8.1 Date: September 26, 2012 Current Meeting: October 4, 2012 Board Meeting: October 4, 2012 BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors General Manager, Michael T. Burns Chief CMA Officer, John Ristow One Bay Area Grant (OBAG): Local Program Development - Criteria Policy-Related Action: Yes Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Santa Clara One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Countywide Competitive Complete Streets Program Criteria. BACKGROUND: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) adopted its programming framework and criteria for Federal flexible grant funds for fiscal years 2013 through 2016 on May 17, 2012. The full text is available at http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/onebayarea/res-4035_approved.pdf While projects will be selected and programmed under the auspices of the current Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), MTC is incorporating policy concepts that were developed for the new Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (RTP/SCS), called T2040. MTC's framework for programming 2013-2016 Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and Transportation Alternatives (formerly Enhancements) (TA) funds is called the "OneBayAreaGrant Program (OBAG). While it builds upon and expands many of the concepts introduced in the previous programming cycle which covered 2010-2012, there are significant changes from previous federal funding cycles. OBAG provides $87.3 million for Santa Clara County. This is the largest amount that has been made available by MTC for county-level decision making since the enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Enhancement Act (ISTEA) in 1991. Due to the complexity of the program, VTA Staff is developing the local OBAG programming 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134-1927 Administration 408.321.5555 Customer Service 408.321.2300
8.1 framework with VTA's Advisory Committees in a three part process: (1) Program Structure, (2) Guarantee Formulas and (3) Project Selection Criteria. The VTA Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC), Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) discussed and recommended the proposed program structure and the City Guarantee formula at their respective June, July and August 2012 meetings. The September 6, 2012 Board of Directors approved the program structure and guarantee formula. The complete agenda item is shown as Attachment B. DISCUSSION: This memo will now address the third part: Project Selection Criteria. VTA staff has developed screening and scoring criteria that meet Federal and regional requirements, and VTA policies in consultation with VTA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)'s Capital Improvement Program Working Group (CIPWG). These proposed criteria are presented in Attachment A. Countywide Competitive Complete Streets Program: The competitive portion of the OBAG funding will consist of CMAQ and/or TA. must be CMAQ eligible and located either in, or have proximate access to a PDA. The following project types will be eligible for Countywide Competitive Complete Streets Program Funding. VTA staff will issue a competitive call for Complete Streets projects with the County eligible to apply. Santa Clara County OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS Eligible Project Category Valley Transportation Distinguishing Characteristics Plan Consistency Regional Bike/Ped - Bicycle Listed in most recent BEP update and/or, BEP 2035 Regional Focus: Class I, II, III Bike/Ped Facilities Expenditure Program constrained list Local Bike/Ped - Project level listing in Local Focus: Class I, II, III VTP 2040* Bike/Ped/Streetscape - Multi-modal Transportation Investment (Street Completion) Intelligent Transportation Systems (Street Completion) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Other VTP/BEP 2040. No specific VTP listing required, if project is Air Quality Conformity Exempt Project level listing in VTP 2040 No specific VTP listing required, if project is Air Quality Conformity Exempt Facilities Local Focus: Class II, III Facilities; provides (or significantly upgrades) missing elements on existing streets such as sidewalks, bike lanes, trees, etc. and/or alters street design to facilitate multi-modal use. Signal systems, transit priority, multi-modal road user detection, etc. TDM, Safe Routes to School (capital), Parking Management *If a project was not submitted as part of the VTP call-for-projects, a sponsor can still complete the VTP2040 form at the same time as the OBAG application. Page 2 of 5
