report. Ms. Pan reported that May is bike month, and Metro is offering a free month of bike share when new users sign up for a monthly membership. Ms. Pan reported that the Metro Policy Advisory Council (PAC) met on May 2, 2017, and staff will be providing an update of the meeting during the Draft Measure M Guidelines discussion. Ms. Pan reported that Metro has hired Manjeet Ranu as the new Senior Executive Officer for Transit Corridors, which was previously held by Renee Berlin. 4. Consent Calendar A motion to approve the April 5, 2017 TAC minutes was made by Mohammad Mostahkami (League of California Cities Gateway Cities COG) and seconded by Robert Beste (League of California Cities South Bay Cities COG). Eric Widstrand (City of Long Beach) and Jane Leonard (BOS) abstained. The minutes were approved. 5. FY 2018 Budget Workshop (Perry Blake, Metro) Mr. Blake reported that Metro s overall proposed budget for FY 2018 is $6.4 billion, which is a 1.4% increase from FY Mr. Blake reported that the proposed budget for Metro Operations will grow by 6.1%. Construction and State of Good Repair will decrease by 11.8%, which is due to the settlement case with the I-405 project. Subsidy Funding Programs will grow by 15.7%, which is largely due to funding Measure M. Congestion Management will decrease by 13.5%. General Planning and Programs will increase by 17.1%. Debt Service will grow by 19.7%, which is due to an increased use of Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) and Measure R debt to keep construction projects on track. Mr. Blake reported that Metro anticipates a sales tax growth increase of 2.8% over FY 2017, which includes new funding from Measure M. Measure M funds will make up 95% of what existing Measure R and Proposition A and C Ordinances generate. He explained that Measure M will only generate 95% because the first year of a sales tax ordinance typically does not generate as much as existing sales tax ordinances. David Feinberg (League of California Cities Westside Cities) asked why this is the case? Mr. Blake replied that there are many factors, TAC Minutes, May 3,

14 but it is mostly due to retailers having a hard time getting all their sales tax returns submitted to the State Board of Equalization. Mr. Blake reported that 38%, or $1.4 billion, is eligible for Metro Operations and State of Good Repair. Mr. Blake reported that Metro has assumed Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and State Cap-and-Trade funds to continue for Gold Line Foothill Extension 2A and Expo Line Phase 2 operations. Metro also assumed Federal New Starts grants and TIFIA loans to help fund Crenshaw/LAX, Regional Connector and Purple Line Extension construction. Mr. Blake reported that a CPI of +1.75% was built into the budget, and is based on the Beacon Economics forecast. Mr. Blake reported that Metro will continue to work on the three major construction projects for FY 2018, which include Crenshaw/LAX, Regional Connector, and the Purple Line Extension Sections 1 and 2. There have also been advancements in budget for Purple Line Extension Section 3, Airport Metro Connector, and Gold Line Foothill Extension 2B. Mr. Blake reported that State of Good Repair will consist of: Facility, System and Maintenance of Way; Vehicle Maintenance/Acquisitions; and Technology Improvements. He noted that the FY 2018 proposed budget will be posted online and that the appendix will include all anticipated capital projects. Ms. Leonard (BOS) asked what the expected expense ratio was for rail versus bus? Mr. Blake replied that 53% of State of Good Repair will go towards rail in FY Mr. Feinberg asked how CMAQ funds are generated and how it is distributed in Los Angeles County? Mr. Blake offered to follow up with Mr. Feinberg about the matter. He noted that Metro receives 80% of the first three years of CMAQ operating funds, and the rest comes from fare box recovery. Mr. Blake reported that he could provide TAC members with more information regarding current Metro projects in the various stages of planning and engineering via . Mr. Blake reported that there has been no change in overall Revenue Service Hours from FY 2017, but service will be right-sized to increase efficiency and better serve the public. Staff is anticipating the use of 10 electric zero emission buses on the Orange and Silver Line, as well as procurement for additional electric and ultra-low emission Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses. Mr. Blake reported that Revenue Vehicle Service Hours for rail will increase by 11%. Staff will also be integrating special service to accommodate demands from sporting events and other public service needs. Mr. Blake presented an overview of Congestion Management projects. He reported that the ExpressLanes toll revenues are used to reimburse operators for enhanced bus service along TAC Minutes, May 3,

15 the ExpressLanes corridors. He noted that the Congestion Management staff is also currently exploring new ExpressLanes corridor options. Mr. Blake reported that staff has held numerous forums to discuss Metro s budget, and noted that Metro s interactive online budget tool is still available to provide input. Michelle Caldwell (BOS) asked what is the bus cost per revenue service hour? Mr. Blake offered to send the information to Ms. Caldwell and Ms. Leonard via . TAC Minutes, May 3,

16 TAC Minutes, March 1, Call for Projects Deobligation Appeals (Fanny Pan, Metro) Project ID# Agency/ Sponsor F3175 Culver City F3139 F1168 City of Manhattan Beach City of Santa Clarita Project Title Presenter Summary of Appeals TAC Recommendation Culver Boulevard Realignment Project Sepulveda Boulevard Bridge Widening Project Lee Torres and Mate Gaspar Stephanie Katsouleas /Prem Kumar Via Princessa Extension- Golden Valley Road to Rainbow Glen Harry Corder Mr. Gaspar reported that the project has been delayed due to a stormwater project within the same project area as the Call Project that needed to be completed first. The city has actively been applying for grants to fund the stormwater project and received funding from the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission (SMBRC) Proposition 84. In addition, the city passed a local parcel tax, Measure CW, to fund stormwater projects. The grant funding is for the stormwater project, which is separate from the Call Project. There is no funding shortfall for the Call Project. In order to meet the one-time 20-month lapsing date extension, the project's design would need to begin immediately and expedited. Ms. Katsouleas reported that the project plans are completed and under review by Caltrans. Project delay has been due to Right of Way (ROW) issues. There is one property remaining, which the city is in the final stages of compensating the owner on sound issues. There are two tenants in the property, one of which is a fertility clinic whose operations are very sensitive to noise, vibration, air quality, etc. Due to this, it is likely that eminent domain may need to be used. Mr. Corder reported that the project delay was due to economic downturn. Adjacent development was integral to the project, however that development was delayed. The development is now moving forward, and the city is prepared to move forward with design. It was noted that this project is only able to receive a one-time 20-month lapsing date extension. Mr. Corder noted that the project sponsor will attempt to get the project into construction before February 2019, after which the project will need to go to the Metro Board to request an additional extension to finish construction. 20-month extension to February 28, Project Sponsor must provide an update at the May 2018 TAC meeting providing a schedule to complete design and award construction contract no later than February One-year extension to June 30, month extension to February 28, Project Sponsor must provide an update at the May 2018 TAC meeting providing a schedule to complete design and award construction contract no later than February 2019.

