11/01/2017 MANAGEMENT AND FINANCE …...2017/11/01 · B. 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Monthly Project Status Report FFY 2016/17 C. Local Transportation

Page 1 of 2

City of Ceres ● City of Hughson ● City of Modesto ● City of Newman ● City of Oakdale ● City of Patterson City of Riverbank ● City of Turlock ● City of Waterford ● County of Stanis laus

MANAGEMENT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING STANCOG BOARD ROOM 1111 I STREET, SUITE 308

MODESTO, CA WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2017

3:00 PM

Committee Agendas and Minutes: Committee agendas, minutes and copies of items to be considered by the StanCOG Committees are available at least 72 hours prior to the meeting at the StanCOG offices located at 1111 “I” Street, Suite 308, Modesto, CA during normal business hours. The documents are also available on StanCOG’s website at www.stancog.org. Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Committee after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at the address listed above during normal business hours. These documents are also available on StanCOG’s website, subject to staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting. Public Comment Period: Matters under the jurisdiction of the Committee, and not on the posted agenda, may be addressed by the general public at the beginning of the regular agenda and any off-agenda matters before the Committee for consideration. However, California law prohibits the Committee from taking action on any matter which is not on the posted agenda unless it is determined to be an emergency by the Committee. Any member of the public wishing to address the Committee during the “Public Comment” period will be limited to 5 minutes unless the Chair of the Committee grants a longer period of time. At a Special Meeting, members of the public may address the Committee on any item on the Agenda at the time the item is considered by the Committee. Public Participation on a Matter on the Agenda: Please step to the podium at the time the agenda item is announced by the Chairperson. In order to ensure that interested parties have an opportunity to speak, any person addressing the Committee will be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes unless the Chair of the Committee grants a longer period of time. Reasonable Accommodations: This Agenda shall be made available upon request in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12132) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code § 54954.2). Persons requesting a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in the meeting should contact Cindy Malekos at (209) 525-4600 during regular business hours at least 72 hours prior to the time of the meeting to enable StanCOG to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Notice Regarding Non-English Speakers: StanCOG Committee meetings are conducted in English and translations to other languages is not provided. Anyone wishing to address the Committee is advised to have an interpreter or to contact Cindy Malekos at (209) 525-4600 during regular business hours at least 72 hours prior to the time of the meeting so that StanCOG can provide an interpreter. Aviso con Respecto a Personas que no Hablan el Idioma de Inglés: Las reuniónes del los Comités del Consejo de Gobiernos de Stanislaus son conducidas en Inglés y traducciones a otros idiomas no son disponibles. Cualquier persona que desea dirigirse al Comité se le aconseja que traiga su propio intérprete o llame a Cindy Malekos al (209) 525-4600 durante horas de oficina regulares o a lo menos 72 horas antes de la reunión de la Mesa Directiva del Consejo de Gobiernos de Stanislaus, para proporcionarle con un intérprete.

AGENDA

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS

These matters may be presented only by interested persons in the audience. Discussion is limited to five minutes or at the discretion of the Chair.

calviso

Typewritten Text

Page 2 of 2

4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Motion to Approve Management and Finance Committee Minutes of 9/25/17

B. Motion to Recommend Policy Board Adopt by Resolution the StanCOG 2018 Regional

Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP)

5. PRESENTATION A. Update on ACE Rail in the Stanislaus Region

6. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS

A. Motion to Recommend Policy Board Adopt by Resolution the Measure L Master Agreement,

and the Policies and Procedures Agreement: Local Control Funds

B. 2018 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Update

C. Motion to Recommend Policy Board Approve by Resolution the Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) - Local Partnership Program Formulaic Project Nomination

D. Update on Transportation Development Act (TDA) Allocations

7. INFORMATION ITEMS

The following items are for information only. A. Measure L Funds Received

B. 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Monthly Project Status Report

FFY 2016/17

C. Local Transportation Funds (LTF) Received

D. Policy Board Minutes of 9/20/17

E. Executive Committee Minutes of 9/11/17

8. CALTRANS REPORT

9. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 10. MEMBER REPORTS 11. ADJOURNMENT Next Regularly Scheduled Management and Finance Committee Meeting: November 29, 2017 (Wednesday) @ 3:00 pm StanCOG Board Room 1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA 95354

CONSENT CALENDAR

Page 1 of 3

SPECIAL MEETING

MANAGEMENT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE StanCOG Board Room 1111 I Street, Suite 308

Modesto, CA

Minutes of September 25, 2017 (Monday) 12:00 pm

MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Raul Mendez (City of Hughson); Vice-Chair Keith Boggs (Stanislaus County); Daryl Jordan (City of Ceres); Joe Lopez (City of Modesto); Michael Holland (City of Newman); Bryan Whitemyer (City of Oakdale); Ken Irwin (City of Patterson); Mike Pitcock (City of Turlock)

ALSO PRESENT: Elisabeth Hahn, Stephen Hanamaikai, Karen Kincy, Cindy Malekos, Isael Ojeda, Rosa De León Park, Debbie Trujillo (StanCOG); Tom Dumas (Caltrans)

1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Raul Mendez called the meeting to order at 12:10 pm.

2. ROLL CALL

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS – NONE

4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Motion to Approve Management and Finance Committee Minutes of 9/6/17

B. Motion to Recommend Policy Board Approve by Resolution the FY 2016/17 Local

Transportation Fund Allocations for Other Purposes: City of Patterson *By Motion (City of Oakdale/Stanislaus County), and a unanimous vote, the Management and Finance Committee approved the Consent Calendar.

5. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS A. Motion to Recommend Policy Board Approve by Resolution the 2017 Statewide

Active Transportation Program (ATP) Augmentation Recommendation

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 4A

Page 2 of 3

Debbie Trujillo explained that the California Transportation Commission (CTC) announced a statewide call for projects for FY 2017/18 and 2018/19 and that the City of Patterson’s project was being recommended for approval. She said that StanCOG held its regional call for projects for the MPO Component of the 2017 ATP Augmentation and that projects from Ceres and Turlock were recommended. *By Motion (Stanislaus County/City of Patterson), and a unanimous vote, the Management and Finance Committee recommended the Policy Board approved by Resolution the 2017 Statewide Transportation Program (ATP) Augmentation Recommendations.

B. StanCOG Draft 2018 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Rosa Park explained that the newly-adopted 2018 STIP Estimate by the CTC included $17 million in funding for Stanislaus County. She reminded members that in 2016 the Estimate had been reduced by the State which delayed funding for the McHenry Avenue Widening and State Route 132 West Freeway/Expressway projects. She said that based on the criteria, those two projects would be included in the 2018 RTIP. She also said that the draft RTIP would be available for a public review and comment period from October 1-30, 2017.

C. Transportation Development Act (TDA) Amendment Update

Stephen Hanamaikai reported that the Policy Board had approved the language recommended by the Committee that was to be provided to Senator Anthony Cannella’s office for consideration in a TDA amendment. Mike Pitcock asked about ensuring that the reference to a population density of 376 persons or less per square mile doesn’t cap Stanislaus at that number. Stephen Hanamaikai said he would make note of that in the information provided to the Senator.

6. INFORMATION ITEMS The following items were provided for information only.

A. Measure L Funds Received

B. 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Monthly Project Status Report FFY 2016/17

C. Local Transportation Funds (LTF) Received D. Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) – Caltrans Transportation Planning Grant Program Overview E. Policy Board Minutes of 6/21/17 F. Executive Committee Minutes of 8/7/17 G. Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Minutes of 8/2/17 H. Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) Minutes of 8/1/17 I. Valley Vision Stanislaus (VVS) Steering Committee Minutes of 8/1/17

7. CALTRANSREPORT Tom Dumas announced that Planning grants were due October 20, 2017.

8. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Rosa Park reported that the Request for Qualifications had been released for State Lobbying Services. She also said StanCOG would be working with the members in developing a project list for regional projects, and in finalizing the Policies and Procedures for Measure L. She also noted that the California Transportation Commission would be meeting in Modesto October 18-19, 2017, and that a local individual, Paul Van Konynenburg, had been appointed as a CTC Commissioner.

9. MEMBER REPORTS Bryan Whitemyer reported that the Oakdale City Council took a formal position for Alternative lB of the North County Corridor alignment.

10. ADJOURNMENT Chair Raul Mendez adjourned the meeting at 12:41 pm.

Next Regularly Scheduled Management and Finance Committee Meeting: November 1, 2017 (Wednesday)@ 3:00pm StanCOG Board Room 1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA 95354

Minutes Prepared By:

f Administrative Services

Page 3 of3

TO: Management & Finance Committee Staff Report Motion FROM: Elisabeth Hahn, Principal Planner

Lakshmi Rajagopalan, Associate Planner

DATE: October 23, 2017

SUBJECT: StanCOG 2018 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP)

Recommendation By Motion: Recommend that the Policy Board adopt, by Resolution, the StanCOG 2018 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). Background StanCOG, as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), must prepare and submit a Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) every two years. StanCOG has prepared the 2018 RTIP to assist with the programming and implementation of the region’s state highway and roads projects identified in StanCOG’s adopted 2014 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The 2018 RTIP covers a 5-year programming period, beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 2018/19 and ending in FY 2022/23. Discussion The 2018 STIP Fund Estimate (FE) was adopted by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) on August 16, 2017. According to the adopted Fund Estimate, the Stanislaus region has $17.224 million in additional programming capacity in the 2018 STIP. These funds are available to the Stanislaus region for the 4th and 5th year of the 2018 STIP cycle, in Fiscal Years 2021/22 through 2022/23. StanCOG’s STIP county share available for programming is $17,224,000. Of this amount, $16,464,000 is available for our Regional Improvement Program (RIP) projects and $760,000 is designated by the State to StanCOG for Planning, Programming, and Monitoring (PPM).

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 4B

The following table lists the projects that are proposed for programming with the new Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds in the StanCOG 2018 RTIP.

Projects Programmed with New RIP Funding Project Title RIP Total

McHenry Avenue Widening from Ladd Rd / Patterson Rd (State Route 108) to Stanislaus River Bridge $4,100,000

State Route 132 West Freeway/Expressway $12,364,000 Planning, Programming and Monitoring (PPM) $760,000 Total for Projects Programmed with New RIP Funding $17,224,000

The draft 2018 RTIP has been circulated for a 30-day public review and comment period, in accordance with the CTC adopted 2018 STIP Guidelines. A public hearing was held on October 11, 2017 at the StanCOG Policy Board meeting to solicit further comments from the public. All comments received and responses to comments will be presented in the final document. It is anticipated that the StanCOG 2018 RTIP will be adopted by the StanCOG Policy Board on November 15, 2017. The STIP programming schedule is as follows:

STIP PROGRAMMING SCHEDULE

• September 5, 2017 – October 1, 2017

StanCOG develops STIP Programming and circulates through Committees and Board for input

• October 1, 2017 StanCOG prepares RTIP • October 1, 2017 – October 30, 2017 30-day Public Notice & Comment Period • October 11, 2017 RTIP Public Hearing • November 15, 2017 StanCOG Policy Board adopts RTIP • December 15, 2017 RTIP is submitted to Caltrans • February 1, 2018 CTC STIP hearing for Northern California • February 28, 2018 CTC publishes staff recommendation • March 21-22, 2018 CTC adopts 2018 STIP

The Draft 2018 RTIP can be viewed on the StanCOG website using the following link: http://www.stancog.org/trans-fund.shtm Should you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Lakshmi Rajagopalan, Associate Planner at 209.525.4636 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Attachment:

1. Draft Resolution

http://www.stancog.org/trans-fund.shtm

mailto:[email protected]

calviso

Typewritten Text

STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

RESOLUTION ADOPTING

THE 2018 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) is a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), pursuant to State and Federal designation; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to State law, every two years StanCOG is required to develop and submit to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) a Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) that identifies projects to be included in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); and

WHEREAS, StanCOG has prepared the 2018 RTIP in compliance with the CTC’s

adopted 2018 STIP Guidelines and STIP Fund Estimate; and

WHEREAS, the projects contained in the 2018 RTIP are consistent with StanCOG’s adopted 2014 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP), and Congestion Management Program (CMP); and WHEREAS, the 2018 RTIP has been developed in coordination with the technical and management staff representing StanCOG’s member agencies, as well as the StanCOG Policy Board; and WHEREAS, a 30-day public comment period was conducted, and a public hearing was held on October 11, 2017, to allow and encourage all interested parties to review and comment on the draft RTIP prior to adoption by the StanCOG Policy Board; WHEREAS, the 2018 RTIP programs $17.224 million in the 2018 STIP cycle (Fiscal Year 2018/19 through 2022/23); and

WHEREAS, of the $17.224 million, $16.464 million is available for StanCOG’s Regional Improvement Program (RIP) projects and $760,000 is designated by the State to StanCOG for Planning, Programming, and Monitoring (PPM). NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that 2018 Regional Transportation Improvement Program is hereby adopted. The foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Stanislaus Council of Governments, on the 15th day of November 2017. A motion was made and seconded to adopt the foregoing Resolution. Motion carried and the Resolution was adopted. MEETING DATE: November 15, 2017

BILL ZOSLOCKI, CHAIR ATTEST:

ROSA DE LEÓN PARK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

DISCUSSION & ACTION ITEMS

Recommendation By Motion:

1. Recommend that the Policy Board adopt by Resolution the Measure L Master Funding Agreement allocating Local Control Funds to the Member Agencies; and

2. Recommend that the Policy Board adopt by Resolution the Measure L Policies and Procedures: Local Control Funds

Discussion Measure L Master Funding Agreement The BOE began collecting the Measure L sales tax on April 1, 2017 and the initial distribution of funds was received by StanCOG in July. Now that funds are becoming available, it is time to get Master Funding Agreements in place with each of StanCOG’s member agencies to address the distribution of the Measure L funding allocations for Local Control Funds (50% Local Streets and Roads, 10% Traffic Management, 5% Bike and Pedestrian). If a jurisdiction is a Provider of Transit Services, the distribution of those funds will also be addressed in the Master Funding Agreement. The Local Control Funds will be distributed to the jurisdictions on a monthly basis according to the percentage allocations identified in the Expenditure Plan. In order to be eligible to receive monthly distributions, each agency must comply with the requirements of the Master Funding Agreement and the Policies and Procedures as well as the maintenance of effort requirement in the Ordinance.

TO: Management & Finance Committee Staff Report Motion

FROM: Rosa De León Park, Executive Director Karen Kincy, Senior Financial Services Specialist


SUBJECT: Measure L Master Funding Agreement and the Measure L Policies and Procedures for Local Control Funds

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 6A

Local Control Funds will be distributed on a monthly basis, after deducting the 1% Administrative Cap, in accordance with the percentage allocations identified in the adopted Measure L Expenditure Plan.