8.1 This program will be the first time since the mid-1990's that VTA has solicited and evaluated such a broad array of project types in a single call, using the same criteria for each project type. VTA Staff and the CIP working group developed the proposed criteria by reviewing criteria from each of the prior programs, and adapting them to cover a broader project spectrum. Staff and the Working Group then did a trial run of the scoring criteria on each project type to detect potential biases for or against particular project types. The scoring criteria proposal recommends providing bonus points for Bicycle Expenditure Plan (BEP) projects. This is a significant change in how BEP project are treated in Federal programming cycles. Previously, BEP projects were evaluated in a separate process, and guaranteed funding as the sponsors were ready to deliver them. This proposal suspends the guarantee for this cycle, but gives eligible, ready-to-go BEP projects a significant advantage in the competition. ALTERNATIVES: The VTA Board may adopt other criteria. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact as a result of this action. ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATIONS: The TAC reviewed and discussed this item at their August 9, 2012 meeting. The TAC requested clarification of VTP 2040 consistency and the Complete Streets Resolution of Local Support, which staff provided at the meeting. Staff also explained that the definition of PDA serving is currently being developed by the TAC working groups and will be presented to TAC at a later date. One TAC member expressed concern that the structure of the Safety criterion would deter innovation, and requested a criterion addressing cost/benefit ratio. The TAC deferred action on the staff proposal until its September meeting. The CAC, BPAC, TAC and PAC reviewed and discussed this item at their respective September 12 and 13, 2012 meetings. Staff explained how the draft criteria were developed, how they would be applied, and addressed committee member questions at the meetings. VTA staff also announced that an information item on the definition of "PDA-Serving" would be presented at each committee's October meeting. The CAC received a verbal request from the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) to consider employment density in the scoring criteria, provide more guidance to staff in evaluating Gap Closures, and to give priority PDA's with more housing and employment growth capacity, and that are more prepared to develop in the short term. VTA staff suggested that the committee consider adding job density as a specific term to the "Project Benefits" criterion. One committee member inquired as to whether the criteria would address job-housing imbalance in particular areas. VTA staff responded that the criteria do not address this, and further explained that the methodology and information to do this, and to differentiate between PDAs as requested by SVLG needs to be developed as part of the PDA Growth Strategy effort that VTA will be conducting over the next 10 months. Another committee member requested that a criterion be Page 3 of 5
8.1 added to capture public-private partnerships and provide additional points for private financial contributions. Staff explained that public-private partnerships were included in the "Public Involvement/Support" criterion, and that the CIP working group had engaged in a protracted debate over the value of various types of non-federal match in the recent past, and had ultimately declined to recommend differentiating between them. After discussion, the CAC unanimously recommended that the VTA Board approve the staff recommendation without change. The BPAC received a brief verbal description of CAC's action in addition to the staff presentation of the item. The BPAC also received a draft of the PDA-Serving definition. The BPAC also received a report and recommendation from one of its working groups, proposing retention of the guarantee for the entire BEP regardless of PDA status if possible. Should that not be possible, the BPAC requested that the Public Involvement criterion become a screening criterion, and that the points be adjusted as follows: Safety: 25, Project Benefits: 5, Gap Closure: 15, Local Match: 15, Project Readiness: 15. The BPAC working group also recommended quantification of evaluation scale wherever possible. VTA staff explained that BEP projects outside of PDAs and the PDA-serving definition could not be made eligible through the Competitive Complete Streets program, but they could be funded by the City Guarantee shares. VTA staff also explained that the BPAC could request that the Board continue guaranteed funding of eligible BEP projects, instead of having them compete and receive bonus points as proposed. The committee requested, and was provided with a more detailed description of the CIP Working Group membership, and how the scoring process proceeds. After a lengthy, detailed and thoughtful discussion, the BPAC unanimously recommended that the VTA Board adopt the staff recommendation, and that staff would create category specific quantitative measures to the extent possible for use in the evaluation process, and show the results thereof to BPAC. The TAC received brief verbal descriptions of CAC and BPAC's discussions and action. One TAC member requested consideration of adjusting the OBAG program structure to provide more guaranteed funding to the Cities. VTA staff responded that while possible, the program had been structured to address multiple requirements and goals, including the need to provide free and open competition, reward agencies who accommodated growth, enable agencies with small shares to submit large projects, and avoid passing the 70/30 PDA/Non-PDA split down to the City/County level. One committee member requested clarification of the COC and CARE designations, which staff provided. The Committee requested more clarification on "Good Design and Best Practices" as written in the Project Benefits criterion referred to specific design documents. VTA staff responded that they did