17 TAC Minutes, May 3, F3507 F1708 F3514 F3632 City of Baldwin Park City of Los Angeles City of Los Angeles City of Los Angeles South Baldwin Park Commuter Bikeway Project David Lopez and Farzad Dorrani Hollywood Integrated Modal Information System Ghent Peer Exposition-West Bikeway- Northvale Project (LRTP Program) Western Ave Bus Stop & Pedestrian Improvement Project Abbass Vajar/Paulin e Chen Joseph Keung Mr. Lopez reported that the project was delayed due to design challenges. The project sponsor hired an engineer to expedite design and work through these issues. Design is currently at 85% completion, and the project sponsor is working with Caltrans and the County for permits. Mr. Peer reported that there was a change of scope, which was approved by the Metro Board and included in Amendment 4 of the Letter of Agreement (LOA). The project met the milestones set forth by TAC at the 2016 TAC Deobligation Appeals. Further delay has been due to a required Historic Property Study Report (HPSR) and Finding of Effect (FOE) by Caltrans. Design is anticipated to be completed in May or June Funding for installation is anticipated to be obligated January Mr. Vajar reported that the project has been delayed due to ROW issues, lengthy legal litigation, and a funding shortfall. Litigation has been settled with the seven properties needed for the project, and design has begun. The project sponsor is actively seeking additional funding to fill the shortfall of approximately $6 million (based on preliminary design). The project sponsor is hopeful for the next Active Transportation Program (ATP) Call. Ms. Chen reported that the project was initially supposed to be incorporated into the Expo Light Rail project and constructed at the same time. The litigation delayed this project and increased the project cost due to changes in design and construction. Mr. Keung reported that design is at 90-95% and submitted the Preliminary Environmental Studies (PES) to Caltrans with a recommendation of Categorical Exemption. Caltrans did not agree and requested additional cultural studies be conducted as the project is located in the city's designated Cultural Overlay Zone. The project sponsor is working with Caltrans' staff to complete the cultural studies in a timely manner and anticipates obtaining the E-76 for construction by June month extension to February 28, 2019 to complete the project. One-year extension to June 30, 2018 to obligate funds. One-year extension to June 30, Project Sponsor must provide an update at the May 2018 TAC meeting and demonstrate that the project is fully funded through construction, either with an Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 4 Application, or other funding plan. If the Project Sponsor is unable to do so, the project may be recommended for deobligation. One-year extension to June 30, 2018.

18 TAC Minutes, May 3, F3146 F3112 City of Los Angeles City of Lawndale Highland Avenue Widening-Odin Street to Franklin Avenue Inglewood Ave Corridor Widening Project Michael Haddadin Frank Senteno Mr. Haddadin reported that the project was delayed due to uncertainty if the project would conflict with the newly adopted Mobility Plan 2035, which establishes new complete streets standards that were not in place when the project was awarded through the Call. In addition, building support for the project with a newly elected Councilmember was needed. It has been concluded that the project does not conflict with the policies of Mobility 2035 and there is full support from the Council Office. Design is approximately 50% complete, and environmental clearance is anticipated to be completed by the end of October ROW acquisition will begin immediately after environmental clearance. Mr. Senteno reported that a scope change was approved by the Metro Board in August Design is approximately 65% complete. The project sponsor is working with the Centinela Valley Union High School District and Southern California Edison (SCE) to acquire the needed easements for construction and relocation of overhead utilities. The project sponsor is also working with Metro to amend the project description in the FTIP. One-year extension to June 30, month extension to February 28, Project Sponsor must provide an update at the May 2018 TAC meeting providing a schedule to complete design and award construction contract no later than February 2019.