Local Control Funds Ceres 6.36% Hughson 1.26% Modesto 35.79% Newman 1.26% Oakdale 3.86% Patterson 4.55% Riverbank 3.42% Turlock 15.26% Waterford 1.26% Stanislaus County 26.98% Total 100.00%

The Master Funding Agreement reiterates that Measure L funds are to be used solely for transportation purposes and if funds are misspent, all misspent funds, including interest, must be fully reimbursed. The Master Funding Agreement also addresses staff cost limitations and the lending/borrowing of Measure L funds between agencies. The term of the agreement is three (3) years. If the local agency is also a provider of Transit Services (Ceres, Modesto, Turlock and the County), those “Transit Services” funds will also be distributed on a monthly basis in accordance with the Master Agreement and the percentage allocations identified in the adopted Measure L Expenditure Plan.

Transit Services Ceres 7.00% Modesto 52.00% Stanislaus County 33.00% Turlock 8.00% Total 100.00%

Policies and Procedures: Local Control Funds The Policies and Procedures are designed to ensure the integrity of Measure L by:

• Maximize the cost-effective use of sales tax dollars. • Leverage non-Measure L funding sources. • Augment current transportation spending and not replace general fund expenditures. • All projects funded with Measure L funds must lie entirely within Stanislaus County.

The Policies and Procedures also assist StanCOG in administering the Measure L Program. For the Local Control Funds, the Policies and Procedures focus on the maintenance of effort requirement, as well as the monthly, quarterly and annual reporting requirements each jurisdiction must comply with in order to remain compliant with the program and continue to receive monthly Measure L Local Control Fund disbursements. The Policies and Procedures also provide limitations on staff costs by identifying certain expenses which are not eligible for reimbursement under Measure L such as activities related to obtaining matching funds for a project or activities related to general Measure L administration (not specific to a project), education or preparation performed by the jurisdiction or contractor. Staff will be bringing forth Policies and Procedures focusing on the Regional component of Measure L at a later date. Should you have any questions regarding this staff report, please contact Karen Kincy, Senior Financial Services Specialist, at 209-525-4640 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Attachments:

1. Measure L Master Funding Agreement 2. Draft Resolution- Measure L Master Funding Agreement 3. Draft Resolution- Measure L Policies and Procedures: Local Control Funds


Measure L Master Funding Agreement No. 2017-

Page 1 of 10 1135240-4

MEASURE L MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE

STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS AND THE

[INSERT RECIPIENT] This Measure L Master Funding Agreement (“AGREEMENT”), effective July 1, 2017, is

entered into by and between the Stanislaus Council of Governments, acting as the Stanislaus County Transportation Authority (“STANCOG” or the “Authority”), and the [Insert Recipient] (“RECIPIENT”).

RECITALS

A. On November 8, 2016 the voters of Stanislaus County, pursuant to the provisions

of the Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act, California Public Utilities Code Section 180000 et seq. (the “Act”), approved Measure L, thereby authorizing STANCOG to administer the proceeds from the one-half cent transaction and use tax (“Measure L”).

B. The duration of the Measure L sales tax will be 25 years from the initial year of

collection, which began April 1, 2017, with said tax to expire on March 31, 2042. The tax proceeds will be used to pay for the programs and projects outlined in the Stanislaus Council of Government’s Expenditure Plan (the “Measure L Expenditure Plan”), as it may be amended.

C. Measure L authorizes the Authority (STANCOG) to sell or issue bonds to finance

and refinance the transportation projects identified in the Measure L Expenditure Plan. Costs associated with bonding will be borne only by the projects included in the Measure L Expenditure Plan.

D. This AGREEMENT delineates the requirements of the Measure L funds that are

allocated to the jurisdictions within Stanislaus County for local streets and roads, traffic management and bike and pedestrian improvements, (collectively referred to as “Local Control Funds”) and Transit Provider funds for Transit Services, as authorized by the Measure L Expenditure Plan. The jurisdictions (recipients) are Stanislaus County and the cities of Ceres, Hughson, Modesto, Newman, Oakdale, Patterson, Riverbank, Turlock, and Waterford.

E. This AGREEMENT was originally approved by the STANCOG Policy Board on

November 15, 2017. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the parties as follows:


Page 2 of 10 1135240-4

ARTICLE I: FUNDING ALLOCATIONS

1. This AGREEMENT authorizes the STANCOG to allocate the Local Control Funds derived from Measure L receipts to the RECIPIENT as described in the voter-approved Measure L Expenditure Plan and as summarized below by jurisdiction for each of the three different programs covered under Local Control Funds (Local Streets and Roads, Traffic Management, and Bike and Pedestrian Improvements). Local Control Funds comprise 65% of the Measure L receipts (after deducting the 1% Administrative Expense Cap authorized in the Measure L Ordinance and Expenditure Plan).

Local Control Funds* Ceres 6.36% Hughson 1.26% Modesto 35.79% Newman 1.26% Oakdale 3.86% Patterson 4.55% Riverbank 3.42% Turlock 15.26% Waterford 1.26% Stanislaus County 26.98% Total 100.00%

*Source: Measure L Expenditure Plan The breakdown of the 65% of Local Control Funds by program is as follows: 50% to

Local Streets and Roads; 10% to Traffic Management; and 5% to Bike and Pedestrian Improvements.

2. This AGREEMENT authorizes the STANCOG to allocate the Transit Provider

funds derived from Measure L receipts as described in the Measure L Expenditure Plan and as summarized below by jurisdiction for Transit Services (“Transit Services”). (Include this Section ONLY for Agreement with a Provider of Transit Services).

Transit Services*

Ceres 7.00% Modesto 52.00% Stanislaus County 33.00% Turlock 8.00% Total 100.00%

*Source: Measure L Expenditure Plan


Page 3 of 10 1135240-4

ARTICLE II: FUNDING PREREQUISITES AND REQUIREMENTS

1. RECIPIENT shall annually submit to STANCOG:

a. A copy of RECIPIENT’S adopted Capital Improvement Program (CIP) which identifies all programs and projects RECIPIENT intends to fund, either partially or in full, with Measure L funds and which identifies the schedule for project delivery. If RECIPIENT amends its CIP at any time during the year, it shall provide a copy of the amended CIP to STANCOG within 15 business days of adoption by RECIPIENT’S governing board.

b. Annual Maintenance of Effort (MOE) calculation demonstrating RECIPIENT’S

compliance with MOE. The MOE calculation shall be based on the prior three fiscal years’ general fund spending on transportation purposes (local streets and roads) as reported to the State Controller’s Office. The MOE calculation shall be verified by an annual independent audit, conducted at the RECIPIENT’S sole cost and expense. Adjustments to the MOE calculation may be made, subject to Authority approval, based upon the criteria stated in Section 9 of the Measure L Ordinance.

c. Annual independent audit of all of RECIPIENT’S Measure L accounts which

audit shall be conducted at RECIPIENT’S sole cost and expense.

d. Any other documents or reports required to be submitted pursuant to the adopted Measure L Policies and Procedures, as may be amended.

2. If RECIPIENT has submitted all required documents and reports, STANCOG will

disburse Measure L funds to RECIPIENT consistent with this AGREEMENT and in accordance with the adopted Measure L Policies and Procedures. RECIPIENT will receive Local Control Funds based on the percentage allocations summarized above and as set forth in the Measure L Expenditure Plan.

3. If RECIPIENT fails to comply with one or more of the requirements set forth in this

Article II, STANCOG may withhold payment of Measure L funds to RECIPIENT until full compliance is achieved.

4. The governing body of the RECIPIENT will be the decision-making body for the

use of the Local Control Funds within its jurisdiction. 5. Transit Providers (Transit Services) funds will be allocated 1.4% of the Measure

L receipts (after deducting the 1% Administrative Expense Cap) and will be disbursed to Transit Providers at least quarterly or as set forth in the Measure L Policies and Procedures, whichever


Page 4 of 10 1135240-4

provides more frequent disbursements. (Include this Section ONLY for Agreement with Provider of Transit Services).

6. Percentage allocations identified in the Measure L Expenditure Plan are not

subject to change unless two-thirds of the voters of Stanislaus County approve an amendment to the allocations.

7. The Measure L Ordinance and Expenditure Plan provide fund usage and

eligibility guidelines by allocation category and RECIPIENT acknowledges and agrees that it shall comply with the provisions of the Measure L Ordinance and Expenditure Plan. The Measure L Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, as may be amended, is hereby incorporated in its entirety into this AGREEMENT by reference.

8. The StanCOG Policy Board has adopted Measure L Policies and Procedures

which contain additional fund usage and eligibility guidelines and RECIPIENT acknowledges and agrees that it shall comply with the provisions of the Measure L Policies and Procedures. The Measure L Policies and Procedures, as may be amended, are hereby incorporated in its entirety into this AGREEMENT by reference.

ARTICLE III: PAYMENTS AND EXPENDITURES

A. STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (STANCOG) DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS

1. STANCOG shall remit to RECIPIENT its designated amount of Local Control

Funds in accordance with this AGREEMENT. 2. STANCOG will provide a quarterly report to its Board of Directors which shall

include all Measure L revenues distributed to each Recipient.

3. STANCOG shall provide for an independent annual audit of its Measure L financial statements including revenues and expenditures.

4. STANCOG shall provide timely notice to RECIPIENT prior to conducting an audit

of expenditures made by RECIPIENT to determine whether such expenditures are in compliance with this Agreement, the Measure L Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, and the Measure L Policies and Procedures.


Page 5 of 10 1135240-4

B. RECIPIENT’S DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS 1. RECIPIENT shall expend all Measure L funds received in compliance with the

Measure L Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, this AGREEMENT and the adopted Measure L Policies and Procedures.

2. RECIPIENT shall set up and maintain an appropriate system of accounts to report

on Measure L funds received and spent. RECIPIENT must account for Measure L funds, including any interest received or accrued, separately for each program fund type, and from any other funds received from STANCOG. The accounting system shall provide adequate internal controls and audit trails to facilitate an annual compliance audit for each fund type and the respective usage and application of said funds.

3. RECIPIENT acknowledges and agrees that STANCOG and its representatives,

agents and nominees shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect and copy any accounting records related to Measure L funds, except to the extent specifically prohibited by applicable law.

4. RECIPIENT agrees to provide STANCOG each fiscal year with an adopted copy of

its Capital Improvement Program, or equivalent, containing a description of all the projects and tasks that Measure L funds will pay for over that fiscal year, schedule and cost information for each project in its entirety, and other funds that will match the Measure L allocation. Once RECIPIENT submits it to STANCOG, Authority staff will use the information in the application to complete the Measure L Strategic Plan and prioritize funding allocations.

5. RECIPIENT hereby acknowledges and agrees to the Maintenance of Effort

requirement set forth in Section 9 of the Measure L Ordinance.

a. Pursuant to the intent of the Public Utilities Code section 180001, a jurisdiction cannot redirect monies currently being used for transportation purposes to other uses, and then replace the redirected funds with local street maintenance and improvement dollars from Measure L.

b. RECIPIENT hereby agrees to certify in the annual verification submitted to

STANCOG that it has met the Maintenance of Effort requirement by demonstrating that the Measure L funds have been used to augment and not supplant local resources spent. The Maintenance of Effort calculation is set forth in Section 9.03 of the Measure L Ordinance and uses the RECIPIENT’s average general fund expenditures of the prior (3) three fiscal years spent for local transportation purposes.


Page 6 of 10 1135240-4

c. RECIPIENT shall conduct an annual independent audit to verify that the Maintenance of Effort requirement was met by RECIPIENT.

d. If RECIPIENT does not meet its Maintenance of Effort requirement in any

given year it may have its Local Streets and Roads fund received pursuant to the Measure L Expenditure Plan reduced in the following year by the amount by which RECIPIENT did not meet its required Maintenance of Effort. Such funds shall be redistributed to the remaining eligible jurisdictions.

6. RECIPIENT hereby agrees to and accepts the formulas used in the allocation of

Measure L, as reflected in the Measure L Expenditure Plan. 7. RECIPIENT agrees to comply with the reporting requirements set forth in this

AGREEMENT. C. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

1. Transportation Purposes Only: RECIPIENT shall use all Measure L funds solely for transportation purposes as defined by the Measure L Ordinance and Expenditure Plan. If RECIPIENT violates this provision, it must fully reimburse all misspent funds, including all interest which would have been earned thereon. The interest which would have been earned will be calculated using the current interest rate earned on local agency monies on deposit with Stanislaus County.

2. Administrative and Staff Cost Limitations: Direct costs associated with the delivery of programs and projects funded by Measure L, including direct staff costs and consultant costs, are eligible uses of Measure L funds, unless otherwise limited by the adopted Measure L Policies and Procedures.

a. In situations where RECIPIENT acts as the project manager, project sponsor or

the lead agency for delivery of a regional project identified in the Measure L Expenditure Plan, RECIPIENT will be required to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for that regional project and the reimbursement of administrative and staff costs will be addressed pursuant to the terms of that Agreement.

b. STANCOG does not allow the reimbursement of indirect costs, unless the

RECIPIENT submits an Indirect Cost Allocation Plan which may be considered by the Caltrans Independent Office of Audits and Investigations, on a case by case basis, for approval of the identified indirect costs. If the Indirect Cost Allocation Plan is approved by Caltrans, the approved plan shall be submitted to STANCOG to allow for reimbursement of those approved indirect costs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following items are not eligible for Measure L


Page 7 of 10 1135240-4

reimbursement: activities related to obtaining matching funds for a project, activities related to general Measure L administration (not specific to the project), education or preparation performed by the project manager/sponsor, activities related to another project (regional) not covered in a Cooperative Agreement, even if it is a Measure L project.

3. Fund Exchange: RECIPIENT shall have the authority to loan its Measure L receipts allocated to it for Local Control Projects to other recipients for the implementation of needed transportation projects. All such fund exchanges shall be reviewed and accepted by STANCOG in accordance with the adopted Measure L Policies and Procedures.

4. CEQA: All projects funded with Measure L funds will be required to complete appropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other environmental review as required.

ARTICLE IV: REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

A. REQUIREMENTS AND WITHHOLDING RECIPIENT shall comply with each of the reporting requirements set forth in this Article

IV. If RECIPIENT fails to comply with one or more of these requirements, STANCOG may withhold payment of further Measure L funds to RECIPIENT until full compliance is achieved.

1. RECIPIENT shall submit to STANCOG on a monthly basis:

a. Monthly revenue and expenditure reports which identify the Measure L revenue received and expended by RECIPIENT. All reports shall identify the revenue and expenses by project identified in RECIPIENT’S CIP.

b. Monthly report of Measure L fund cash balances held by RECIPIENT.

2. RECIPIENT shall submit to STANCOG quarterly milestone reports which provides

a narrative of the progress of all of RECIPIENT’S projects utilizing Measure L funding.

3. RECIPIENT shall, by December 31st of each year, submit to STANCOG, at the RECIPIENT’s expense, separate independently audited financial statements for the prior fiscal year ended June 30 of Measure L funds received and used.

4. RECIPIENT shall, by December 31st of each year, document expenditure activities

and report on the performance of Measure L funded activities through the annual program compliance reporting process, or through other STANCOG performance and reporting processes as may be requested, including but not limited to the annual performance report, annual program


Page 8 of 10 1135240-4

plan and planning monitoring reports. This report shall be provided to StanCOG and the Measure L Citizens Oversight Committee within 90 days of the end of each fiscal year and shall include documentation as to whether or not RECIPIENT met the Maintenance of Effort requirement for that fiscal year.