not. Several Committee members requested that the phrase "using Good Design and Best Practices" be stricken from the criteria. One committee member requested that Multi-modal synergy element require improvement of two or more transportation modes instead of the three proposed. One committee member proposed reducing the Project Benefits criterion to 10 points, and increasing Local Match to 15 points. This was opposed by another committee member. After discussion, the TAC unanimously voted to support the staff recommendation, modified by removing the phrase "using Good Design and Best Practices" from the Project Benefits criterion. The PAC received brief verbal descriptions of CAC, BPAC and TAC's discussions and actions. The PAC also received the detailed explanation of the formula share calculations, the range of Page 4 of 5
8.1 funding that the County would have received under various guarantee formula proposals, and a description of potential guarantee formula factors that have been discussed in the working groups over time, but have not survived to the recommendation stage. These items were requested by PAC at its August meeting. One Committee member requested that the phrase "using Good Design and Best Practices" be stricken from the criteria, that the points be reduced to 10 points, and the points for Local Match be increased to15. VTA staff explained that this change had been discussed by TAC, who recommended the wording change, but not the point change. After discussion, the PAC voted to support the staff recommendation as modified by TAC on a 7 to 1 vote. Prepared by: Marcella Rensi Memo No. 3612 Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENT A Santa Clara County OBAG Discretionary Program Scoring Criteria PRE-SCREENING CRITERIA CHECKLIST: SCREENING CRITERIA CHECKLIST: 2008 Complete Streets Act Compliance VTP 2040 Consistency Housing Element Completed/HCD certified MTC Complete Streets Checklist PDA (and proximate access) location(s) Grant Request $350,000 CRITERIA: CATEGORIES Safety Project Benefits: Catalyst for Economic Vitality; Livability (Design); Multimodal Synergy DETAILS High: Project will address a demonstrated safety issue with a proven or demonstrated countermeasure. Medium: Project will improve a situation with some safety issues (e.g. some reported collisions, conflicts, near-misses, or evidence of high vehicle traffic volume or speed). Low: Project will generally improve safety, even though there are no known problems. Project will reduce exposure/risk of conflicts between motor-vehicles and bike/pedestrians. The overall project will have identifiable and likely synergistic effects. The overall project will improve livability and create a sense of place by using Good Design and Best Practices. Project addresses and/or improves three (3) or more transportation modes. Gap Closure/ Connectivity Air Quality Improvement Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduced Public Involvement/Support Project proposes a shorter route, completes sidewalks, closes gaps in a transportation facility and/or multimodal network. Project demonstrates it can improve air quality by reducing emissions or lessening traffic congestion. The project employs strategies to reduce VMT (such as travel demand management, bike/ped facilities, parking mgmt, etc.). Project developed through a collaborative planning process that included broad partnerships among a variety of stakeholders. 10 10 10 10 Local Match Project can commit from 12% to 21% of total project cost from non- federal sources. (one point for each 1 percent to 10 points max) 10 Project Readiness/Delivery Community of Concern and/or Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program Minimum Score 25 points BEP Plan Categorical Exclusion (CE) pts Not CE pts Design Complete 5 ENV Complete 4 ROW Complete 5 Design Complete 3 ROW Complete 3 Project is located within a COC and/or CARE area. Map included showing project location. Y/N? Project is in the Bicycle Expenditure Program Y/N? MAX PTS 20 15 10 5 100 BONUS 10 A 1 of 1 8.1.a
8.1.b Date: August 27, 2012 Current Meeting: September 6, 2012 Board Meeting: September 6, 2012 BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors THROUGH: General Manager, Michael T. Burns FROM: SUBJECT: Chief CMA Officer, John Ristow One Bay Area Grant (OBAG): Local Program Development - Structure and Formula Policy-Related Action: Yes Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Santa Clara One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Guarantee Program Distribution Structure and Formula. BACKGROUND: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) adopted its programming framework and criteria for Federal flexible grant funds for fiscal years 2013 through 2016 on May 17, 2012. The full text is available at http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/onebayarea/res-4035_approved.pdf While projects will be selected and programmed under the auspices of the current Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), MTC is incorporating policy concepts that were developed for the new Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (RTP/SCS), called T2040. MTC's framework for programming 2013-2016 Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds is called the "One Bay Area Grant Program (OBAG). While it builds upon and expands many of the concepts introduced in the previous programming cycle which covered 2010-2012, there are significant changes from previous federal funding cycles. OBAG provides $87.3 million for Santa Clara County. This is the largest amount that has been made available by MTC for county-level decision making since the enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Enhancement Act (ISTEA) in 1991. Due to the complexity of the program, VTA Staff is developing the local OBAG programming 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134-1927 Administration 408.321.5555 Customer Service 408.321.2300