19 7. Draft Measure M Guidelines (Discussion/Action) Ms. Honish reported that the Metro Policy Advisory Council (PAC) met on Tuesday, May 2nd. Following an internal survey among the PAC members representatives and their alternates, the meeting consisted of five break-out sessions in order to aggregate various issues associated with the Draft Guidelines. The sessions included: ADA/Paratransit, Transit for Elder Adults and Students, Discounts which focused on the 75/25% split; Local Return; Multi-Year Subregional Programs (MSPs) which discussed the roles of Metro, the Council of Governments (COGs), and funding administration; 3% Local Contribution; and Shovel- Readiness which discussed project eligibility and program eligibility. Ms. Honish noted that shovel-ready refers to project-readiness, and does not refer to construction. She noted that she is aware that there is a desire to fund pre-construction activities, to the degree that they were included in the scopes of work for projects that were submitted. This is a clarification that is legitimately needed, and does not necessarily speak to any cost of developing any project before it reaches the construction phase. She noted that term shovel-ready is certainly not intended to exclude the design phase. Ms. Honish noted that the Mobility Matrix was also discussed at the PAC meeting. Ms. Honish reported that the PAC attempted to reach consensus on a variety of topics, but no official decision has been made. The PAC will meet again in early June 6, 2017, where they will further discuss the issues and hope to release a more formal position in June on the five topics from the break-out sessions. Because the PAC represents such a large stakeholder group, they also want to know what their smaller topics are and the pros and cons within the five topics. John Walker (County of Los Angeles) asked for elaboration on the ADA/Paratransit split. Ms. Honish replied that 75% of the amount set aside for the ADA/Paratransit group would go towards Access Services, and 25% would go towards Students and Senior Discounts. Jane Leonard (BOS) commented that the BOS is made up of Metro and municipal agencies, and through the PAC process, BOS input and feedback on the Draft Guidelines has been submitted through the Los Angeles County Municipal Operations Association (LACMOA) representation. Ms. Honish replied that the PAC represents various constituencies, and noted that if BOS does not feel well represented or if there are specific concerns/comments that LACMOA did not raise, she encouraged BOS to submit comments online via theplan.metro.net, or via at theplan@metro.net. Ms. Leonard replied that for the purposes of this discussion, there is not a formal BOS representation on contributions to TAC, so BOS members will be evaluating if they want to submit comments separately. Ms. Honish replied that BOS is unique in many ways, so its specific issues may get lost through the process. Mohammad Mostahkami (League of California Cities Gateway Cities COG) asked when the PAC last met, and when the next meeting would take place? Ms. Honish replied that the PAC met on May 2nd, and will meet again on June 6th. Mr. Mostahkami asked if the PAC is required to reach a consensus? Ms. Honish replied that they are striving for consensus but that there is no requirement that they do so. If they have a consensus but simultaneously have a strong minority opinion on a topic, they have been asked to bring both sides forward when they report. In order to provide fair representation to their constituents, they do not TAC Minutes, March 1,

20 necessarily have to make a motion that they will make a specific change in the Draft Guidelines. Mr. Mostahkami asked if comments submitted to theplan.metro.net will be shared with the PAC? Ms. Honish replied that the PAC has received all comment submitted to date, but noted that not many comments have been submitted. She confirmed that they have received his letter with comments, as well as letters from Local Transit Systems Subcommittee (LTSS) and the Foothill Construction Authority. Staff has also received s of draft letters that have not been submitted formally. Mr. Mostahkami asked if the PAC will receive any new comments that have yet to be submitted? Ms. Honish confirmed and noted that staff will send them an in two weeks. Mr. Mostahkami asked if the language in the ADA/Paratransit Eligible Participants subsection of the Draft Guidelines is also in the Measure M Ordinance? Ms. Honish replied that she does not recall the language being in the Ordinance. Sebastian Hernandez (LTSS) reported that LTSS had formal recommendations on the Draft Guidelines that were submitted to the PAC. A handout of those recommendations was distributed to TAC members, and Mr. Hernandez summarized the comments. LTSS requested clarification on the 3% Local Contribution to Major Transit Projects, specifically on whether this category applies only to rail projects. Larry Stevens (League of California Cities San Gabriel Valley COG) commented that the Draft Guidelines include an Appendix that lists Measure M projects that are subject to the 3% Local Contribution. He asked if this is consistent with LTSS s comment? Ms. Honish replied that is correct, and asked Mr. Hernandez if LTSS question is concerning the language in the Draft Guidelines as it pertains to whether it includes Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)? Mr. Hernandez confirmed that is what LTSS was referring to. Ms. Honish replied that the list of projects in Appendix A is the transit lines that are subject to potential 3% Local Contribution, which does not include any BRT lines. Mr. Hernandez asked for confirmation that this 3% only applies to rail lines? Mark Yamarone (Metro) replied that the only mode confusion on this project list is the Transit Connector Orange/Red Line to Gold Line (LRT), which is currently funded as a BRT, but is ultimately envisioned to be an LRT. Mr. Yamarone stated that while the project is still a BRT it would not be subject to the 3%, but the 3% Local Contribution provision would kick in if it is converted to an LRT. Ms. Honish noted that this is subject to the environmental process, and that there is no assumed correct mode for the project. Concerning the MSPs, LTSS requested clarification that the list of Subregional Programs is included in the Expenditure Plan. They also requested that eligible capital projects in the MSP, also include acquisition of contracted transportation services that are required for the service delivery associated with the capital acquisition identified in the Mobility Matrix. David Kriske (League of California Cities Arroyo Verdugo Cities) commented that Arroyo Verdugo has a transit project in the Expenditure Plan but it is not listed as one of the projects under the Transit Subregional Programs in the Draft Guidelines. He stated that he wants to make sure the Arroyo Verdugo transit project applies to the Subregional Transit Program. He noted that State of Good Repair is mentioned as part of New Capital, but he suggested that TAC Minutes, May 3,

21 Operations should also be included. Additionally, he noted that the Subregional Program that Arroyo Verdugo submitted stated Transit Operations and State of Good Repair as its need, so they would like to include that as an eligible expense in the Transit Subregional Programs. He and also wanted to ensure that Glendale, Burbank, and Arroyo Verdugo are included in that program. Mr. Hernandez noted that there are some Operation-type projects in the Mobility Matrix, and it seemed as though some Capital projects in the Mobility Matrix are no longer eligible. Ms. Honish replied that the Ordinance specifically states that the funds are for Capital only. Mr. Hernandez replied that, similar to other federal legislation, capital-only also includes the purchasing of transportation services. Heather Hills (Metro) asked for more clarification on his definition of service. Mr. Hernandez replied that it would include revenue service hours without additional administrative costs. Ms. Honish replied that the Ordinance states that these funds are only eligible for Capital, and Capital is defined within the Ordinance, not the Draft Guidelines. Justine Garcia (LTSS) commented that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5310 Application included the possibility of proposing a new program or operation that involves purchasing capital, such as buses, and also involves a large portion of new operating dollars in order to operate expanded service. Therefore, LTSS s recommendation is that buying capital buses to operate brand new or expanded service comes from a large portion of Operations dollars, which should be included into the Capital category. Michelle Caldwell (BOS) also commented that another precedent for this is the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program and the operation of rail lines. Ms. Honish replied that she is familiar with both of those federal sources, but stated that Measure M funds are not federal funds. Mr. Hernandez commented that related LTSS s concern of what Capital projects could be defined as, there should be clearer definition on the population requirement designating small cities for Local Return allocation. Mr. Hernandez hoped that there could be some flexibility with these definitions. Concerning Measure M Recognition, LTSS is recommending that acknowledgement of Measure M funds should be simple and straight forward and not get bogged down in the process. They recommend revising the language so that the acknowledgement is determined by the recipient agency in consultation with Metro. Concerning the definition for Active Transportation and First/Last Mile, LTSS is recommending revising the definition to include infrastructure for regional and/or local shuttle circulator services. Concerning the 20% for Transit Operations, LTSS is recommending using the proper title of Included and Eligible Municipal Operators or Regional Operators instead of Municipal Providers, since there are another 25 municipal providers that are ineligible for these funds. Concerning the 2% for ADA/Paratransit, LTSS is recommending a change in the language of the Draft Guidelines for the 75/25% split to make it clearer that at least 75% of the 2% ADA Paratransit fund is dedicated to support ADA. TAC Minutes, May 3,