5. RECIPIENT shall install or mount signage adjacent to each project or program in

excess of $250,000 funded in whole or in part by Measure L funds identifying the project or program as being funded by Measure L revenues.

6. RECIPIENT shall provide current and accurate information on RECIPIENT’s website,

to inform the public about how RECIPIENT is using Measure L funds. This information shall also be provided to STANCOG for posting on the Measure L website http://www.stanislaus-localroadsfirst.com

7. RECIPIENT shall actively participate in a “Public Awareness Program”, in partnership with STANCOG as a means of ensuring that the public has access to information regarding which projects and programs are funded through Measure L funds.

8. RECIPIENT shall make its administrative officer or designated staff available upon

request to render a report or answer any and all inquiries regarding RECIPIENT’s receipt, usage, and/or compliance audit findings regarding Measure L funds before the Citizens Oversight Committee.

9. RECIPIENT agrees that STANCOG may review and/or evaluate all project(s) or

program(s) funded pursuant to this AGREEMENT. This may include visits by representatives, agents or nominees of STANCOG to observe RECIPIENT’s project or program operations, to review project or program data and financial records, and to discuss the project with Recipient’s staff or governing board.

ARTICLE V: OTHER PROVISIONS

A. INDEMNITY BY RECIPIENT

Neither STANCOG, nor its governing body, elected officials, any officer, consultant, agent, or employee thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RECIPIENT in connection with the Measure L funds distributed to RECIPIENT pursuant to this AGREEMENT. It is also understood and agreed, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, RECIPIENT shall fully defend, indemnify and hold harmless STANCOG, its governing body, and all its officers, agents, and employees, from any liability imposed on STANCOG for injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by


Page 9 of 10 1135240-4

reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RECIPIENT in connection with the Measure L funds distributed to RECIPIENT pursuant to this AGREEMENT.

B. INDEMNITY BY STANCOG

Neither RECIPIENT, nor its governing body, elected officials, any officer, consultant, agent, or employee thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STANCOG under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STANCOG under this AGREEMENT. It is also understood and agreed, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, STANCOG shall fully defend, indemnify, and hold harmless RECIPIENT, and its governing body, elected officials, all its officers, agents, and employees from any liability imposed on RECIPIENT for injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STANCOG under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STANCOG under this AGREEMENT. C. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The laws of the State of California will govern the validity of this AGREEMENT, its interpretation and performance, and any other claims to which it relates. All legal actions arising out of this AGREEMENT shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in Stanislaus County, California and the parties hereto hereby waive inconvenience of forum as an objection or defense to such venue.

D. ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Should it become necessary to enforce the terms of this AGREEMENT, the prevailing party

shall be entitled to recover reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees from the other party.

E. TERM

The term of this AGREEMENT shall be from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2020, unless amended in writing or a new Master Funding Agreement is executed between STANCOG and RECIPIENT.

F. SEVERABILITY

If any provision of this AGREEMENT is found by a court of competent jurisdiction or, if

applicable, an arbitrator, to be unenforceable, such provision shall not affect the other provisions of the AGREEMENT, but such unenforceable provisions shall be deemed modified to the extent


Page 10 of 10 1135240-4

necessary to render it enforceable, preserving to the fullest extent permissible the intent of the parties set forth in this AGREEMENT.

G. MODIFICATION

This AGREEMENT, and its Exhibits, as well as the referenced Measure L Ordinance and the Expenditure Plan, and the Policies and Procedures, constitutes the entire AGREEMENT, supersedes all prior written or oral understandings regarding Measure L funds. This AGREEMENT may only be changed by a written amendment executed by both parties.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this AGREEMENT by their duly

authorized officers as of the date first written below.

ENTER NAME (RECIPIENT) STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

(STANCOG)

By: By: Name Date

Title Rosa De León Park Date

Executive Director Approved as to Form:

Reviewed as to Budget/Financial Controls:

By:

By:

Name Date Title

Karen Kincy Date Senior Financial Services Specialist

Approved as to Form:

By: Monica Streeter Date

STANCOG General Counsel

1156020-1

STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION

ADOPTING THE MEASURE L MASTER FUNDING AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) is a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), pursuant to State and Federal designation; and WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016 the voters of Stanislaus County, approved Measure L thereby authorizing StanCOG to administer the proceeds from the one-half cent transaction and use tax (“Measure L”); and WHEREAS, the duration of the Measure L sales tax will be 25 years from the initial year of collection, which began April 1, 2017, with the tax to expire on March 31, 2042; and WHEREAS, the Measure L Master Funding Agreement delineates the requirements of the Measure L funds that are allocated to the jurisdictions within Stanislaus County for local streets and roads, traffic management and bike and pedestrian improvements, (collectively referred to as “Local Control Funds”) and Transit Provider funds for Transit Services, as authorized by the Measure L Expenditure Plan; and WHEREAS, each of the member agencies of StanCOG (Stanislaus County and the cities of Ceres, Hughson, Modesto, Newman, Oakdale, Patterson, Riverbank, Turlock and Waterford) will be required to enter into the Measure L Master Funding Agreement prior to receiving Measure L fund disbursements; and WHEREAS, the term of the Measure L Master Funding Agreement is three (3) years. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Measure L Master Funding Agreement is hereby adopted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Executive Director is authorized to execute a Measure L Master Funding Agreement with each of the StanCOG member agencies (Stanislaus County and the cities of Ceres, Hughson, Modesto, Newman, Oakdale, Patterson, Riverbank, Turlock and Waterford) once each of the agency’s governing board has approved the agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Executive Director is authorized to make administrative changes to the Measure L Master Funding Agreement, as needed, to ensure that the agreement is implemented in the most efficient and cost effective manner possible.

1156020-1

The foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Stanislaus Council of Governments, on the 15th day of November, 2017. A motion was made and seconded to adopt the foregoing Resolution. Motion carried and the Resolution was adopted. MEETING DATE:



1156030-1

STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION

ADOPTING MEASURE L POLICIES & PROCEDURES: LOCAL CONTROL FUNDS WHEREAS, the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) is a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), pursuant to State and Federal designation; and WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016 the voters of Stanislaus County, approved Measure L thereby authorizing StanCOG to administer the proceeds from the one-half cent transaction and use tax (“Measure L”); and WHEREAS, the duration of the Measure L sales tax will be 25 years from the initial year of collection, which began April 1, 2017, with the tax to expire on March 31, 2042; and WHEREAS, Measure L authorizes StanCOG to adopt implementing rules and administrative procedures to carry out its responsibilities in implementing Measure L; and WHEREAS, StanCOG has drafted Policies & Procedures for the local streets and roads, traffic management and bike and pedestrian improvements elements of Measure L, (collectively referred to as “Local Control Funds”); and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Policies & Procedures: Local Control Funds is hereby adopted. The foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Stanislaus Council of Governments, on the 15th day of November, 2017. A motion was made and seconded to adopt the foregoing Resolution. Motion carried and the Resolution was adopted. MEETING DATE: November 15, 2017



TO: Management and Finance Committee Staff Report Discussion FROM: Elisabeth Hahn, Principal Planner Isael Ojeda, Associate Planner


SUBJECT: 2018 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Update

Background Every four years the State of California and the federal government require that regional transportation planning agencies/metropolitan planning organizations, including StanCOG, update their respective Regional Transportation Plans/Sustainable Communities Strategies (RTP/SCS). In Stanislaus County, the stakeholder driven process of developing and updating the RTP/SCS is referred to as “Valley Vision Stanislaus”. The RTP/SCS for the Stanislaus County Region was last updated in 2014. The 2018 update must be completed before October 2018. The Regional Transportation Plan is the region’s 25-year, financially-constrained blueprint for future transportation improvements and investments based on specific transportation goals and objectives defined by StanCOG with input from the public and its member agencies. A successful RTP should help promote the safe and efficient management, operation and development of an intermodal transportation system including roadways, transit, goods movement, bicycle\pedestrian, and aviation facilities. Transportation helps shape a region’s economic health and quality of life; it influences the pattern of growth and economic activity through accessibility to land. Transportation also affects other public policy issues such as air quality, affordable housing, and public safety. The RTP is more than a mere listing of highway and transit projects to be pursued over 25 years; it requires developing strategies for operating, maintaining, and financing the region’s transportation system in such a way as to advance the region’s long term goals. Transportation planning and land use became more closely linked in California following the passage of Senate Bill 375 in 2008. As a result of this legislation, each of California’s 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations, including StanCOG, must prepare a “Sustainable Communities Strategy” as part of their RTP. The Sustainable Communities Strategy sets forth a forecasted development pattern for the region which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles and light trucks to achieve emission reduction targets set by the

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 6B

California Air Resources Board. The future land use and transportation scenario presented in the Sustainable Communities Strategy must accommodate forecasted population, employment, and housing sufficient to meet the needs of all income groups, including the State-mandated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), while considering State housing goals. The Air Resources Board must review and accept each MPO’s determination that, if implemented, the Sustainable Communities Strategy would meet the region’s respective emissions reduction targets. Discussion In late July/early August, StanCOG held an initial series of public workshops in the cities of Patterson, Oakdale and Modesto. Round 2 of Public Workshops A second round of public workshops will be held in November to solicit public input on transportation needs and on the 2018 RTP/SCS Scenarios. These workshops are scheduled for the following dates, times and locations.

• Mon., Nov. 6, 2017 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. City of Modesto Library 1500 I Street, Modesto

• Mon., Nov. 13, 2017 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. Newman City Council Chambers 938 Fresno Street, Newman

• Tues., Nov. 14, 2017 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. Ceres Community Center 2701 4th Street, Ceres

Status Update on RTP/SCS Activities Transportation models are technical planning and decision support tools that help simulate the impact of changes to land use and infrastructure investments on the transportation system. StanCOG uses a transportation model to assist decision makers in answering questions regarding travel patterns, transportation investments, land use decisions and air quality. The StanCOG transportation model supports key planning activities in the region including the development of the RTP/SCS. StanCOG staff has been coordinating with the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) and the Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) to prepare the San Joaquin-Stanislaus-Merced three-county model for use in RTP/SCS development. The three-county travel demand model has undergone substantial update over the last two years. To ensure that this new model, known as VMIP2, is functioning properly and that each component reasonably reproduces observed travel characteristics, a validation process is required. To accomplish this, the new 2015 baseline model was checked in August against actual traffic counts of the same year for validation purposes. Additionally, StanCOG has participated in extensive outreach and will continue to do so as we proceed with this planning effort. We are encouraging the public to provide input on the Region’s transportation investments over the next 25 years.

Next Steps Staff will hold a meeting with the Valley Vision Stanislaus Steering Committee following the public workshops to identify a recommended preferred scenario for recommendation to the StanCOG Policy Board in December. Should you have any questions regarding this staff report, please contact Elisabeth Hahn, Principal Planner, by phone at (209) 525-4632 or via e-mail at [email protected]


TO: Management & Finance Committee Staff Report Motion FROM: Elisabeth Hahn, Principal Planner

Lakshmi Rajagopalan, Associate Planner


SUBJECT: Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) – Local Partnership Program Formulaic Project Nomination

Recommendation By Motion: Recommend that the Policy Board approve by Resolution the nominated project, City of Turlock’s Fulkerth Road Interchange Improvements at State Route 99 Project, for the SB1 Local Partnership Formulaic Program. Background Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, was signed into law on April 28, 2017. This legislative package established the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) and Program (RMRP). SB1 invests a total of $54 billion over the next decade to fix roads, freeways and bridges in communities across California and puts more dollars toward transit and safety. Through SB 1, the Local Partnership Program provides $200 million annually in matching funding to support transportation investments that local communities are already making in their region. These matching funds will support cities and counties that have voter-approved transportation tax measures, such as Measure L. Funds will be distributed by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) via a 50% competitive and 50% formula basis. All agencies eligible for a formulaic funding share will receive a minimum annual share of $100,000. Formula shares will be distributed to self-help counties and cities based on population. CTC will release the proposed distribution of shares on November 13, 2017 and StanCOG, as the Transportation Authority for the Stanislaus region, is eligible to receive formula shares from the Local Partnership Program. StanCOG in its capacity as a taxing authority can nominate a project in cooperation with its member agencies. The Commission will determine a funding share for

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 6C

each eligible taxing authority with a voter approved tax or toll that was approved prior to the adoption of the funding shares, which will be collected during the fiscal year The Formulaic Program will cover Fiscal Years (FY) 2017-18 and 2018-19 in the first cycle and will be programmed annually thereafter. The Competitive Program will cover FY 2017-18 through 2019-20 in the initial cycle and the funding will be programmed every two-years in future cycles. Projects funded through the Local Partnership Program require a one-to-one match of private, local, federal, or state funds. The match may be from any funds that are not allocated by the Commission on a project specific basis with the exception of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding. The matching funds must be expended concurrently and proportionally to the Local Partnership Program funds. Costs incurred prior to allocation will not be counted towards local match. Eligible applicants are the taxing authorities that have sought and received voter approval of taxes, tolls, or fees, or that have imposed fees, including uniform developer fees that are dedicated solely to transportation improvements. Taxing Authorities that have imposed fees and have not received voter approval of taxes, tolls, or fees are only eligible for the competitive grant program. As the taxing authority and eligible applicant, StanCOG can nominate projects for formulaic funding share for the Commission to include in the annual program of projects. A nomination may identify an entity other than the applicant to be the project implementing agency. The implementing agency assumes responsibility and accountability for the use and expenditure of program funds. The implementing agency must provide a project funding plan through construction that demonstrates the supplemental funding in the plan (local, federal, state, private sources) is reasonably expected to be available and sufficient to complete the project. Project applications due dates are as follows

• Formulaic Program: December 15, 2017 • Competitive Program: January 30, 2018

Discussion The Local Partnership Program Guidelines were adopted at the October 18, 2017 CTC meeting held in Modesto, CA. The table below lists the program schedule for the Local Partnership Program.

Formulaic Program

Agencies Submit Voter Approval Information October 27, 2017

Publish Proposed Distribution of Shares November 13, 2017

Commission Adopts Formulaic Distribution of Shares December 6-7, 2017

Projects Applications Due December 15, 2017

Competitive Program

Applications Due (postmark date) January 30, 2018

Release Staff Recommendations April 25, 2018

Commission Adopts Program May 16, 2018

Eligible projects include a variety of road maintenance and rehabilitation projects related to both state highways and local roads, improvements to transit facilities, acquisition, retrofit, rehabilitation of transit equipment, system upgrades or new construction of bike-ped network, projects that contribute to improved air and water quality. For a complete list of eligible projects and project components, refer to refer to Sections 12 and 13 of the 2018 Local Partnership Program Guidelines (See Attachment 1). Project Selection Process: As stated earlier, StanCOG as the taxing authority and eligible applicant can nominate projects for formulaic funding share for the Commission to include in the annual program of projects. Nominated projects should meet statute requirements and Commission guidelines and have a commitment of the required match. For competitive grants, the Commission will compare projects based on the population of jurisdiction(s) across which the tax or fee is applied. An agency submitting multiple project applications for competitive grants must clearly prioritize its projects and projects must be included in an adopted regional transportation plan and be consistent with an approved Sustainable Communities Strategy. For the Competitive Program Evaluation Criteria, projects that meet the following criteria will be prioritized: • Cost-effective. • Commence construction or implementation early. • Leverage more committed funds per program dollar. • Demonstrate quantifiable air quality improvements, including a significant reduction in

vehicle-miles traveled. • Demonstrate regional and community project support. • Further the implementation of the sustainable communities’ strategy (applicable to projects

within an MPO). Project Nominations for the Formulaic Program StanCOG in its capacity as a taxing authority is eligible to receive formulaic funding and can nominate a project in cooperation with its member agencies. Nominated projects must be included in an adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and, be consistent with an approved Sustainable Communities Strategy.