8.1.b framework with VTA's Advisory Committees in a three part process: (1) Program Structure, (2) Guarantee Formulas and (3) Project Selection Criteria. This three-part approach is reflected in the schedule provided in Attachment A. The VTA Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC), Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) discussed and recommended the proposed program structure at their respective June 2012 meetings. The program structure is provided in Attachment B. DISCUSSION: MTC places the following requirements on VTA in developing its local OBAG program structure. Eligibility: Eligible Project Types: Local road reconstruction and rehabilitation, bicycle, pedestrian, streetscape, and Safe-Routes-to-School projects that are eligible for Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) or Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds. Project Sponsor Eligibility: Cities and Counties must adopt resolutions ensuring compliance with the Complete Streets Act of 2008 by January 1, 2013, and have General Plan Housing Elements certified to be in compliance with the 2007-14 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) by January 31, 2013. Transportation agency sponsored projects, other than vehicles, are only eligible if located in jurisdictions that meet these two requirements. Geographic Limits: Selection Criteria: At least 70% of the funds must be programmed in Priority Development Areas (PDAs). PDA-serving projects, as justified by the Congestion Management Agency, count towards this requirement, as does 70% of funding used for CMA planning purposes. MTC expects CMA s project selection process and criteria to be open, reward jurisdictions which provide housing, and support the growth and development of PDAs. Santa Clara County s share OBAG funding is expected to be composed of 36% STP, 5% TE, and 59% CMAQ. This funding split creates its own limitations as the eligibility for each funding program varies. CMA Planning Funds: VTA staff recommends programming $6.0 Million for CMA planning and programming over the four year period of the program. VTA currently receives approximately $1.3 million per year from this source from MTC. These activities are only eligible for STP. San Tomas Expressway Preservation: San Tomas Aquino Creek has undercut the culvert in a four-mile section beneath San Tomas Expressway between Williams Road in San Jose and Monroe St. in Santa Clara. If the culvert fails, the roadway will collapse and could trigger Page 2 of 6
8.1.b extensive flooding, including submersion of sections of El Camino Real and Stevens Creek Boulevard, significantly disrupting traffic patterns through this part of the Valley. Agreements signed by the County of Santa Clara and Santa Clara Valley Water District in the 1960 s make the County responsible for repair and replacement of the culvert. The project is ready for construction as soon as funds become available. The County estimates the cost to be $12 - $14 million. VTA staff recommends providing $10 million to the County for the project. This project is in a PDA and PDA-serving. It is only eligible for STP. City Guarantee Program: Road Rehabilitation Guarantee: VTA staff recommends making the balance of the STP funds available to the cities for pavement rehabilitation. As a condition of receiving the $10 million for San Tomas Expressway, the County will not participate in this program. While VTA supports and encourages the cities to use these funds within, or serving the PDAs, it would not be required. Consistent with previous Board-adopted programs, the first expected use of these funds will be for rehabilitation and reconstruction of Federal Aid-eligible local roads with a pavement condition index (PCI) of 70 or less. If a City has no eligible road rehabilitation projects, it may use its funds for Complete Streets projects and off-road bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Complete Streets Guarantee: VTA staff recommends making the balance of the non- PDA funds available to the cities for Complete Streets projects such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities, safe routes to school projects, and traffic signal systems. As condition of receiving the $10 million for San Tomas Expressway, the County will not participate in this program. Guarantee Distribution Formula VTA staff proposes to use MTC s OBAG formula as the basis for directing City Guarantee program funds to each city. The OBAG formula meets Federal and regional requirements and responds to regional direction to reward cities and counties that have produced, and will continue to produce new housing. The formula is as follows: Factor Percentage Population 50% Actual Housing Production 1999-2006, All Units 12.5% Actual Housing Production 1999-2006, Low Income Units 12.5% Regional Housing Needs Allocation, All Units 12.5% Regional Housing Needs Allocation, Low Income Units 12.5% VTA staff also recommends reconciling commitments from the 2009 American Reconstruction and Recovery Act (ARRA) and the 2010 Block Grant in this OBAG Guarantee program. Page 3 of 6