22 Concerning the Local Return, LTSS is recommending increasing the annual $100,000 minimum for small cities. Concerning the Local Return Program (Public Transit), LTSS is recommending adding Transportation Network Companies as an alternative to taxis. General comments from LTSS include clarification on whether the projects can be added to the Mobility Matrix or to new matrices for the Ordinance. In addition, since Measure M does not sunset, LTSS is recommending a regularly schedule review and update of the Draft Guidelines, to be conducted at a minimum of every five years. Ms. Hills asked for clarification that a regularly scheduled review of Measure M already exists. Ms. Honish replied that there is a Measure M review every five years, but that Mr. Hernandez is requesting a review of the Draft Guidelines be added. Mr. Mostahkami asked if there have been any updates from staff regarding Local Return? He noted that the Board had instructed staff to review the Local Return. Kelly Hines (Metro) replied that more scenarios were discussed, but no recommendations were made. Ms. Honish reported that part of the motion was to consult with the PAC to have their input. The issue was discussed at the PAC meeting, but she could not comment on whether they had reached a consensus. Jason Smisko (League of California Cities San Fernando Valley COG) commented that at the PAC meeting it seemed like the Local Return minimum was going to be taken out. Ms. Honish replied that she could not comment on that. Mr. Mostahkami asked if it is true that there was a possibility of smaller cities getting a bigger Local Return, while not affecting the Local Return of larger cities? Ms. Honish replied that she was not aware of this information. Mr. Stevens asked if there are were scenarios discussed that involved a Local Return minimum higher than $400,000? Ms. Hines replied that there was no scenario of this sort. Mr. Stevens asked the TAC members if they would like to focus on specific items, or if they would like to cover the Draft Guidelines in general and try to reach a consensus? He noted that his COG has a few big picture items to comment on. He was not sure if the San Gabriel Valley COG submitted the official letter yet. Ms. Honish confirmed that the San Gabriel Valley COG did. Mr. Stevens noted that most of the COG commented on big items, which he described as the 3% Local Contribution, MSPs, and Local Return minimum. He stated that he believed the two most important items are the 3% Local Contribution and the MSPs. The TAC members agreed to begin discussion on the three big topics that Mr. Stevens mentioned. Mr. Stevens asked to know if soft costs, including staff time, are eligible to count towards the 3% Local Contribution? If not, he would like the Draft Guidelines to consider that. Mr. Stevens stated that he wanted any betterments that cities choose to add along the transit line, that are otherwise acceptable, to count towards the 3% Local Contribution. He noted that currently betterments are precluded from being eligible in the Draft Guidelines. He noted that for a small city, a 3% contribution for a multi-million dollar project could be extremely TAC Minutes, May 3,

23 burdensome. He believes that these small cities need a lot more flexibility for how to satisfy the 3% contribution. Mr. Yamarone replied that it is important to note that Measure M does not fully fund any project and that they all need additional funding. The financial forecasts assume a 3% funding from Local Contribution in order to have these projects built on time. Mr. Yamarone noted that the Local Contribution dollar amount is determined at the 30% design level of a project. Costs that are included at the 30% level are eligible to count towards the 3% Local Contribution, such as inspections, plan reviews, and parts of project delivery, as well as first/last mile improvements. Concerning betterments, Mr. Yamarone stated that they would all need to work together to define the term more clearly. He noted that betterments are often aesthetic improvements and not functional project costs. If it can be argued that the betterment is improving pedestrian flow or capacity and is included in the project cost, then it is eligible. Mr. Mostahkami stated that Local Return is meant for the improvement of the local infrastructure, so that the cities benefit from it. With the 3% Local Contribution requirement, cities may have to give up some of their Local Return and thus defer their projects for several years. He stated that there should be a mechanism for cities to contribute through other means. He suggested the possibility of having cities apply for grants that could then be used towards the 3%. He believes that the current standards are too strict for the cities. Mr. Stevens stated that the Draft Guidelines state an extraordinary benefit cities will get from having a transit station in their jurisdiction. He noted that contributing 3% to help get the project fully funded is a better argument than saying cities will benefit from a station. Mr. Stevens commented that the type of benefit from a transit station would depend on factors such as whether the city has low property tax, or whether the city has to subsidize the affordable housing units in new Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs). He commented that trying to sell the idea that cities will directly benefit just from having a transit station is deceiving. He noted that if a 3% Local Contribution applies to any of the small cities along the Gold Line, the Local Contribution amount would equate to about $8 million. He stated that because the amount is so high, cities may decide not pay the 3%, which he believes is a poor decision. He stated that Metro may be forcing the cities to make this bad decision by not giving them the flexibility to be part of the program. Mr. Yamarone replied that the benefits to cities are based on the examples from existing rail stations. He noted that areas around Gold Line stations have benefited from increased land value and job access. Mr. Stevens acknowledged that there are some benefits, but also some detriments; for example, additional costs to the Azusa Police Department. Ms. Hills asked Mr. Stevens what specifically is he proposing? Mr. Stevens stated that he would like to expand what is considered eligible towards the 3% Local Contribution. Mr. Yamarone reiterated that if it is part of the project cost at 30% design, then Metro is open to satisfying the 3%. Mr. Stevens noted that the Foothill Construction Authority has told him that Metro staff and the Construction Authority have agreed to the eligible components that will cover almost all of the cities 3% Local Contribution. Mike Begheri (TDM/Sustainability Subcommittee) asked if first/last mile improvements such as rerouting shuttle service, road dieting, and sidewalk widening could be considered betterments? He asked specifically what betterment is defined as. Mr. Yamarone replied that TAC Minutes, May 3,