Release Staff Recommendations January 10, 2018

Commission Adopts Program January 31, 2018

The nomination should meet the statute requirements and Commission guidelines and must demonstrate leveraging of local committed funds. In addition, projects should demonstrate regional and community project support, demonstrate air quality improvements and should be able to commence construction or implementation early. Based on these requirements, StanCOG staff recommends the Fulkerth Road Interchange Improvements at State Route 99, in the City of Turlock. This interchange is a vital project in support of goods movement and includes Fulkerth Road widening, intersection spacing improvements, on/off ramp relocation, signalization to support truck traffic and will provide bike and ADA pedestrian facilities. Plans, specifications and bid documents are 99% complete and the project is construction-ready. Funding from the Local Partnership Program Formulaic Program will be used to fund the construction phase of the project and local and Measure L funds will be employed to meet the matching requirements.

Staff will provide an update on StanCOG’s proposed distribution of shares to the StanCOG Policy Board on November 15, 2017. Once the board approves of this allocation, StanCOG will submit an allocation request to Caltrans, who will within 60 days review and recommend to the CTC for action. If approved by the CTC, funds will be allocated for use on the proposed project. Project Application: For project application requirements, refer to Section 17 of the 2018 Local Partnership Program Guidelines (See Attachment 1). Should you have any questions regarding this staff report, please contact Lakshmi Rajagopalan, Associate Planner at 209-525-4636 or via email at [email protected]. Attachments:

1. 2018 Local Partnership Program Guidelines

2018 LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

GUIDELINES

October 18, 2017

California Transportation Commission

ATTACHMENT 1

i

CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2018

LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM GUIDELINES

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1

1. Background ................................................................................................................. 1 2. Program Objectives .................................................................................................... 1 3. Program Schedule ...................................................................................................... 1

Funding ..................................................................................................................................... 2 4. Source ......................................................................................................................... 2 5. Programming Cycle .................................................................................................... 2 6. Distribution .................................................................................................................. 2 7. Incentive for New and Renewed Sales Tax Measures .............................................. 5 8. Matching Requirements ............................................................................................. 5 9. Funding Restrictions .................................................................................................. 6 10. Reimbursement ........................................................................................................... 6

Eligibility ................................................................................................................................... 6 11. Eligible Applicants ...................................................................................................... 6 12. Eligible Projects .......................................................................................................... 6 13. Eligible Components .................................................................................................. 7

Project Selection Process ....................................................................................................... 8 14. Screening Criteria ....................................................................................................... 8 15. Project Rating Process ............................................................................................... 8 16. Competitive Program Evaluation Criteria .................................................................. 9 17. Project Nominations ................................................................................................... 9

Programming...........................................................................................................................11 18. Committed/Uncommitted Funds ...............................................................................12

Project Amendments ..............................................................................................................12 19. Amendment Requests ...............................................................................................12

Allocations ..............................................................................................................................13 20. Allocation Requests ...................................................................................................13

Project Delivery .......................................................................................................................14 21. Letter of No Prejudice ................................................................................................14 22. Timely Use of Funds ..................................................................................................14 23. Delivery Deadline Extensions ...................................................................................15 24. Project Inactivity ........................................................................................................16 25. Project Cost Savings .................................................................................................16 26. Project Reporting .......................................................................................................16 27. Project Tracking Database ........................................................................................17 28. Project Auditing .........................................................................................................17 29. Workforce Development Requirements and Project Signage.................................17

California Transportation Commission 2018 Local Partnership Program Draft Guidelines October 18, 2017

1

Introduction

1. Background

The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill [SB] 1, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) created the Local Partnership Program and continuously appropriates two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) annually to be allocated by the California Transportation Commission (Commission) to local or regional transportation agencies that have sought and received voter approval of taxes or that have imposed fees, which taxes or fees are dedicated solely for transportation improvements. The Local Partnership Program was subsequently amended by Assembly Bill (AB) 115 (Chapter 20, Statutes of 2017) and AB 135 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 255, Statutes of 2017). These guidelines, modeled after the Commission’s Proposition 1B State-Local Partnership Guidelines for Fiscal Year 2010-11, describe the policy, standards, criteria, and procedures for the development, adoption and management of the 2018 Local Partnership Program. Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 2033, these guidelines were developed in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), transportation planning agencies, county transportation commissions, local agencies and other transportation stakeholders. The Commission may amend these guidelines after first giving notice of the proposed amendments and conducting at least one public hearing. The Commission will make a reasonable effort to amend the guidelines prior to a call for projects or may extend the deadline for project submission in order to comply with the amended guidelines.

2. Program Objectives

The objective of the Local Partnership Program is to reward counties, cities, districts, and regional transportation agencies in which voters have approved fees or taxes solely dedicated to transportation improvements or that have enacted fees solely dedicated to transportation [based on Government Code Section 8879.66(b)(1)]. Consistent with the intent behind SB 1, the Commission intends this program to balance the need to direct increased revenue to the state’s highest transportation needs while fairly distributing the economic impact of increased funding [SB 1 section 1(l)].

3. Program Schedule

The following schedule lists the major milestones for the development and adoption of the 2018 Local Partnership Program:

Draft Guidelines Presented to the Commission August 16, 2017

Commission Adoption of Guidelines October 18-19, 2017

Call for Project Applications October 20, 2017


2

Formulaic Program: Agencies Submit Voter Approval Information October 27, 2017

Publish Proposed Distribution of Shares November 13, 2017

Commission Adopts Formulaic Distribution of Shares December 6-7, 2017

Projects Applications Due December 15, 2017

Release Staff Recommendations January 10, 2018

Commission Adopts Program January 31, 2018

Competitive Program:

Applications Due (postmark date) January 30, 2018

Release Staff Recommendations April 25, 2018

Commission Adopts Program May 16, 2018

Future cycles of the formulaic program will include adoption of formulaic shares each August and program adoption each December. Future competitive programs will be adopted biennially.

Funding

4. Source The Local Partnership Program will receive two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) annually from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account.

5. Programming Cycle For the Formulaic Program, the initial cycle will cover 2017-18 and 2018-19, and will be programmed annually after the first cycle is complete. For the Competitive Program, the initial program cycle will cover 2017-18 through 2019-20. Future cycles will be programmed every two-years.

6. Distribution

In the initial programming cycle, 2017-18 through 2019-20, program funds will be distributed 50% via formula and 50% via a competitive program. The methodologies for distribution of funds will be revisited in the subsequent programming cycle. Formulaic Program: Jurisdictions with voter approved taxes, tolls, and fees will be eligible for a formulaic distribution of funds if the taxes, tolls, or fees are dedicated solely to transportation. The initial cycle of the formulaic program will cover 2017-18 and 2018-19, with annual programming cycles thereafter.


3

At the beginning of each programming cycle, the Commission will adopt the funding share for each eligible taxing authority, rounded to the nearest whole thousand dollars, as follows:

A. The Commission will establish a northern California and southern California share by attributing the proportional share of revenues from voter-approved sales taxes, voter-approved parcel or property taxes, and voter-approved tolls dedicated to transportation improvements and imposed in counties in northern California to the northern share, and by attributing the proportional share of revenues from voter-approved sales taxes, voter-approved parcel or property taxes, and voter-approved tolls imposed in counties located in southern California to the southern share. The determination of whether a county is located in northern or southern California shall be based on the definitions set forth in Section 187 of the Streets and Highways Code.

B. Program funds made available to the southern share will be distributed as follows:

• Program funds generated by voter-approved tolls, voter-approved parcel or property taxes, and other voter approved taxes, excluding sales taxes, dedicated to transportation improvements shall be distributed to the taxing authority based on the proportional share of revenues generated by the toll or tax by that entity in comparison to the total revenues generated by voter-approved sales taxes, voter-approved parcel or property taxes, and voter-approved bridge tolls dedicated to transportation improvements in southern California.

• Program funds generated by voter-approved sales taxes dedicated to transportation improvements shall be distributed to the taxing authority in proportion to the population of the county in which the entity is located compared to the total population of southern California counties with voter-approved sales taxes dedicated to transportation improvements.

C. Program funds made available to the northern share will be distributed as follows:

• Program funds generated by voter-approved tolls, voter-approved parcel or property taxes, and other voter approved taxes, excluding sales taxes, dedicated to transportation improvements shall be distributed to the taxing authority based on the proportional share of revenues generated by the toll or tax by that entity in comparison to the total revenues generated by voter-approved sales taxes, voter-approved parcel or property taxes, and voter-approved tolls dedicated to transportation improvements in northern California.

• Program funds generated by voter-approved sales taxes dedicated to transportation improvements shall be distributed to the taxing authority proportion to the population of the county in which the entity is located compared to the total population of the northern California counties with voter-approved sales taxes dedicated to transportation improvements.

All jurisdictions eligible for a formulaic funding share will receive a minimum annual share of $100,000. The Commission may adjust this minimum funding share in subsequent programming cycles. In establishing funding shares, the Commission will use the most current data available as follows:

• For local sales tax revenues, the sum of gross revenues for the most recent four quarters as reported for each local tax by the Board of Equalization.


4

• For parcel and property tax revenues, the revenues for the most recent fiscal year, as reported to the State Controller pursuant to Government Code Section 53891.

• For toll and other revenues, the sum of revenues for the most recent fiscal year, as reported in the agency’s most recent audited financial statements.

• For population, the annual population estimate for cities and counties issued by the Department of Finance in May prior to the beginning of each fiscal year.

To verify eligibility, an agency must submit the following information by October 27, 2017:

• Ballot information.

• A copy of the ordinance or resolution seeking voter approval of the tax, toll, or fee.

• Election results (Official Statement of Votes Cast).

• For tolls, fees, and taxes other than sales taxes, a copy of the relevant section of the jurisdiction’s most recent audited financial statements indicating the revenue generated by the tax, toll, or fee, including posting location on the internet and information about how the revenues are reported to the state.

The Commission will determine a funding share for each eligible taxing authority with a voter-approved tax or toll that was approved prior to the adoption of the funding shares and will be collected during the fiscal year. Where a city has a voter-approved local sales tax and is located within a county without a countywide sales tax, the Commission will adopt a funding share for the city based on the city’s population and the city’s sales tax revenue. Where a city has a voter-approved local sales tax and is located within a county with a voter-approved local sales tax, the Commission will adopt a single countywide funding share based on the population for the county and both the city and county’s sales tax revenue. Where there are multiple eligible taxing authorities with a voter-approved local sales tax within a county with a countywide sales tax, the Commission will adopt funding shares for each taxing authority based on the relative tax rates of each voter-approved sales tax. If the program of projects adopted by the Commission does not program the full amount of a taxing authority’s formulaic funding share, the balance will remain available for later program amendments supported by eligible project nominations. A balance not programmed in one programming cycle will carry over and be available in the following programming cycle. Funds that remain unprogrammed for two programming cycles will be redistributed (as described in this section) in the subsequent programming cycle. Competitive Grant Program: Jurisdictions with voter approved taxes, tolls, and fees, or with imposed fees, will be eligible for the competitive grant program if the taxes, tolls, or fees are dedicated solely to transportation. The initial programming cycle will cover 2017-18 through 2019-20. The Competitive Grant Program will revert to a two-year program after the first cycle is complete. The Competitive Grant Program will be divided in two parts: one for jurisdictions with voter-approved taxes, tolls, or fees; and the second for jurisdictions with only imposed fees. The Competitive Grant Program will be divided into these two groups based on the relative tax, toll,


5

and fee revenue of the taxing authorities. In no case will the portion for jurisdictions with only imposed fees be less than $5,000,000. To verify eligibility, an agency that is not eligible for formulaic funds or that does not apply for formulaic funds must submit the following information with their project application:

• A copy of the ordinance or resolution seeking to impose the fee.

• A copy of the relevant section of the jurisdiction’s most recent audited financial statements indicating the revenue generated by the imposed fee, including posting location on the internet and information about how the revenues are reported to the state.

7. Incentive for New and Renewed Sales Tax Measures, Tolls, or Fees

To recognize new or renewed voter approved self-help efforts and to incentivize jurisdictions to pursue future sales tax measures, tolls, or fees, a one-time incentive grant will be provided to jurisdictions that seek and receive voter approval of new or renewed sales tax measures, tolls, or fees, if those tax measures, tolls, or fees have a minimum period of ten-years, are solely dedicated to transportation, and for sales taxes are equal to or greater than one quarter cent. The total amount of incentive grants awarded will not exceed $20,000,000 annually. The incentive grant amount will be based upon the projected annual revenue of the voter approved tax initiative (based on the voter approved tax rate and the sum of gross revenues for the most recent four quarters as reported by the Board of Equalization). If the projected revenue is less than $100,000, the incentive grant amount will be $100,000. For jurisdictions that generate tax revenues above $100,000, the incentive grant amount will not exceed $5,000,000. Should the sum of the incentive amounts (based on the above) exceed $20,000,000 in any year, each incentive amount will be reduced proportionally while still maintaining the $100,000 minimum grant amount. If this occurs, in the following year, the Commission may elect to provide grants equal to the reductions if incentive grant funding is available (that is, if the incentive grants in that following year do not exceed $20,000,000). Amounts for the incentive grants will be included in the formulaic shares adopted in August of each year. Funding for the incentive grants will be deducted from the subsequent round of Competitive Grant Program funding.

8. Matching Requirements Projects funded from the Local Partnership Program will require at least a one-to-one match of private, local, federal, or state funds except jurisdictions with a voter approved tax or fee which generates less than $100,000 annually need only provide a match equal to 50% of the requested Local Partnership Program funds. For the purpose of calculating the required match, the Commission will, except for State Transportation Improvement Program funding, only consider funds that are not allocated by the Commission on a project specific basis. The matching funds must be expended concurrently and proportionally to the Local Partnership Program funds. Costs incurred prior to allocation will not be counted towards match.


6

The implementing agency must provide a project funding plan through construction that demonstrates the supplemental funding in the plan (local, federal, state, private sources) is reasonably expected to be available and sufficient to complete the project.

9. Funding Restrictions Competitive Grant Program funds and funds in the initial cycle of the Formulaic Program shall not supplant other committed funds and are not available to fund cost increases except as noted below. In the Formulaic Program, a project nomination may be for supplemental funding of a project that was allocated Formulaic Program funding in a prior year, provided that the supplemental Formulaic Program funding and the match for that supplemental funding will not be expended until after the allocation of the supplemental funding. The supplemental Formulaic Program funding may be to replace local funding already committed to the project, subject to the required one-to-one match. These guidelines do not preclude the transfer of formulaic funding shares between agencies.