8.1.b Monte Sereno: The City of Monte Sereno s formula share in the 2010 Block Grant was too small for a viable project. The City was offered $250,000; with the condition that there would be no additional guaranteed programming until its share was paid back in future programming rounds. The City did not claim the funds in 2010, and they were distributed to other agencies. VTA staff recommends re-extending the offer. The approximate payback period would be 10-15 years. The funds would come from the Local Road Rehabilitation Guarantee, as they did in the original offer. Other Block Grant Advances and ARRA Savings: Several cities were advanced funds against their future guarantee shares in the 2010 Block Grant. Several cities also made the savings from their ARRA funded projects available to other cities in order ensure that the funds would not be lost. VTA staff recommends adjusting the Local Road Rehabilitation Guarantee share of each city involved, as the original funding adjustments occurred in the previous local road rehabilitation programs. Attachment C shows each city s projected total Guarantee share, before and after adjustments. Countywide Competitive Complete Streets Program: The balance of the OBAG funding will consist of CMAQ and/or TE, and be subject to the PDA requirement. VTA staff proposes issuing a competitive call for Complete Streets projects. The County would be eligible to apply for these funds. VTA staff will develop project screening and scoring criteria that meet Federal and regional requirements, and VTA policies in consultation with VTA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). These criteria will be presented to the VTA Board of Directors for approval after review and discussion with VTA s Advisory Committees in future months. ALTERNATIVES: The Committee may recommend alternatives structures and formulas. FISCAL IMPACT: If adopted as proposed, $6,000,000 will be made available to VTA Congestion Management Program budgets covering the fiscal years 2013 through 2016. ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATIONS: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) considered this item at their respective July 11 and July 12, 2012 meetings. The Committee on Transit Accessibility (CTA), Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) and the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) considered this item at their respective August 8 and August 9, 2012 meetings. TAC: The TAC unanimously recommended the VTA staff proposal to the VTA Board for Page 4 of 6
8.1.b approval. BPAC: The BPAC did not have a quorum and could therefore not take action. However the Chair requested consideration of a distribution formula which included daytime population vs. residency. Two other members voiced concerns that the size of the PDA restriction (70%) and the use of a formula for the non-pda restricted funds (30%) could limit the ability of cities and the County to construct bicycle facilities in more rural areas. CTA: The CTA requested direction from staff with regards to how to best assure that VTA, the Cities and the County develop transit stop and other public facility accessibility improvement projects for funding through the OBAG Guarantee and Competitive Complete Streets program. VTA staff recommended that this process begin with VTA Service and Operations Planning for transit-related access, such as bus stop improvements and the individual City/County Public Works departments for non-transit related improvements, such as sidewalks, curb cuts, lighting, pedestrian crossing signals, barrier removal, etc. The CTA recommended approval of the staff proposal for both structure and formula, and recommended that the criteria to be developed for the Competitive Complete Streets program include specific consideration of seniors and persons with disabilities. The CTA is supportive of the Complete Street concept as it provides for safe travel by any mode (auto, transit, pedestrian, etc.) for seniors and persons with disabilities. CAC: The CAC requested information on which cities were not currently able to meet the Housing Element and/or Complete Streets Compliance screening criteria. Staff was able to provide information on Housing Element compliance at the meeting, but none will be available on Complete Streets until at least mid-october. One CAC member requested information on the development of a "PDA-Serving" definition, which staff was able provide at the meeting. The CAC requested a presentation of the "PDA-Serving" definition at a later date. The CAC recommended approval of the staff proposal for both the structure and formula. PAC: The PAC noted an apparent discrepancy on Attachment D, between the OBAG percentage shares shown and the Initial OBAG Target dollar amounts shown, and asked for a more detailed explanation, with spreadsheets, at a later date. One PAC member requested information as to whether day-time population, average daily traffic, and pavement condition were considered as factors in this formula