24 if it fits into Metro s goal of having a first/last mile plan for every future station, then it would qualify. These could include bulb-outs, sidewalk widening, signal improvements. He elaborated that if it is in the project plan and costs, then it is eligible. He noted that he had not heard of shuttle rerouting or other operational costs being included in first/last mile improvements. Mr. Stevens stated that the Gold Line is currently at 30% design but has no first/last mile plan. He noted that the Foothill Construction Authority does not want to deal with first/last mile improvements. Mr. Bagheri stated that whenever a new station is introduced, City staff has to go back and work on zoning and general plan updates, which add extra costs to the City. He believes that these extra costs should be counted toward the 3% Local Contribution. Ms. Pan stated that the cities along the West Santa Ana Branch project have already been pursuing TOD grants in advance and are working on specific plans. Ms. Honish noted that when a City has to make inspections along Metro transit right-of-ways (ROWs) the City then charges Metro for the inspection. She stated that these costs are part of the project cost, which would be part of the 3%. In-kind is allowed, but staff is trying to emphasize that it has to be part of the project cost, because this 3% is lacking as part of the total funding component. Mr. Stevens stated that he would like the language in the Draft Guidelines to clearly state that those types of costs are eligible, because he believes that they are in the project budget. Ms. Honish clarified that they are not eligible if they are not in the project budget. The key is whether or not the component is part of the project scope. She noted that charging Metro for inspection of the ROW would count, but city staff time in reviewing the project would not. Mr. Bagheri stated that there are some projects where cities use the use of ROW as part of the local match. For instance, a station may cause parking spaces to be removed, resulting in a loss of revenue from parking. There could be creative ways to satisfy the 3% Local Contribution, but the Draft Guidelines do not specify this. Robert Beste (League of California Cities South Bay Cities COG) asked if local match funds are made of anything other than Measure M money? Ms. Honish replied that it could also be from Senate Bill 1 (SB-1). Mr. Beste asked where Measure M Subregional funds come from? Mr. Stevens replied that the Draft Guidelines state that Subregional money is eligible, so first/last mile improvements that were included in the San Gabriel Valley subregional plan can be part of the 3% Local Contribution, but he is not sure it that will be enough to satisfy the 3%. Mr. Mostahkami asked why the Draft Guidelines do not allow cities to use a Metro competitive grant to contribute towards the 3% Local Contribution? He stated that if there is funding available from any grant, whether Metro, state, or other means, they should be eligible to use as the contribution? He stated that he would like to change the language in the Draft Guidelines to allow for any grants. He reiterated that the cities need more flexibility to meet the 3% Local Contribution. Mr. Bagheri stated that Page 37 of the Draft Guidelines list the eligible projects for first/last mile. He noted that expansion of the eligibility list would help cities with the 3% Local Contribution. He recommended including additional capital improvements as part of the TAC Minutes, May 3,

25 eligible projects. He noted that the list does not mention curb extensions, corner rounding, and other capital improvements that could be added to the list. Concerning betterments, Mr. Stevens commented that any capital investment that enhances and improves on the operation of the transit system, funded by the local agency, should be desirable to Metro and should not be discouraged. He stated that he would like those capital investments be added to the definition of betterments. Mr. Yamarone replied that Metro has a history of working with local agencies to define betterments that would provide operational improvements to the transit system. Mr. Stevens asked which agency San Dimas will be entering an agreement with regarding the 3% Local Contribution; Metro or the Foothill Construction Authority? Ms. Hills noted that this is a good question and suggested that Ms. Pan discuss the issue with the Senior Executive Officer of the Transit Corridor Planning. She stated that there is disconnect with the cities in knowing which agency they should be dealing with. Mr. Stevens noted that the Foothill Construction Authority believes they are negotiating on behalf of the cities. Ms. Honish confirmed that the Foothill Construction Authority has met with Metro but that there has been no agreement signed. Mr. Stevens asked if they are even the right agency to be having that discussion, relative to compliance with the Draft Guidelines? Ms. Honish noted that it may be beneficial for Mr. Stevens to have a meeting with the Foothill Construction Authority to work out these concerns. Ms. Caldwell commented that the City of Azusa negotiated an agreement with the Foothill Construction Authority regarding parking, and Metro has now changed that agreement. She stated that it needs to be established who is going to be making the final decision on the 3% Local Contribution? Mr. Stevens agreed, and stated that it needs to be decided if the 3% agreements will be made between the cities and Metro, or the cities and the Foothill Construction Authority, in the case of the Gold Line Foothill Extension project. Mr. Yamarone replied that this is a project specific comment, in which the answer will come as the project moves forward. Mr. Yamarone reported that from a Draft Guidelines perspective, one of the comments from the PAC meeting was whether the 3% Local Contribution should be applied to a whole corridor, and that each city would not be responsible for a specific amount, as long as that corridor meets its 3%. With regard to Mr. Steven s question, Mr. Yamarone stated that the Foothill Construction Authority could be representing the cities and assuming that responsibility. Mr. Beste asked if there will be a timing issue with the 3% Local Contribution if eligible contributions are constructed years before the Measure M project? Mr. Yamarone replied that if the contribution is part of the project cost at 30% design, then it is eligible. Mr. Beste replied that they are currently starting construction on a transit center where the Green Line Extension will eventually go. Ms. Honish reiterated that cities will need to contribute 3% of the project cost at a 30% design level. Mr. Stevens commented that if Mr. Beste does not have an agreement with Metro on how the 3% Local Contribution will be satisfied for the project, he does not believe costs from the past will be eligible. Mr. Stevens noted that part of his discussions involved being able to count soft costs as eligible towards the 3%. TAC Minutes, May 3,