10. Reimbursement

The Local Partnership Program is a reimbursement program for eligible costs incurred. Costs incurred prior to Commission allocation and, for federally funded projects, Federal Highway Administration project approval (i.e. Authorization to Proceed) are not eligible for reimbursement.

Eligibility

11. Eligible Applicants Eligible applicants are the taxing authorities that have sought and received voter approval of taxes, tolls, or fees, or that have imposed fees, including uniform developer fees as defined by subdivision (b) of Section 8879.67 of the Government Code, which taxes or fees are dedicated solely to transportation improvements. Taxing Authorities that have imposed fees and have not received voter approval of taxes, tolls, or fees are only eligible for the competitive grant program. A nomination may identify an entity other than the applicant to be the project implementing agency. The implementing agency assumes responsibility and accountability for the use and expenditure of program funds. Applicants and implementing agencies must comply with all relevant federal and state laws, regulations, policies, and procedures.

12. Eligible Projects

The Local Partnership Program eligible projects will be consistent with Government Code Section 8879.70 [A through F below] and Streets and Highways Code Section 2032(a) [G through I below]. Eligible projects shall include all of the following:

A. Improvements to the state highway system including, but not limited to, all of the following:


7

• Major rehabilitation of an existing segment that extends the useful life of the segment by at least 15 years;

• New construction to increase capacity of a highway segment that improves mobility or reduces congestion on that segment; and

• Safety or operational improvements on a highway segment that are intended to reduce accidents and fatalities or improve traffic flow on that segment.

B. Improvements to transit facilities, including guideways, that expand transit services, increase transit ridership, improve transit safety, enhance access or convenience of the traveling public, or otherwise provide or facilitate a viable alternative to driving.

C. The acquisition, retrofit, or rehabilitation of rolling stock, buses, or other transit equipment, including, but not limited to maintenance facilities, transit stations, transit guideways, passenger shelters, and fare collection equipment with a useful life of at least 10 years. The acquisition of vans, buses, and other equipment necessary for the provision of transit services for seniors and people with disabilities by transit and other local agencies is an eligible project under this paragraph.

D. Improvements to the local road system, including, but not limited to, the following:

• Major roadway rehabilitation, resurfacing, or reconstruction that extends its useful life by at least 15 years;

• New construction and facilities to increase capacity, improve mobility, or enhance safety; and

• Safety or operational improvements that are intended to reduce accidents and fatalities or improve traffic flow on that segment.

E. Improvements to bicycle or pedestrian safety or mobility with an extended useful life.

F. Improvements to mitigate the environmental impact of new transportation infrastructure on a locality’s or region’s air quality or water quality, commonly known as “urban runoff,” including management practices for capturing or treating urban runoff.

G. For purposes of the Local Partnership Program, a separate phase or stage of construction for an eligible project may include mitigation of the project’s environmental impacts, including, but not limited to, sound walls, landscaping, wetlands or habitat restoration or creation, replacement plantings, and drainage facilities.

H. Sound walls for a freeway that was built prior to 1987 without sound walls and with or without high occupancy vehicle lanes if the completion of the sound walls has been deferred due to lack of available funding for at least 20 years and a noise barrier scope summary report has been completed within the last 20 years.

I. Road maintenance and rehabilitation.

J. Other transportation improvement projects.

13. Eligible Components

The Commission will only program the construction component of a project in the Competitive Grant Program, except for those projects expected to be delivered using the design-build method, where a portion of the funds may be in design.


8

For the Formulaic Program, funds may be used for any component of a project, however, projects must commence right-of-way acquisition or construction within 10 years of receiving pre-construction funding through the Local Partnership Program, or the implementing agency must repay the Local Partnership Program funds. Repaid funds will be made available for redistribution (see Section 5 above) in the subsequent programming cycle.

Project Selection Process

14. Screening Criteria

Nominations will receive an initial screening by the Commission for completeness and eligibility, before moving to the evaluation process. Incomplete or ineligible applications may not be evaluated. An agency submitting multiple project applications must clearly prioritize its projects. All projects must be included in an adopted regional transportation plan and, if applicable, consistent with an approved Sustainable Communities Strategy. Formulaic Program The Commission will include in the annual program of projects each project nominated by an eligible applicant for a formulaic funding share provided that the Commission finds that the nomination meets the requirements of statute and Commission guidelines, and that the project has a commitment of the required match.

15. Project Rating Process Competitive Grant Program: To ensure a more equitable competition, the Commission will compare projects based on the population of jurisdiction(s) across which the tax or fee is applied. In most cases, this will be a county or city. For voter-approved tolls, the population will be the sum of the population of the jurisdictions that voted on the toll. The following population categories will be used:

• Category I: ≥ 1,500,000 • Category II: 700,000 to 1,499,999 • Category III: 300,000 to 699,999 • Category IV: 100,000 to 299,999 • Category V: <100,000

To maximize the effectiveness of program funds, the minimum request for Competitive Grant Program funds that will be considered is indicated below based on the aforementioned population totals:

• Category I (population ≥ 1,500,000): $5,000,000 • Category II (population 700,000 to 1,499,999): $3,000,000 • Category III (population 300,000 to 699,999): $2,000,000 • Category IV (population 100,000 to 299,999): $1,000,000 • Category V (population <100,000): No minimum requirement.

An agency applying for multiple competitive grants must prioritize its applications. The Commission may elect to only evaluate the highest priority application(s) submitted by each agency.


9

In approving grants for inclusion in the program of projects, the Commission will give consideration to geographic balance over multiple programming cycles.

16. Competitive Program Evaluation Criteria

The Commission will give higher priority to the following:

• Projects that are more cost-effective.

• Projects that can commence construction or implementation earlier.

• Projects that leverage more committed funds per program dollar.

• Projects that can demonstrate quantifiable air quality improvements, including a significant reduction in vehicle-miles traveled.

• Projects that can demonstrate regional and community project support.

• Within a Metropolitan Planning Organization, projects that further the implementation of the sustainable communities strategy.

17. Project Nominations

Project nominations and supporting documentation must be submitted to the Commission by the deadlines in Section 3. Nominations will be treated in accordance with California Public Records Act requirements and information, subject to those requirements, may be publicly disclosed. The Commission will post basic project application information on its website prior to adopting the final program of projects. After projects are selected for programming, the Commission will post the status of all project applications to its website. Applicants should submit two hard copies of the application package and one electronic copy. All application materials should be bound, addressed, and delivered to:

Susan Bransen, Executive Director California Transportation Commission

1120 N Street, MS-52 P.O. Box 942873

Sacramento, CA 95814 Caltrans is working to develop an online application for this program. This online application may not be completed in time for use in the initial application cycle. The Commission will notify potential applicants through its website and through the RTPA Group when the online application is available. Each project application should be limited to 25 pages (excluding the Project Programming Request form) and must include:

A. A cover letter, with signature of the Chief Executive Officer or other officer authorized by the taxing authority’s governing board, authorizing and approving the application. Where


10

the project is to be implemented by an agency other than the taxing authority, documentation of the agreement between the taxing authority and the implementing agency must be submitted with the application and include the signature of the Chief Executive Officer or other authorized officer of the implementing agency.

B. A confirmation that any capacity-increasing project or a major street or highway lane realignment project was considered for reversible lanes pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 100.15.

C. An explanation of the project and its proposed benefits, including the following:

i. Project title, which should be a brief non-technical description of the project type, scope, and location, and a map (or maps) of the project location denoting the project site.

ii. The amount of Local Partnership Program funds requested.

iii. The amount and source of matching funds. Each nomination must list each federal, state, local, and private funding source by project component and fiscal year.

iv. Project background and a purpose and need statement.

v. A concise description of the project scope and anticipated benefits (outcomes and outputs) proposed for funding.

vi. A description of the project’s current status, including the current phase of delivery, and the schedule for the completion of the project.

vii. A project cost estimate which includes the amount and source of all funds committed to the project and the basis for concluding that the funding is expected to be available. If uncommitted funding is identified, the requirements as outlined in Section 16 must be included. Cost estimates should be escalated to the year of proposed implementation and be approved by the Chief Executive Officer or other authorized officer of the implementing agency.

viii. Each taxing authority should provide documentation that the expected benefits of the proposed project justify its costs, recognizing that some costs and benefits can be difficult to quantify. Each application should include analysis utilizing the appropriate module or modules of Caltrans’ Life-Cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis Model 6.0. This model can be found at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/LCBC_Analysis_Model.html. If another model is more applicable the application should describe why and also provide the analysis based on the alternate model.

ix. A description of how the project is consistent with transportation, land use and housing planning goals within the region. For projects within a region with a currently adopted California Air Resources Board approved Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), the eligible taxing authority will discuss how their project is consistent with the SCS. This will include a quantitative and/or qualitative assessment of how the project will facilitate implementation of the SCS and support achieving the region’s greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

x. A description of the greenhouse gas impacts and the community impacts of the project and how those impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level. This should include a quantification of the effects of the project on diesel

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/LCBC_Analysis_Model.html


11

particulate (PM 10 and PM 2.5), nitrogen oxides, greenhouse gases and other pollutant emissions using the Caltrans’ Life-Cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis Model 6.0. (Cal B/C), the SB 1 Intermodal Tool, or the SB 1 Other Projects Tool. Report emissions saved in both tons and dollars. The SB 1 Intermodal Tool and the SB 1 Other Projects Tool are currently under development. These tools will be provided by December 15th by Caltrans at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/LCBC_Analysis_Model.html.

D. Each application must include a Project Programming Request Form. Each Project Programming Request Form must list federal, state, local, and private funding categories by project component and fiscal year. An excel template of this form may be found at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ocip.htm. Caltrans is working to develop a web-based Project Programming Request Form and expects to make this available by November 1, 2017. The Commission will notify potential applicants through its website and through the RTPA Group when the web-based form is available.

E. Each project nomination for the Competitive Grant Program shall also include:

i. A description and quantification of the benefits the project will provide for disadvantaged communities and low-income area(s). Include a map to identify whether or not the project is located in a disadvantaged community or low-income community using the Disadvantage and Low-income Community Maps found at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/communityinvestments.htm. An applicant may also use a region specific definition of a disadvantaged community.

ii. A description of the community and regional support for the project.

iii. For uncommitted funds, the taxing authority must indicate its plan for securing a funding commitment; explain the risk of not securing that commitment, and its plan for securing an alternate source of funding should the commitment not be obtained. If a project with uncommitted funds is programmed, all funding commitments must be secured prior to July 1 of the year in which the project is programmed or it will be removed from the program.

iv. A description that demonstrates the taxing authority’s ability to absorb any cost overruns and deliver the proposed project with no additional funding from the Competitive Grant Program.

v. A description of the project delivery plan, including a description of the known risks that could impact the successful implementation of the project and the response plan of the known risks. The risks considered should include, but not be limited to, risks associated with deliverability and engineering issues, community involvement, and funding commitments.

vi. The project priority (if agency is submitting multiple applications).

Programming The program of projects for each fiscal year will include, for each project, the amount to be funded from the Local Partnership Program, and the estimated total cost of the project. Project costs in the Local Partnership Program will include costs for each of the following components: (1) permits and environmental studies; (2) plans, specifications, and estimates; (3) right-of-way; and (4)

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ocip.htm

https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/communityinvestments.htm

https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/communityinvestments.htm


12

construction. The cost of each project component will be listed in the program no earlier than in the fiscal year in which the particular project component can be implemented. For Caltrans implemented projects, the cost of right-of-way support and construction support will be separated out and programmed separately from the right-of-way capital and construction capital cost. Formulaic Program The Commission’s program of projects shall not include projects that exceed a taxing authority’s formula funding share.

18. Committed/Uncommitted Funds

The Commission will program and allocate funding to projects in whole thousands of dollars and will include a project only if it is fully funded from a combination of Local Partnership Program funds and other committed funds and, for the Competitive Grant Program, uncommitted funds as described below. In the Formulaic Program, the Commission will program and allocate funding to a project only if it is fully funded from a combination of Local Partnership Program and other committed funding. Uncommitted funds may only be from the following competitive programs: Active Transportation Program, Solutions for Congested Corridors Program, Trade Corridor Enhancement Program, or the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program. The taxing authority must indicate its plan for securing a funding commitment, explain the risk of not securing that commitment, and its plan for securing an alternate source of funding should the commitment not be obtained. If a project with uncommitted funds is programmed, all funding commitments must be secured prior to July 1 of the year in which the project is programmed or the project will be removed from the program. Projects programmed by the Commission in the Local Partnership Program will not be given priority in other programs under the Commission’s purview. The Commission will regard funds as committed when they are programmed by the Commission or when the agency with discretionary authority over the funds has made its commitment to the project by ordinance or resolution. For federal formula funds, including Regional Surface Transportation, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, and federal formula transit funds, the commitment may be by federal Transportation Improvement Program adoption. For federal discretionary funds, the commitment may be by federal approval of a full funding grant agreement or by grant approval.

Project Amendments

19. Amendment Requests

Competitive Grant Program: Project amendments will be considered for the Competitive Grant Program as follows:

• Scope Changes – The Commission will not consider changes to the scope of the project unless the change is minor and has no impact to the project benefits or the scope change increases the benefits of the project.

• Cost Changes – The Competitive Grant Program will not participate in any cost increases to the project. Any cost increases should be funded from other fund sources. If there is a change in the cost estimate, the Commission should be notified in writing as soon as


13

possible. The written notification should explain the change and the plan to cover the increase.

• Schedule Changes – Schedule changes to a project will not be considered unless a time extension was approved as specified in Section 19. For projects programmed in the last year of the Local Partnership Program, the implementing agency may request to reprogram the project only once with justification.

Project amendments requested by implementing agencies shall receive the approval of all partner and funding entities before presentation to the Commission. Amendment requests should be submitted in a timely manner and include documentation that supports the requested change and its impact on the scope, cost, schedule and benefits. Caltrans shall coordinate all amendment requests and utilize the Project Programming Request to help document the change. Implementing agencies must notify Caltrans in writing of proposed project amendments. This notification must include an explanation of the proposed change, the reason for the proposed change, the impact the proposed change would have to the project, and an estimate of the impact the proposed change would have on the potential of the project to deliver the project benefits as compared to the benefits identified in the project application (increase or decrease in benefits) and an explanation of the methodology used to develop the aforementioned estimate. A revised Project Programming Request Form must be included in the notification. Caltrans will review the proposed amendment change and forward the proposed amendment change with Caltrans’ written analysis and recommendation to the Commission for the Commission’s approval. Commission staff will present recommended changes deemed by staff to be minor changes, such as those with little or no impact to project benefits or which increase the benefits of the project, to the Commission as a part of the project allocation request. Staff will present all other amendment changes to the Commission as project amendments. Formulaic Program: In the initial programming cycle, the Formulaic Program may not be used to fund cost increases of ongoing projects.