recommendation or previous programming cycles. Staff responded with a brief history of previous pavement funding formulas used in Santa Clara County. The PAC recommended approval of the staff proposal for the structure, but requested deferral of the formula until their September meeting. STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATIONS: The Congestion Management Planning and Programming Committee reviewed and discussed the item at it's August 16, 2012 meeting. Staff provided an updated Attachment C with corrected figures, based on PAC comments. One committee member asked whether the San Tomas project would include improvements beyond reconstruction of the culvert, and whether the reconstructed culvert would be sufficiently robust to support light rail facilities. Staff responded that all improvements would be below ground, and that the light rail issue would be investigated. The Chair asked whether the San Tomas funding would be timely enough to prevent the facility failure. Staff responded that a September board approval would enable the County to begin construction next spring. Whether the facility remains intact until that time is dependent on the Page 5 of 6
8.1.b severity of the upcoming rainy season. The Committee unanimously recommended approval of the staff recommendation. Prepared by: Marcella Rensi Memo No. 3613 Page 6 of 6
Attachment A OBAG PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE No Mtg 2012 2013 April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr CIP Structure Formula Criteria Criteria No LUTI Status Meeting No Meeting Structure Formula No Meeting TAC Status Status Structure Formula Criteria PAC Status Status Structure No Meeting Formula Criteria BPAC No Meeting Structure Formula Criteria CAC Structure Formula Criteria CTA CMPP BOD Status No Meeting No Meeting Status No Meeting No Meeting Structure Formula Structure Formula Criteria Adopt Structure & Formula Call For No Meeting Call For Call For Call For Call For Call For Call For Adopt Criteria Draft Program of Draft Program of Draft Program of Draft Program of Draft Program of Draft Program of Draft Program of Adopt Program of Page A1 of 1 8.1.b
Attachment B: OBAG Proposal 8.1.b SCL OBAG TOTAL $87.3M STP -36% $31.42M 70% PDA $61.1M CMAQ /TE 64% $55.86M CMA Planning $6.0M San Tomas Expressway $10M City Road Rehab. Guarantee $15.42M City Complete Streets Guarantee $10.77 M Complete Streets Competitive $45.1M 30% - Non-PDA $26.2M Page B1 of 1
8.1.b ATTACHMENT C CITY GUARANTEE PROGRAM FORMULA AND SHARE ESTIMATES Santa Clara County $1000's Local Agency Modified Initial OBAG ARRA/Block Grant Total Est. Population % OBAG % Target Adjustment OBAG Target Campbell 2.2% 1.7% $ 453 $ (179) $ 274 Cupertino 3.3% 2.8% $ 722 $ 50 $ 772 Gilroy 2.7% 3.1% $ 799 $ - $ 799 Los Altos 1.6% 1.2% $ 311 $ - $ 311 Los Altos Hills 0.4% 0.4% $ 91 $ 94 $ 185 Los Gatos 1.7% 1.3% $ 349 $ (213) $ 136 Milpitas 3.7% 4.7% $ 1,211 $ 324 $ 1,535 Monte Sereno 0.2% 0.0% $ - $ 250 $ 250 Morgan Hill 2.1% 2.7% $ 712 $ 665 $ 1,377 Mountain View 4.2% 3.9% $ 1,015 $ 126 $ 1,141 Palo Alto 3.6% 3.7% $ 955 $ - $ 955 San Jose 53.1% 59.0% $ 15,297 $ (273) $ 15,024 Santa Clara 6.5% 7.0% $ 1,826 $ - $ 1,826 Saratoga 1.7% 1.3% $ 337 $ (177) $ 160 Sunnyvale 7.9% 7.2% $ 1,862 $ (381) $ 1,481 SC County* 5.0% Total 100% 100% $ 25,940 $ 286 $ 26,226 * County does not participate in Guarantee Program and has no ARRA/Block Grant Adjustments Page C1 of 1
8.2 Date: September 21, 2012 Current Meeting: October 4, 2012 Board Meeting: October 4, 2012 BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors General Manager, Michael T. Burns Chief CMA Officer, John Ristow Caltrain Electrification - Fiscal 2013 Budget Appropriation Policy-Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDATION: Amend the FY 2013 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Fund Capital Budget to add $3.08 million for the Caltrain/High Speed Rail Early Investment Strategy. BACKGROUND: On May 3, 2012, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board of Directors authorized the General Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Caltrain, San Francisco County Transportation Authority, San Mateo County Transportation Authority, and the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco to enable Caltrain to deliver the High Speed Rail Early Investment Strategy for a Blended System, consisting specifically of the Caltrain Corridor Electrification Infrastructure Project and the Advanced Signal System, as well as provide the necessary local funding match. Through the MOU, VTA committed to providing $86 million consisting of $60 million in local funding plus $26 million that is the VTA share of the Proposition 1A Connectivity funding. According to the approved MOU, VTA s contribution is subject to partner agencies fulfilling their similar financial commitments. DISCUSSION: Caltrain staff has developed a delivery strategy for the first of the two projects, the $73.2 million Advanced Signal System component of the Early Investment Strategy which requires $24.4 million of each funding partner s $60.0 million local commitment. Caltrain intends to award the initial contracts in November 2012, and the final set of contracts in July 2013. This strategy 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134-1927 Administration 408.321.5555 Customer Service 408.321.2300