26 Mr. Bagheri commented that the timing of eligible projects towards the 3% Local Contribution be tied to an adopted plan that is part of the transit station. If a city has an adopted plan that takes into account a specific future station that makes improvements, those improvements should be eligible for the 3%. John Walker (County of Los Angeles) asked for clarification on how an adopted plan is defined. Mr. Bagheri replied that if a city has updated their specific plan, knowing that a future transit station will be built, and the city has conceptual designs for first/last mile improvements, then those improvements should be eligible towards the 3%. Kevin Minne (City of Los Angeles) asked if the language can be changed to not apply to specific plans but to projects that have been specifically developed in anticipation of a transit station? He noted that the City of Los Angeles applied to the Call for Projects specifically to improve connectivity to an anticipated transit station, which he believes should be eligible for the 3% Local Contribution. Mr. Yamarone reported that Page 21 of the Draft Guidelines states: All local improvements must be consistent with station area plans that will be developed by Metro in coordination with the affected jurisdiction(s). He noted that the idea is that Metro will work with cities on first/last mile improvements and put them into the project costs. With regard to Mr. Beste s project, building improvements now will mean that they are not included in the project cost, which will not apply towards the 3% Local Contribution. Mr. Stevens commented that San Dimas has a residential development project that is immediately adjacent to the Gold Line Foothill Extension 2B. The project was built five to six years ago because the City thought the Gold Line Foothill Extension 2B would be funded by Measure R, but it ended up being a separate project. As part of the project, city staff required noise mitigation walls in anticipation of the running train. He noted that this project is an improvement and also saves the overall noise mitigation cost of the Gold Line. He asked if this improvement will count towards the 3% Local Contribution? Mr. Yamarone replied that if Mr. Stevens can locate the sound walls in the Gold Line Construction Authority s construction documents, then he can make an argument that the City has already paid for those because they have already been built. Referring back to Page 21 of the Draft Guidelines, Eric Widstrand (City of Long Beach) asked if there are requirements that the station area plans be consistent with the local City s plans? Mr. Yamarone replied that this is what was implied in the Draft Guidelines. He elaborated that it is the goal that Metro and the cities work together to jointly develop those plans. Mr. Widstand noted that the current language can create some confusion, because if there is an existing bike plan that states one street should be improved, but Metro s first/last mile plan states it that another street should be improved instead, there could be a problem. Ms. Honish commented that if any TAC members would like to add clarifying language, she encouraged them to do so via to theplan@metro.net or metro.net/theplan Mr. Mostahkami stated the importance of the TAC members to indicate how they want the Guideline language to read. Jane Leonard (BOS) agreed and stated that if TAC will be providing recommendations, it should be as specific as possible. She asked what is the reasoning behind not allowing non-metro competitive grants? Ms. Honish replied that it is meant for Metro to avoid competing with themselves. Metro is trying to fund that 3% of project costs, and the agency cannot undermine their own fund plan. A Metro grant is used towards the 3% Local Contribution, might not otherwise fund another project down the TAC Minutes, May 3,

27 pipeline. Ms. Hills used the Call for Projects as an example. Metro funds 80%, and the Local Match is 20%, a portion of which can be In-Kind, but it is specified that the Local Match has to be another source of funding. Mr. Mostahkami asked if he was able to do first/last mile improvements through a grant from Metro, then why would that not be eligible towards the 3% Local Contribution? Ms. Honish replied it is because the city would then be relying on Metro to meet their match. Ms. Honish summarized that the 3% Local Contribution framework is that cities will be contributing 3% of the total cost of a project at 30% design. She noted that if the project cost increases afterwards, Metro will bear the burden. Mr. Stevens reiterated that the contribution can include improvements such as station area planning and first/last mile improvements, as long as they are in the plan and project cost at 30% design. He stated that what cities need to do is get their proposed improvements into the 30% design of the project. He stated that it is extremely difficult for a small city to come up with 3% of a total project cost and that the current 3% Local Contribution amount for San Dimas is $1.2 million, which will increase if first/last mile improvements are added. He noted that this will be a very complicated process. Ms. Honish replied Metro is not looking for more than the 3% contribution, to the degree that it exceeds the Local Return amount they will be receiving. Mr. Mostahkami asked TAC members if there are parts of the Draft Guidelines they would like to read differently? Mr. Bagheri replied that his comment was about the timing of which projects were eligible for the 3% Local Contribution. Ms. Leonard asked for clarification that the eligible contributions have to be identified by the city within their project plan, before 30% design completion of the transit project. Ms. Honish confirmed that the improvements have to be identified before 30% design. Mr. Bagheri requested a change in language on Page 21 of the Draft Guidelines, concerning Active Transportation Capital Improvement Contributions. He suggested that the language read: All local improvements must be consistent with station area plans that will be developed by Metro in coordination with the affected Jurisdiction(s) or any adopted local plans in the station area. Ms. Leonard and Mr. Mostahkami both stated that they were unclear about the definition of plan versus the definition of project. Mr. Mostahkami asked how local improvements are defined? Mr. Bagheri replied that these could be first/last mile improvements. Mr. Mostahkami commented that he is still not sure what Metro had in mind with local improvements. He asked if this could mean local street improvements, building improvements, or infrastructure improvements? Mr. Bagheri replied that this is why it is important to recommend additional language in the Draft Guidelines to clarify. Mr. Mostahkami suggested that it should read all local projects. Mr. Beste suggested that TAC members should instead submit individual comments, rather than trying to wordsmith the Guideline language and obtain a consensus at the meeting. Ms. Caldwell commented that there seems to be an agreement that there is a general lack of clarity. Ms. Honish commented that TAC can submit a comment on the general lack of clarity as a whole, and then submit individual comments on what they would like to see clarified. Mr. Beste asked for clarification on how the 3% Local Contribution is calculated? Ms. Hills replied that the 3% has to be part of the total rail project. Ms. Honish elaborated that this is calculated based on center-track miles. Ms. Hills demonstrated that, for example, if a track is TAC Minutes, May 3,