Allocations

20. Allocation Requests When an agency is ready to implement a project or project component, the agency will submit an allocation request to Caltrans. The typical time required from receipt of the request to Commission allocation is 60 days. Caltrans will review the request and determine whether or not to recommend the request to the Commission for action. The Commission will consider the allocation of funds for a project when it receives an allocation with a recommendation from Caltrans. The recommendation will include a determination of project readiness, the availability of appropriated funding, and the availability of all identified and committed supplementary funding. When Caltrans develops its construction allocation recommendation, the Commission expects Caltrans to certify that a project’s plans, specifications and estimate are complete, environmental and right-of-way clearances are


14

secured, and all necessary permits and agreements (including railroad construction and maintenance) are executed. In compliance with Section 21150 of the Public Resources Code, the Commission will not allocate funds for design, right-of-way, or construction prior to documentation of environmental clearance under the California Environmental Quality Act. As a matter of policy, the Commission will not allocate funds for design, right-of-way, or construction of a federally funded project prior to documentation of environmental clearance under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Exceptions to this policy may be made in instances where federal law allows for the acquisition of right-of-way prior to completion of NEPA review. The Commission will approve the allocation if the funds are available and the allocation is necessary to implement the project as included in the adopted Local Partnership Program. If there are insufficient program funds to approve an allocation, the Commission may delay the allocation of funds to a project. Allocations must be requested in the fiscal year of project programming. Agencies should not request Commission allocations unless prepared to award contracts related to the allocation within six months. Whenever programmed funds are not allocated within the fiscal year programmed or within the time allowed by an approved allocation extension, the project will be deleted from the Local Partnership Program and the funds will be made available for redistribution (see Section 5 above) in the subsequent programming cycle. Where the project is to be implemented by an agency other than the taxing authority, the allocation request must include a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding or Interagency Agreement between the taxing authority and implementing agency. When Caltrans is the implementing agency, right-of-way support and construction support costs must be allocated separately from right-of-way capital and construction capital costs.

Project Delivery

21. Letter of No Prejudice

The Commission will consider approval of a Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) to advance a project programmed in the Local Partnership Program. Approval of the LONP will allow the agency to begin work and incur eligible expenses prior to allocation. The Amended LONP Guidelines were adopted in October 2017 and are on the Commission’s website.

22. Timely Use of Funds Local Partnership Program allocations must be requested in the fiscal year of project programming. Construction allocations are valid for award for six months from the date of allocation unless the Commission approves an extension. Any funds for which a contract has not been awarded within six months or prior to the expiration of an extension to the period of allocation, will be deallocated and be made available for redistribution (see Section 5 above) in the subsequent programming cycle.


15

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

23. Delivery Deadline Extensions

The Commission may extend a delivery deadline, as described in Section 19, upon the request of the implementing agency. No deadline may be extended more than once. However, there are separate deadlines for allocations, contact award, expenditures, and project completion. Each project component has its own deadlines. The Commission may consider the extension for each of the deadlines separately. All requests for project delivery deadline extensions shall be submitted directly to Caltrans for processing. The extension request should describe the specific circumstance that justifies the


16

extension and identify the delay directly attributable to the circumstance. Caltrans will review and prepare a written analysis of the proposed extension requests and forward the written analysis and recommendation to the Commission for action.

24. Project Inactivity

Once funds for a project are encumbered, project applicants are expected to invoice on a regular basis (for federal funds, see 23 CFR 630.106 and the Caltrans' Inactive Obligation Policy). Failure to do so will result in the project being deemed "inactive" and subject to de-obligation and deallocation if proper justification is not provided.

25. Project Cost Savings

Project cost savings generated by a project in the Formulaic Program will be returned to that regional programming target. Savings at contract award may be used to expand the scope of the project only if the expanded scope provides additional quantifiable benefits. The expanded scope must be approved by the Commission’s Executive Director prior to contract award. All other contract award savings will be returned proportionally. Savings at project completion must be returned proportionally except when an agency has, subsequent to project programming, committed additional funds to the project to fund a cost increase. In such instances, savings at project completion may be returned to other fund types first, until the proportions match those at programming. Any additional savings at project completion must be returned proportionally.

26. Project Reporting SB 1 places responsibility on the Commission to track the performance and report to the public how well funding recipients are delivering projects receiving Local Partnership Program funds. Additional reporting requirements will be outlined in the Commission’s upcoming Accountability and Transparency Guidelines. Caltrans, in cooperation with the implementing agencies, will report to the Commission on a semi-annual basis. The reports will include information on the activities and progress made toward implementation of the project, including those project activities taking place prior to an allocation and the commitment status of supplemental funding identified at the time of programming. The reports will at a minimum include:

• A summary describing the overall progress of the project since the initial programming action.

• Expenditures to date for all project phase costs, segregated by fund.

• A summary of milestones achieved during the prior year and milestones expected to be reached in the coming year.

• Identify any changes to the scope, cost, schedule, and benefits of the project.


17

Within one year of the project becoming operable, a final delivery report must be submitted. The implementing agency must provide the following information to Caltrans for inclusion in the final delivery report to the Commission:

• The scope of the completed project as compared to the programmed project.

• Before and after photos documenting the project.

• The final costs, by component and fund type, as compared to the approved project budget at allocation and baseline agreement if applicable.

• Project duration as compared to the project schedule in the project application.

• Performance deliverables (outputs and outcomes) derived from the project as compared to those described when the decision was made to fund the project. This should include an explanation of the methodology used to quantify and qualify the benefits.

• For the purpose of this section, a project becomes operable when the construction contract is accepted or acquired equipment is received.

The purpose of the reports is to ensure that the project achieves the objectives of the program, is executed in a timely fashion, is within the scope and budget identified when the decision was made to fund the project and is on track to deliver the expected benefits.

27. Project Tracking Database Caltrans is responsible for developing, upgrading and maintaining an electronic database record of the adopted Local Partnership Program and Commission actions. The database will include project specific information, including project description, location, cost, scope, schedule, expected benefits, and progress of the project and a map. The project information from the database will be accessible through Caltrans’ website.

28. Project Auditing

Caltrans must audit, in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards, a representative sample of the Local Partnership Program projects. The scope of these audits will be performed to determine whether:

• Project costs incurred and reimbursed are in compliance with the Commission’s Local Partnership Program Guidelines, the Commission’s Accountability Guidelines, contract provisions, and state and federal laws and regulations.

• Project deliverables (outputs) and outcomes are consistent with the project scope, schedule, and benefits described in the project nomination used to program the project.

A report on the projects audited, their findings and status of any corrective action must be submitted to the Commission by October 1 of each year.

29. Workforce Development Requirements and Project Signage Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 2038, by July 1, 2023, agencies receiving Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account funds will need to describe how projects will address participation and investment in new or existing pre-apprenticeship training programs that focus on outreach to women, minority participants, underrepresented subgroups, formerly incarcerated


18

individuals, and local residents to access employment opportunities. Therefore, this information should be included in the semi-annual reports submitted to Caltrans.

Additionally, the implementing agency must, for all projects, include signage stating that the project was made possible by SB 1 – The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. The signage should be in compliance with applicable federal or state law, and Caltrans’ manual and guidelines, including but not limited to the provisions of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

TO: Management & Finance Staff Report Discussion FROM: Karen Kincy, Sr. Financial Services Specialist DATE: September 27, 2017

SUBJECT: Update on Transportation Development Act (TDA) Allocations

Background As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), StanCOG administers and distributes Local Transportation Funds (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA) funds to the jurisdictions in accordance with the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and StanCOG’s adopted Transit Cost Sharing Procedures. For FY 2016/17, the County Auditor-Controller provided the Policy Board with an LTF estimate of $20,400,000. As of June 30, 2017, StanCOG has recorded $22,048,705 in LTF receipts, resulting in a balance of $1,648,705. According to the Transit Cost Sharing Procedures, a supplemental LTF apportionment occurs when more funds are received than originally anticipated. Supplemental apportionments increase the level of LTF funds previously apportioned for the fiscal year just ended, by the amount of surplus funds which were actually collected for that year. The State Transit Assistance Funds (STA) Estimate for the FY 2016/17 was $2,303,250. Operators deduct these estimates from their LTF claims. While this is an estimate only, typically the funds received have been consistent with the amount estimated by the State Controller’s Office, with the exception of FY 2015/16 when there was a deficit. The final payment StanCOG received for FY 2016/17 was a total of $1,988,113, creating a deficit (for the second year in a row) of $315,137 of transit operator funds. The Transportation Development Act requires that Article 4 - Transit claims must be funded before Article 8 - Other Purpose claims may be considered for allocation. The deficit of STA funds received has augmented the necessity to reduce the supplemental apportionment by $315,137. On June 21, 2017 the StanCOG board passed Resolution 16-44 to allocate TDA Funds for FY2017-18, holding in reserves in the amount of $1,857,866 for future regional transit projects. Discussion The total amount of FY 2016/17 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds available for a Supplemental Apportionment is $1,648,705. After adjusting for the STA deficit of $315,137, the adjusted apportionment amount available is $1,333,568 ($1,648,705 - $315,137) in accordance with Section 7 of the Transit Cost Sharing Procedures, as shown in the table below.

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 6D

Staff has provided three attachments to this staff report. The first two attachments provide the detailed calculations for the amounts above.

• Attachment 1 begins with the planning funds proposed for StanCOG. Attachment 1 also shows the distribution calculation for the nonmotorized apportionments, which are based on population.

• Attachment 2 calculates each jurisdiction’s share of the amount available for Other purposes

using the distribution formula in effect for FY 2016/17. Please note that for FY 2016/17 apportionments, the distribution formula for Other Purposes was changed, as described on page 17 of the February 20, 2013, amended Transit Cost Sharing Procedures.

• Attachment 3 is for information only. It reflects the total Transportation Development Act

(TDA) apportionments to the jurisdictions based on the actual LTF receipts of $22,048,705. The current Transit Cost Sharing Procedures (TCSP) allocates funds to “Other Purposes” for Streets and Roads. A review of the TCSP this year could include a revision that funds previously allocated for “Other Purposes” are used only for transit or are held in reserves until such time as eligible regional transit projects are presented for consideration for use of these funds, or additional funds are required for transit operations, such as future rail services offered by ACE. Should you have any questions regarding this staff report, please contact Karen Kincy, Senior Financial Services Specialist, at 209-525-4640 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Attachments: Attachment 1 FY 2016/17 Local Transportation Fund Supplemental Apportionment Calculation for

Planning and Motorized Funds Attachment 2 Distribution Methodology for “Other” LTF Funds FY 2016/17 Attachment 3 Transportation Development Act (TDA Apportionments for FY2 016/17

Jurisdiction StanCOG Planning Nonmotorized Other Purposes Total

StanCOG $ 40,006 $ 40,006 Ceres $ 2,284 150,964 $ 153,248 County $ 5,447 561,754 $ 567,201 Hughson $ 351 25,221 $ 25,572 Modesto $ 10,167 - $ 10,167 Newman $ 523 37,798 $ 38,321 Oakdale $ 1,058 75,914 $ 76,972 Patterson $ 1,025 72,478 $ 73,503 Riverbank $ 1,141 76,845 $ 77,986 Turlock $ 3,453 238,683 $ 242,136 Waterford $ 422 $ 28,034 $ 28,456

Total $ 40,006 $ 25,871 $ 1,267,691 $ 1,333,568

FY 2016/17 Proposed Supplemental Apportionments



FY 2016/17LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND SUPPLEMENTAL APPORTIONMENT

CALCULATION FOR STANCOG PLANNING AND NONMOTORIZED FUNDS

PROPOSED FOR OCTOBER 11, 2017

Orignal Supplemental Apportionment 1,648,705

Less State Tranist Assistance Underpayment (315,137)

Revised Supplemental Spportionment 1,333,568

StanCOG 3% planning allocation apportionment - Proposed (40,007)

Subtotal 1,293,561

Nonmotorized 2% (apportionment based on population) - Proposed (25,871)

Amount for Other purposes ( See Attachment 2 for distribution calculation) - Proposed 1,267,691

LTF NONMOTORIZED SUPPLEMENTAL APPORTIONMENT BASED ON POPULATION

Jurisdiction Population * Population %

Nonmotorized

Supplemental

Apportionment

Ceres 46,989 8.828% 2,284$

County 112,066 21.053% 5,447$

Hughson 7,222 1.357% 351$

Modesto 209,186 39.299% 10,167$

Newman 10,753 2.020% 523$

Oakdale 21,773 4.090% 1,058$

Patterson 21,094 3.963% 1,025$

Riverbank 23,485 4.412% 1,141$

Turlock 71,043 13.346% 3,453$

Waterford 8,686 1.632% 422$

Total 532,297 100.000% 25,871$

C:\Users\kkincy\Desktop\TDA\FY16-17 Supplemental\2016-17 Supplemental ApportionmentsLTF Sup Non-Motorized

ATTACHMENT 1


DISTRIBUTION METHODOLOGY FOR "OTHER" LTF FUNDS

FY 2016/17

30% POPULATION / 70% ROADMILE TABLE: TO DETERMINE SPLIT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE

CITIES (INCLUDES THE CITY OF MODESTO)

Jurisdiction Population Population % Road Miles (RM) RM % Pop 30% + RM 70%

Split of all Cities vs.

County

Ceres 46,989 8.8276% 133.00 4.7063% 5.9427%

Hughson 7,222 1.3568% 27.00 0.9554% 1.0758%

Modesto 209,186 39.2987% 604.00 21.3730% 26.7507%

Newman 10,753 2.0201% 41.00 1.4508% 1.6216%

Oakdale 21,773 4.0904% 81.00 2.8662% 3.2335%

Patterson 21,094 3.9628% 75.00 2.6539% 3.0466%

Riverbank 23,485 4.4120% 71.00 2.5124% 3.0823%

Turlock 71,043 13.3465% 235.00 8.3156% 9.8249%

Waterford 8,686 1.6318% 25.00 0.8846% 1.1088% 55.6868%

Stan County 112,066 21.0533% 1,534.00 54.2817% 44.3132% 44.3132%

Totals 532,297 100.0000% 2,826.00 100.0000% 100.0000% 100.0000%

Notes:

The methodology for determining the County share uses a weighted formula with 30% population.

and a 70% road miles. The County's share is determined to be 44.3132%. The cities will share the

remaining 55.6868%.

70% POPULATION/30% ROADMILE TABLE: TO DETERMINE THE SPLIT AMONGST THE CITIES

(EXCLUDES THE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MODESTO)

Jurisdiction Population Population % Road Miles (RM) RM % Pop 70% + RM 30%

Ceres 46,989 22.2649% 133.00 19.3314% 11.9085%

Hughson 7,222 3.4220% 27.00 3.9244% 1.9895%

Modesto

Newman 10,753 5.0951% 41.00 5.9593% 2.9817%

Oakdale 21,773 10.3168% 81.00 11.7733% 5.9884%

Patterson 21,094 9.9950% 75.00 10.9012% 5.7173%

Riverbank 23,485 11.1280% 71.00 10.3198% 6.0618%

Turlock 71,043 33.6625% 235.00 34.1570% 18.8282%

Waterford 8,686 4.1157% 25.00 3.6337% 2.2114%

Totals 211,045 100.0000% 688.00 100.0000% 55.6868%

Notes:

The methodology for determining each city's share of the remaining (55.6868%) utilizes a weighted

formula with 70% population and 30% road miles. Modesto and the County are excluded from this

calculation.