28 20 miles, costs $100, and has 10 stations in 10 cities, then 3% for each of those cities would be $3. Mr. Bagheri commented that the general confusion among TAC members concerning the 3% is not how it is calculated, but which city improvement projects are eligible towards the 3% Local Contribution. He noted that it is the cities responsibility to implement improvement projects around Metro stations to make them viable and attractive to riders. Mr. Yamarone replied that the project cost is the entire rail project cost estimate at 30% PE level. 3% of the total rail project cost estimate is then shared among the cities. He stated that there is then even a further sharing among station area. For example, if the half-mile radius of a station covers more than one city, those cities will then share that 3% based on the square miles of the radius covering each respective city. Mr. Yamarone stated that one way to satisfy that 3% is through a direct monetary contribution; but if a city wants to build something within the half-mile radius through improvements such as widening sidewalks, installing new traffic signals, or other first/last mile improvements, then those improvements could count towards the 3% Local Contribution. Ms. Caldwell asked for clarification on what kinds of projects are eligible? Mr. Yamarone replied that it includes any first/last mile projects that are in an adopted station plan that Metro and the city have collaboratively developed or if the project is included within the transit project cost at 30% design. Ms. Leonard asked for clarification that would involve a lot of multi-jurisdictional planning, well in advance of any implementation, and that cities will need to be involved in the early stages of planning with Metro, in order to identify eligible projects within the plan that could to be applied towards the 3%? Mr. Yamarone confirmed that this is correct. Mr. Mostahkami asked if the first/last mile draft Guidelines have been developed or are being developed? Mr. Yamarone replied that the First/Last Mile Strategic Plan was adopted by the Board in The Strategic Plan stated that Metro is to work with the cities to develop improvements within a half-mile of transit stations. Mr. Stevens noted that there have not been any station area plans developed to date. He commented that because there are no stations area plans, cities cannot develop improvements. Mr. Stevens stated that their City Attorney should be advising him on these issues. Mr. Mostahkami suggested that the language on Page 21 of the Draft Guidelines read: The criteria for local first/last mile investments for first/last mile contributions are being developed by Metro in coordination with the cities, specifically to carry out integration of first/last mile within their transit capital projects. Mr. Widstrand commented that Metro has started working on the Blue Line Station first/last mile plans, and that the City of Long Beach will start engaging with Metro in those efforts in the coming weeks. Mr. Beste asked if one city s improvements can overlap into another city and contribute towards the overall 3% Local Contribution? Mr. Yamarone replied that this issue was also brought up at the PAC but no consensus was reached. Mr. Stevens asked for clarification that if this scenario were allowed, then the cities along the Gold Line stations could form an agreement to meet the total 3% Local Contribution? Mr. Yamarone confirmed that that would be possible. He noted that if Metro can enter into an agreement with a group of cities or construction authorities, it seems to be consistent with Metro s goals. Mr. Walker asked if TAC Minutes, May 3,

29 TAC would need to submit a comment to revise the language in the Draft Guidelines to reflect this possibility? Ms. Honish replied that the Ordinance specifically states that the agreement has to be made with the jurisdictions, so if a city has given a construction authority jurisdiction over a project, then revising the language would not be necessary. However, the cities can provide comment requesting clarification to indicate that the cities have provided written agreement. She stated that TAC members can submit a comment asking for agreements to be made between Metro and the COGs if they wish, since different subregions have varying relationships with their COGs, or some cities may not want a construction authority to participate. Mr. Walker requested to have the language on Page 20 of the Draft Guidelines read: The Ordinance includes provisions that allow development of a mutual agreement between a jurisdiction, a group of jurisdictions, or subregion, and Metro, and a default penalty if such an agreement cannot be reached. He noted that he will formally submit the comment via theplan@metro.net. Ms. Honish distributed a handout listing certain sections of the Draft Guidelines that will need to be further developed. Concerning MSPs, Ms. Pan noted that the list states the procedure for determining MSP project readiness will be established within one year of adoption of the Draft Guidelines. Mr. Stevens noted that the San Gabriel Valley COG would like to see a greater commitment to incorporating the COGs into the subregional planning process and letting them have some level of control over the prioritization of funds. He noted that the San Gabriel Valley COG s comment will include a recommendation that the COG can prepare a five-year capital plan subject to Metro approval. Their other comment will also be concerning how the term project sponsor is defined. He also proposed having a special Call for Projects for each subregion. Ms. Hills replied that the Mobility Matrices were developed by Metro after working with all 89 jurisdictions in Los Angeles County and the COGs. She noted that the social justice and advocacy groups in the PAC do not like the idea of COGs creating their own Call. Mr. Beste commented that there does not need to be a one size fits all Call, and if each subregion can do one differently, it should be allowed. Ms. Hills cautioned about the negative feedback that it could generate from social justice and advocacy groups. Steve Novotny (Caltrans) stated that one comment from Caltrans relating to Project Approval and Environmental Document (PAED) is to ensure that Page 31 of the Draft Guidelines include funding for all types of state highway projects, freeways, expressways. He requested expanding the definition of managed lanes to hot lanes, HOV lanes, and to include preliminary studies, because those feed into Project Initiation Documents (PIDs) and complex projects. He noted that Caltrans will be submitting official comments soon. Mr. Walker asked if the COG s role in agreements discussed earlier was addressed in the Cashflow Management section of the handout that was distributed? Mr. Stevens replied that he believes it will take time to develop those changes. Ms. Honish and Mr. Stevens noted that it could also apply to the MSPs section as a future discussion. Concerning Local Return, Mr. Stevens stated that the San Gabriel Valley COG is content with the $100,000 minimum, but would not actively support it. He noted that they would become TAC Minutes, May 3,