SCHEDULE 2A

ATTACHMENT 2PAGE 1/3



FY 2016/17

SCHEDULE 2BFirst $1,000,000 of "Other" Funds. 5% floors for Hughson, Newman and Waterford

1,000,000$

Jurisdiction Pop% + RM%

Amount

Unadjusted for

Floors

Floor Contribution

Rate

Floor

Contributors Floor Beneficiaries Net Amount

% of First

$1,000,000

Ceres 11.9085% 119,085.00 15.8675% (12,403.00) 106,682.00 10.6682%

Hughson 1.9895% 19,895.00 30,105.00 50,000.00 5.0000%

Modesto 0.0000% - - 0.0000%

Newman 2.9817% 29,817.00 20,183.00 50,000.00 5.0000%

Oakdale 5.9884% 59,884.00 59,884.00 5.9884%

Patterson 5.7173% 57,173.00 57,173.00 5.7173%

Riverbank 6.0618% 60,618.00 60,618.00 6.0618%

Turlock 18.8282% 188,282.00 25.0876% (19,612.00) 168,670.00 16.8670%

Waterford 2.2114% 22,114.00 - 27,886.00 50,000.00 5.0000%

County 44.3132% 443,131.00 59.0449% (46,158.00) 396,973.00 39.6973%

Totals 100.0000% 999,999.00$ 100.0000% (78,173.00)$ 78,174.00$ 1,000,000.00$ 100.0000%

Amount to the three largest agencies - Unadjusted for Floors 750,498.00 75.0499%

Amount to the three largest agencies - Adjusted for Floors 672,325.00 67.2325%

Notes:

5% minimum floors are calculated on the first $1,000,000 for the three smallest jurisdictions of Hughson, Newman

and Waterford. Prior to the floor adjustment, the three largest jurisdictions receive 75.0499% of the "Other" LTF funds

available. As a result, the three largest jurisdictions agree to fund the floor amounts of the three smallest jurisdictions.

1,390,973$ <----- Amount remaining over $1,000,000

Jurisdiction

% of First

$1,000,000 First $1,000,000

% After First

$1,000,000

Additional

$1,169,128

Total "Other" LTF

Funds

Percentage of

"Other"

Population %

Comparison

Ceres 10.6682% 106,682.00 11.9085% 165,645.00 272,327.00 11.3898% 8.8276%

Hughson 5.0000% 50,000.00 1.9895% 27,674.00 77,674.00 3.2486% 1.3568%

Modesto 0.0000% - 0.0000% - - 0.0000% 39.2987%

Newman 5.0000% 50,000.00 2.9817% 41,474.00 91,474.00 3.8258% 2.0201%

Oakdale 5.9884% 59,884.00 5.9884% 83,297.00 143,181.00 5.9884% 4.0904%

Patterson 5.7173% 57,173.00 5.7173% 79,526.00 136,699.00 5.7173% 3.9628%

Riverbank 6.0618% 60,618.00 6.0618% 84,318.00 144,936.00 6.0618% 4.4120%

Turlock 16.8670% 168,670.00 18.8282% 261,895.00 430,565.00 18.0079% 13.3465%

Waterford 5.0000% 50,000.00 2.2114% 30,760.00 80,760.00 3.3777% 1.6318%

County 39.6973% 396,973.00 44.3132% 616,384.00 1,013,357.00 42.3826% 21.0533%

Totals 100.0000% 1,000,000.00$ 100.0000% 1,390,973.00$ 2,390,973.00$ 100.0000% 100.0000%

Notes

Funds in excess of $1,000,000 are distributed in the same manner as the first $1,000,000; however,

no additional floor adjustments are made. Using the weighted formula based on the 30% population

and 70% road miles ratio, Stanislaus County will receive 44.3075% of the funds in excess of

$1,000,000. The eight cities will share 55.6925% of the funds in excess of $1,000,000 using the

weighted formula of 70% population and 30% road miles ratio.


Jurisdiction

Total LTF for

FY 2016/17 Other

Purposes

Minus 6/15/16 Apportionment

for Other Purposes

10/11/17 Proposed

Supplemental for Other

Purposes

Ceres 272,327 121,363 150,964

Hughson 77,674 52,453 25,221

Modesto 0 - 0

Newman 91,474 53,676 37,798

Oakdale 143,181 67,267 75,914

Patterson 136,699 64,221 72,478

Riverbank 144,936 68,091 76,845

Turlock 430,565 191,882 238,683

Waterford 80,760 52,726 28,034

County 1,013,357 451,603 561,754

2,390,973 1,123,282 1,267,691



FY 2016/17

Proposed Supplemental Apportionments for Other Purposes


COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 COLUMN 4 COLUMN 5 COLUMN 6 COLUMN 7 COLUMN 8 COLUMN 9

Claimant TDA Transp. Bike/ Transit Regional Other Total Total Total

Admin Planning Ped Transit Purposes LTF STA TDA

Projects

StanCOG 204,000 652,006 36,000 892,006 + = 892,006

CTSA 500,000 500,000 + = 500,000

Ceres 36,860 994,270 272,327 1,303,457 + = 1,303,457

County 87,909 6,612,113 1,013,357 7,713,379 + 19,011 = 7,732,390

Hughson 5,665 77,674 83,339 + = 83,339

Modesto 164,092 8,970,063 9,134,155 + 1,963,515 = 11,097,670

Newman 8,435 91,474 99,909 + = 99,909

Oakdale 17,079 143,181 160,260 + = 160,260

Patterson 16,547 136,699 153,246 + = 153,246

Riverbank 18,422 144,936 163,358 + = 163,358

Turlock 55,729 1,271,729 430,565 1,758,023 + 5,587 = 1,763,610

Waterford 6,813 80,760 87,573 + = 87,573

Total 204,000 652,006 417,551 18,348,175 36,000 2,390,973 22,048,705 + 1,988,113 = 24,036,818

Original STA 2,303,250

STA Shortfall (315,137)


TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) APPORTIONMENTS FOR FY 2016/17

INCLUDES SUPPLEMENTAL APPORTIONMENT PROPOSED FOR POLICY BOARD ADOPTION ON NOVEMBER 15, 2017

ATTACHMENT 3

INFORMATION ITEMS

TO: Management & Finance Staff Report Information FROM: Karen Kincy, Senior Financial Services Specialist


SUBJECT: Measure L Funds Received

Background The FY 2017/18 Measure L projections are $38,000,000. The attached schedule shows the status of the Measure L receipts as of October 22, 2017. Monthly estimated allocations are made by the Board of Equalization (BOE) using methodologies to estimate sales tax revenues based on past reports for the region. The actual amount for sales tax revenues are calculated in the month following the end of each quarter, at which time the BOE will deduct their administrative fees for the quarter and issue a final quarterly payment for the net amount based on the actual quarterly revenue received. Discussion Measure L funds are received monthly from the State Board of Equalization. The twelve months of the fiscal year are listed across the top of the attached schedule. The first month StanCOG received funds for FY2017-18 was in June 2017. Distributions made to jurisdictions for FY 2017-18 will be based on receipts from June 2017-May 2018. There are three Measure L schedules attached. The first table presents the total monthly allocation to date as compared to the total estimated for the Fiscal Year. The second schedule represents the allocation of Measure L funds by category and jurisdiction. The third schedule shows the total breakdown by jurisdiction and/or project. As shown in the attached table, as of October 22, 2017. StanCOG received $14,940,217. Should you have any questions regarding this staff report, please contact Karen Kincy, Senior Financial Services Specialist, at 209-525-4640 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Attachments:

1. Measure L Funds Received 2. Measure L Allocations Year to Date 3. Measure L Jurisdiction Allocations

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 7A

ATTACHMENT 1

Fiscal Year

Measure L

Estimate

*Advance April

Jun**

*Advance May

Jul

*Advance June

Aug

*Advance July

Sept**

*Advance Aug

Oct

*Advance Sept

Nov

*Advance Oct

Dec**

*Advance Nov

Jan

*Advance Dec

Feb

*Advance Jan

Mar**

*Advance Feb

Apr

*Advance Mar

May

Total

Received

Balance of

Estimate

2017/18 $38,000,000 2,326,549 2,310,300 3,080,400 4,816,568 2,406,400 $14,940,217 23,059,783

Total 38,000,000 2,326,549 2,310,300 3,080,400 4,816,568 2,406,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,940,217 23,059,783

** One advance payment is made each month, and the quarterly reconciliation and payment (cleanup) is distributed in conjunction with the first advance for the subsequent quarter.

NOTE: No clean-up was done for June 2017 Deposit; Program did not start until April 2017

MEASURE L SALES TAX RECEIVED BY FISCAL YEAR


MEASURE L FUNDS RECEIVED

FY 2016/17 - FY 2017/18

ATTACHMENT 2


MEASURE L ALLOCATIONS

FY 2017-18 Year To DateOctober 22, 2017

Total Allocation from BOE 14,940,216.76

Less StanCOG Adminstration 1% 149,402.17

Remaining Allocations 14,790,814.59

Expenditure Plan

Categories/Funds

Allocation

Percentages Jurisdiction Categories/Funds TOTAL CATEGORY TOTAL JURISDICITON

7,395,407.30

6.36% Ceres - Local Streets & Roads 470,347.90

1.26% Hughson - Local Streets & Roads 93,182.13

35.79% Modesto - Local Streets & Roads 2,646,816.27

1.26% Newman - Local Streets & Roads 93,182.13

3.86% Oakdale - Local Streets & Roads 285,462.72

4.55% Patterson - Local Streets & Roads 336,491.03

3.42% Riverbank - Local Streets & Roads 252,922.93

15.26% Turlock - Local Streets & Roads 1,128,539.15

1.26% Waterford - Local Streets & Roads 93,182.13

26.98% Stanislaus County - Local Streets & Roads 1,995,280.89

100.00% 7,395,407.30

1,479,081.46

6.36% Ceres - Traffic Management 94,069.58

1.26% Hughson - Traffic Management 18,636.43

35.79% Modesto - Traffic Management 529,363.25

1.26% Newman - Traffic Management 18,636.43

3.86% Oakdale - Traffic Management 57,092.54

4.55% Patterson - Traffic Management 67,298.21

3.42% Riverbank - Traffic Management 50,584.59

15.26% Turlock - Traffic Management 225,707.83

1.26% Waterford -Traffic Management 18,636.43

26.98% Stanislaus County - Traffic Management 399,056.18

100.00% 1,479,081.46

739,540.73

6.36% Ceres - Bike and Pedestrian 47,034.79

1.26% Hughson - Bike and Pedestrian 9,318.21

35.79% Modesto - Bike and Pedestrian 264,681.63

1.26% Newman - Bike and Pedestrian 9,318.21

3.86% Oakdale - Bike and Pedestrian 28,546.27

4.55% Patterson - Bike and Pedestrian 33,649.10

3.42% Riverbank - Bike and Pedestrian 25,292.29

15.26% Turlock - Bike and Pedestrian 112,853.92

1.26% Waterford - Bike and Pedestrian 9,318.21

26.98% Stanislaus County - Bike and Pedestrian 199,528.09

100.00% 739,540.73

Regional Projects - 28%

Distribution By

Project 4,141,428.09

StanCOG Undistributed - Regional Projects 4,141,428.09

Local Streets and Roads - 50%

Traffic Management - 10%

Bike and Pedestrian - 5%

Total Measure L - Monthly Report to Jurisidictions 10-22-17 Page 2 of 5 10/13/2017

ATTACHMENT 2

MEASURE L ALLOCATIONS

FY 2017-18 Year To DateOctober 22, 2017

Total Allocation from BOE 14,940,216.76

Less StanCOG Adminstration 1% 149,402.17

Remaining Allocations 14,790,814.59

Expenditure Plan

Categories/Funds

Allocation

Percentages Jurisdiction Categories/Funds TOTAL CATEGORY TOTAL JURISDICITON

Local Streets and Roads - 50%

1,035,357.02

Point-To-Point Services for

Seniors, Veterans and Persons

With Disabilities - 30%

StanCOG Undistributed - Point-to-Point

Services

100.00% Move 310,607.11

Community Connections - 30%

Distribution By

Project

StanCOG Undistributed - Community

Connections 310,607.11

Ceres - Community Connections

Hughson - Community Connections

Modesto - Community Connections

Newman - Community Connections

Oakdale - Community Connections

Patterson - Community Connections

Riverbank - Community Connections

Turlock - Community Connections

Waterford - Community Connections

Stanislaus County - Community Connections

Transit Services - 20% 207,071.40

StanCOG Undistributed -Transit Services

7.00% Ceres - Transit Services 14,495.00

52.00% Modesto - Transit Services 107,677.13

8.00% Turlock - Transit Services 16,565.71

33.00% Stanislaus County - Transit Services 68,333.56

100.00% 207,071.40

Rail Services - 20%

Distribution By

Project

StanCOG Undistributed -Rail Services 207,071.40

1,035,357.02

Total Allocations 14,940,216.76 14,940,216.76

Transit Providers - Other Transportation Programs and Services - 7%

Total Measure L - Monthly Report to Jurisidictions 10-22-17 Page 3 of 5 10/13/2017

ATTACHMENT 3

Jurisdiction Category Amount

StanCOG Adminstrative Fees 149,402.17

Ceres Local Streets & Roads 470,347.90

Ceres Traffic Management 94,069.58

Ceres Bike & Pedestrian 47,034.79

Ceres Transit Services 14,495.00

Total Ceres 625,947.27

Hughson Local Streets & Roads 93,182.13

Hughson Traffic Management 18,636.43

Hughson Bike & Pedestrian 9,318.21

Total Hughson 121,136.77

Modesto Local Streets & Roads 2,646,816.27

Modesto Traffic Management 529,363.25

Modesto Bike & Pedestrian 264,681.63

Modesto Transit Services 107,677.13

Total Modesto 3,548,538.28

Newman Local Streets & Roads 93,182.13

Newman Traffic Management 18,636.43

Newman Bike & Pedestrian 9,318.21

Total Newman 121,136.77

Oakdale Local Streets & Roads 285,462.72

Oakdale Traffic Management 57,092.54

Oakdale Bike & Pedestrian 28,546.27

Total Oakdale 371,101.54

Patterson Local Streets & Roads 336,491.03

Patterson Traffic Management 67,298.21

Patterson Bike & Pedestrian 33,649.10

Total Patterson 437,438.34

Riverbank Local Streets & Roads 252,922.93

Riverbank Traffic Management 50,584.59

Riverbank Bike & Pedestrian 25,292.29

Total Riverbank 328,799.81

Stanislaus County Local Streets & Roads 1,995,280.89

Stanislaus County Traffic Management 399,056.18

Stanislaus County Bike & Pedestrian 199,528.09

Stanislaus County Transit Services 68,333.56

Total Stansilaus County 2,662,198.72

Turlock Local Streets & Roads 1,128,539.15

Turlock Traffic Management 225,707.83

Turlock Bike & Pedestrian 112,853.92

Turlock Transit Services 16,565.71

Total Turlock 1,483,666.61

Waterford Local Streets & Roads 93,182.13

Waterford Traffic Management 18,636.43

Waterford Bike & Pedestrian 9,318.21

Total Waterford 121,136.77

MEASURE L JURISDICTION ALLOCATIONS

FY 2017-18

YEAR TO DATE AS OF OCTOBER 2017


ATTACHMENT 3

Jurisdiction Category Amount

MEASURE L JURISDICTION ALLOCATIONS

FY 2017-18

YEAR TO DATE AS OF OCTOBER 2017


MOVE Point to Point Connections 310,607.11

Undistributed Community Connections Project Based 310,607.11

Undistributed Regional Projects -Project Based 4,141,428.09

Undistributed Rail Services 207,071.40

Total Undistributed Funds 4,659,106.60

Total Year-To-Date 14,940,216.76

TO: Management and Finance Committee Staff Report Information FROM: Elisabeth Hahn, Principal Planner

Debbie Trujillo, Planning Technician


SUBJECT: 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Monthly Project Status Report FFY 17/18

Background As the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Stanislaus Region, StanCOG programs federal and state transportation funding and ensures that those funds are being secured efficiently. Failing to meet project delivery dates for any phase of a project may jeopardize federal funding to the region. The 2017 FTIP programmed the region's projects over a period of four federal fiscal years (FFY 16/17, 17/18, 18/19, 19/20) and is a comprehensive list of transportation projects that receive federal funds, require a federal action, or are regionally significant. StanCOG closely monitors the status of all projects programmed in the FTIP through close communication with the local jurisdictions. Discussion The 2017 FTIP Monthly Project Status Report for FFY 2017/18 demonstrates that as of October 23, 2017, the Stanislaus Region has yet to obligate 100% of its FFY 2017/18 federally apportioned funding. The new FFY began on October 1, 2017 and agencies are diligently working on the early stages of processing documents for their respective projects. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Elisabeth Hahn, Principal Planner, by phone at 209.525.4633 or via e-mail at [email protected].