30 concerned if the minimum becomes more than $100,000. He asked how the $100,000 was developed in the Draft Guidelines? Ms. Honish replied that many amounts were suggested at the Local Return Working Group and noted that there will likely be formal calculations provided in the May Board Report. Mr. Stevens stated that it is unfortunate that the Local Return Working Group had as many small cities as it did. He believes this is how the $100,000 was decided on. Kelly Hines (Metro) replied that every city was invited. Mr. Mostahkami acknowledged that there are concerns on both sides. Mr. Stevens asked for confirmation that once the Draft Guidelines are adopted, they will be in place until changed, or if there will be an automatic review? Ms. Honish replied that she could not comment on the matter. Mr. Hernandez asked if TAC members would like to adopt LTSS s comments and submit them as part of TAC s comments? Ms. Honish replied that LTSS s comments have already been submitted and will be part of the public record for review. Ms. Caldwell noted that she supports LTSS s comment #6 Page 61 20% Transit Operations, Title and Introduction. She asked how she should show her support? Ms. Honish told Ms. Caldwell to submit her support for the comment online. She noted that the PAC will receive those comments and provide a summary to the Board. She noted that staff cannot provide every word on every comment that they receive. They will instead provide a summary of LTSS s comments to the Board. She noted that some of the comments will be easily assimilated into a revised draft, while other comments will be in conflict with each other, but she could not speak to how the comments will alter the Draft Guidelines. Ms. Caldwell asked who will decide how the conflicting comments will be resolved? Ms. Honish reiterated that she cannot speak to how the Draft Guidelines will be changed. Ms. Hills stated that this is similar to an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) response to comments. Ms. Caldwell replied that it should not be up to politicians to decide. Mr. Stevens asked if staff is likely to take the comments under consideration and recommend any changes to the current draft? Ms. Honish confirmed that they can, especially if it is just a simple clarification. She noted that she cannot say definitively that staff can get approval for changes. She noted that staff s best effort will be towards clarifying any issues that are ambiguous, and provide a more streamlined Measure M. Ms. Honish recommended that the TAC members submit their comments sooner rather than later, since it will be more difficult to get comments tabulated closer to May 26th deadline. Mr. Stevens asked when a revised Guidelines will become available to the public? Ms. Honish stated that staff hopes to have the revised Guidelines for the June Board meeting. However, Ms. Honish noted that she could return to the June TAC meeting and provide an update. Mr. Stevens asked when is the Board meeting to adopt the Draft Guidelines? Ms. Pan replied that it is on June 22nd. Ms. Honish stated that she will have more updates at the next meeting, since it will take place after the next PAC meeting. Ms. Pan stated that she will put a Measure M Draft Guidelines item on the agenda. Mr. Stevens requested to put this update as an Action Item. Ms. Pan confirmed that she will. Mr. Mostahkami asked when the Measure M sales tax will take effect? Ms. Honish replied it will be starting July 1st. TAC Minutes, May 3,

31 8. Adjournment Ms. Pan adjourned the meeting and reported that the next scheduled TAC meeting is June 7, 2017 in the William Mulholland Conference Room on the 15 th floor at 9:30 am. If you have questions regarding the next meeting, please contact Brian Lam at (213) or TAC Minutes, May 3,

32 32

33 33

34 34

35 35

36 Attachment 4 TAC Appeals Protocol & FTA Section 5310 Appeals Guidelines 36

37 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TAC Roles and Responsibilities: TAC is an Advisory Committee and serves as the appeal body for Metro Grant Programs including the Call for Projects, Transit Oriented Development (TOD), FTA Section 5310, to name a few. TAC s primary role and responsibility is to provide an objective, technical, and countywide perspective in the appeals process. TAC s role is also to objectively listen to project sponsors appeal for funding. Based on the merits of the appeal, it is TAC s role to recommend whether the project is justified to receive funding from the Board approved TAC Appeal Reserve fund. Projects are not to be reevaluated or rescored. Metro staff can concur, reject or recommend alternatives to the TAC recommendations. To ensure TAC s countywide role, these protocols shall govern: The Alternate TAC member shall only participate in the meeting when the primary TAC member is not present. Ex-officio members are not allowed to vote. For projects for which their respective agency has submitted an application(s) or appeal(s), TAC members and/or Alternates are prohibited from providing oral testimony. TAC members and/or Alternates should not participate in TAC discussion concerning project(s) their agency sponsored so as not to be perceived as taking an advocacy role. Motion seconds should be made from an agency/jurisdiction/league of Cities/TAC Subcommittee representative other than the agency/jurisdiction/league of Cities/TAC Subcommittee representative that originated the motion. Any discussion involving the public will be allowed when acknowledged and determined appropriate by the TAC Chairperson. TAC discussion and motion development is intended for TAC members participation only. Revised TAC Appeals Protocol Guidelines

38 38

39 Attachment 5 FY 17 FTA Section 5310/5316/5317 Evaluation Criteria 39

40 40

41 41

42 42

43 43

44 44

45 Attachment 6 FY 17 FTA Section 5310/5316/5317 Appeals Fact Sheets 45

46 46

47 47

48 48

49 49

50 50

51 51