Attachment:

1. 2017 FTIP Monthly Project Status Report for FFY 2017/18 (Dated: 10/23/17)


calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 7B

October 23, 2017

Agency Total Funds Obligated (Federal/State/Local)

Total Amount in FTIP

Percentage Obligated from Total Amount

in FTIP

% Obligated from Total Amount Agency was

Apportioned in FTIP

Ceres $0 $2,398,447 0.00% 0.00%

Hughson $0 $360,000 0.00% 0.00%

Modesto $0 $5,344,241 0.00% 0.00%

Newman $0 $663,952 0.00% 0.00%

Oakdale $0 $268,300 0.00% 0.00%

Patterson $0 $249,484 0.00% 0.00%

Riverbank $0 $1,207,872 0.00% 0.00%

Turlock $0 $3,155,158 0.00% 0.00%

Waterford $0 $375,000 0.00% 0.00%

Stanislaus County $0 $6,213,532 0.00% 0.00%

StanCOG $0 $607,774 0.00% 0.00%$0 $20,843,760 0.00%

2017 Federal Transportation Improvement ProgramMonthly Project Status Report for FFY 2017/18

Monthly Project Status Report 1 of 5

October 23, 2017

CTIPS #FTIP

Program Location Work Description Phase

Date of Last Federal/State

Obligation

Federal/State Funds

ObligatedLocalMatch

Total Dollar Amount in

FTIP

Federal/State Funds

RequiringObligation Status of Funding Obligation

21400000672 ATP SRTS Whitmore Corridor Safe Routes to School CON $0 $0 $108,000 $108,000 CEQA pending

21400000594 CMAQ Morgan and Service Road Traffic Signal CON $0 $0 $434,500 $434,500 RFP for Design is pending

21400000678 CMAQ

Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Signal Synchronization Phase III: Service/Blaker Road from Blaker Rd to Central Avenue; Central Ave/Don Pedro from E Service Rd to Don Pedro Rd; Don Pedro Rd at Mitchell Rd existing FO Communication Traffic Control Devices CON $0 $0 $246,800 $246,800 RFP for Design is pending

21400000678 CMAQ

ITS Signal Synchronization Phase IV: on Crows Landing/Hackett Road and Crows Landing/Whitmore Road Traffic Control Devices CON $0 $0 $485,747 $485,747 RFP for Design is pending

21400000566 STBGPService Road from Blaker Road to Morgan Road Overlay CON $0 $0 $605,716 $605,716 Environmental to be submitted by Dec 2017

21400000566 STBGPService Road Overlay Phase II - Central Ave to Blaker Rd Overlay CON $0 $0 $517,684 $517,684 Environmental to be submitted by Dec 2017

$0 $0 $2,398,447 $2,398,447

CTIPS #FTIP



Obligation

Federal/State Funds

ObligatedLocalMatch


FTIP

Federal/State Funds


21400000567CMAQ / STBGP

Install sidewalks and Class III bike path on Whitmroe Avenue: Whitmore Avenue between Tully road andCharles Street Bike/Ped Improvements CON $0 $0 $360,000 $360,000 RFQ for design of the project.

$0 $0 $360,000 $360,000

CTIPS #FTIP



Obligation

Federal/State Funds

ObligatedLocalMatch


FTIP

Federal/State Funds


21400000565 CMAQRight turn lane from eastbound Standiford Ave to southbound Sisk Rd Traffic Flow Improvements CON $0 $0 $900,000 $900,000 No Update

21400000594 CMAQ

Upgrade Traffic Signal 2017: Tully Rd at 9th St, 1 St at H St, Paradise Rd at H St, and 11th St at Needham Avenue Traffic Signal CON $0 $0 $868,750 $868,750 PES anticipated to be submitted December 2017

21400000678 CMAQSynchronize all of the traffic sigals outside the downtown core in Modesto Traffic Control Devices CON $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 PES anticipated to be submitted December 2017

21400000678 CMAQ

Upgrade the ATMS software and communications for the traffic signals in the City of Modesto Traffic Control Devices CON $0 $0 $1,059,998 $1,059,998 PES anticipated to be submitted December 2017

21400000510 CMAQ Rideshare Program Rideshare Program CON $0 $0 $81,000 $81,000 PES anticipated to be submitted December 2017

21400000566 STBGP Pelandale Ave from Sisk Rd to Dale Rd Pavement Rehabilitation CON $0 $0 $1,734,493 $1,734,493ROW Cert to be submitted December 2017, RFA for CON to be submitted March 2018

21400000566 STBGPOakdale Road and Scenic Drive Intersection Improvements Traffic Flow Improvements CON $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 No Update

$0 $0 $5,344,241 $5,344,241

2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program Monthly Project Status Report for FFY 2017/18

City of Ceres

City of Hughson

City of Modesto


October 23, 2017

CTIPS #FTIP



Obligation

Federal/State Funds

ObligatedLocalMatch


FTIP

Federal/State Funds


21400000567 CMAQMerced Street from Inyo Avenue to Driskell Avenue Bike/Pedestrian Improvements CON $0 $0 $151,031 $151,031 PES Submitted on 9/13/2017

21400000567 CMAQMerced Street from N Street to Sherman Pkwy, Pedestrian Facility and Class II Bike Lane Non-Motorized Improvements CON $0 $0 $139,845 $139,845 PES Submitted on 9/13/2017

21400000566 STBGPIntersection of Inyo Avenue & Canal School Road Rehabilitation CON $0 $0 $373,076 $373,076

CE Rcvd. 1/30/17 Formal request submitted to move funds to FFY 20/21

$0 $0 $663,952 $663,952

CTIPS #FTIP



Obligation

Federal/State Funds

ObligatedLocalMatch


FTIP

Federal/State Funds


21400000566 STBGPG Street (Maag to Ventanas) pavement Maintenance Pavement Maintenance Program CON $0 $0 $268,300 $268,300 No Update

$0 $0 $268,300 $268,300

CTIPS #FTIP



Obligation

Federal/State Funds

ObligatedLocalMatch


FTIP

Federal/State Funds


21400000566 STBGP

Sperry Avenue improvements; Various locations along Sperry Avenue between Baldwin Rd and American Eagle

Roadway Reconstruction / Overlay CON $0 $0 $249,484 $249,484

NEPA and CEQA Clearance received, RFA for CON anticipated to be submitted March 2018

$0 $0 $249,484 $249,484

CTIPS #FTIP



Obligation

Federal/State Funds

ObligatedLocalMatch


FTIP

Federal/State Funds


21400000567 CMAQAlong Patterson Road from First Street to Claus Road along the south side

Pedestrian Access & ADA Improvements CON $0 $0 $181,906 $181,906

RFA for PE and CE were received last year. Finalizing plans estimated date for RFA CON submittal 3/2018.

21400000567 CMAQAlong Roselle Avenue from Patterson Road to Pocket Avenue along the east side

Pedestrian Access & ADA Improvements CON $0 $0 $330,000 $330,000

RFA for PE and CE were received last year. Finalizing plans estimated date for RFA CON submittal 3/2018.

21400000565 CMAQ

Traffic Management Intersection Improvements at Roselle Avenue and Morrill Road, sidewalk infill to link pedestrian commute access along Morrill Road Traffic Flow Improvements CON $0 $0 $426,470 $426,470

RFA for PE/ROW and CE were received last year. In the process of acquiring ROW and finalizing plans. Estimated date for RFA CON 5/2018.

21400000566 STBGPOakdale Road between Patterson Road and Silver Rock Road Overlay CON $0 $0 $269,496 $269,496

PES to be submitted by 11/15/2017. RFA for PE 11/15/2017.

$0 $0 $1,207,872 $1,207,872

City of Patterson

City of Oakdale

City of Riverbank

City of Newman


October 23, 2017

CTIPS #FTIP



Obligation

Federal/State Funds

ObligatedLocalMatch


FTIP

Federal/State Funds


21400000672 ATPLinwood Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Bike and Pedestrian CON $0 $0 $270,000 $270,000

CEQA clearance anticipated November 2017. RFA anticipated to be submitted January 2017

21400000693 ATP / CMAQChristoffersen Class II Facilities: Christoffersen Pkwy Bike and Pedestrian CON $0 $0 $530,000 $530,000

Awaiting CE approval from Caltrans. RFA anticipated to be submitted January 2017

21400000594 CMAQ N. Denair Avenue and Hawkeye Avenue Signalize CON $0 $0 $329,360 $329,360Awaiting CE approval from Caltrans. RFA anticipated to be submitted March 2018

21400000594 CMAQ W. Main Street and West Avenue Signalize CON $0 $0 $427,513 $427,513Awaiting CE approval from Caltrans. RFA anticipated to be submitted March 2018

21400000594 CMAQ F St and Lander Signalize CON $0 $0 $288,385 $288,385 RFA anticipated to be submitted March 2018

21400000566 STBGP

1. Hawkeye Ave between N. Olive Ave and Daubenberger Rd; 2. Lander Ave between South Ave and E. Glenwood Ave Rehabilitation CON $0 $0 $859,900 $859,900 RFA anticipated to be submitted March 2018

21400000566 STBGP West Main Street from SR 99 to Lander Avenue Rehabilitation CON $450,000 $450,000 No update at this time

$0 $0 $3,155,158 $3,155,158

CTIPS #FTIP



Obligation

Federal/State Funds

ObligatedLocalMatch


FTIP

Federal/State Funds


21400000567CMAQ / STBGP

West Yosemite Pedestrian Improvements: Install curb, gutter and sidewalk along the south side of West Yosemite from Reinway to Western Pedestrian Improvements CON $0 $0 $375,000 $375,000 No Update

$0 $0 $375,000 $375,000

CTIPS #FTIP



Obligation

Federal/State Funds

ObligatedLocalMatch


FTIP

Federal/State Funds


21400000565 CMAQ Claribel Rd/Roselle Ave Intersection Traffic Flow Improvements CON $0 $0 $334,410 $334,410

Currently in negotiations with property owners, R/W certification expected in February of 2018. RFA for construction expected in March of 2018.

21400000594 CMAQ Crows Landing/Grayson Intersection Signalize CON $0 $0 $1,785,000 $1,785,000Expecting NEPA clearance in a month. Planning to submit Construction RFA May 2018

21400000594 CMAQ Carpenter Rd/Whitmore Ave Intersection Traffic Signal CON $0 $0 $2,025,122 $2,025,122Expecting NEPA clearance in a month. Planning to submit Construction RFA May 2018

21400000675 CMAQStaRT Commuter Express Bus Route from Turlock to patterson to Dublin BART Station Commuter Express Bus Route CON $0 $0 $1,975,000 $1,975,000 RFA to be submitted by January 2018

21400000254 CMAQ StaRT Rideshare Program Rideshare Program CON $0 $0 $94,000 $94,000 RFA to be submitted by January 2018

$0 $0 $6,213,532 $6,213,532

City of Waterford

City of Turlock

Stanislaus County


October 23, 2017

CTIPS #FTIP



Obligation

Federal/State Funds

ObligatedLocalMatch


FTIP

Federal/State Funds


21400000479 CMAQ Regional Rideshare Program Regional Rideshare Program CON $0 $0 $210,000 $210,000 PES anticipated to be submitted December 2017

21400000303 STBGP Planning and Monitoring ActivitiesPlanning and Monitoring Activities CON $0 $0 $67,774 $67,774 PES anticipated to be submitted December 2017

11400000014 RIP Planning, Programming and MonitoringPlanning, Programming and Monitoring CON $0 $0 $330,000 $330,000 RFA to be submitted December 2017

$0 $0 $607,774 $607,774

StanCOG


TO: Management and Finance Committee Staff Report Information FROM: Karen Kincy, Senior Financial Services Specialist Lydia Worden, Financial Services Specialist


SUBJECT: Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Received

Background The FY 2017/18 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) estimate, as issued by the County Auditor-Controller, is $20,900,000. The attached schedule shows the status of the LTF receipts as of October, 2017. Discussion LTF funds are received monthly from the State Board of Equalization. The twelve months of the fiscal year are listed across the top of the attached schedule. Please note that StanCOG takes the July LTF deposit and accrues it back to June of the previous fiscal year. Therefore, the first LTF deposit for the new fiscal year begins with the month of August. There are two tables presented in the attached LTF schedule. The first table presents ten years of history, along with the current fiscal year’s receipts to date. The second table compares the current year’s receipts to that of the previous fiscal year on a month-by-month basis. As shown in the attached table, as of October 2017, StanCOG has received $5,900,426 of LTF for FY 2017/18 versus $5,615,731 for FY 2016/17 resulting in an increase of $284,695. Should you have any questions regarding this staff report, please contact Karen Kincy, Senior Financial Services Specialist, at 209-525-4640 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Attachment: 1. Local Transportation Funds (LTF) Received

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 7C

Fiscal Year LTF Estimate

* Advance

Aug

** Clean-up

Sept

*Advance

Oct

* Advance

Nov

** Clean-up

Dec

* Advance

Jan

* Advance

Feb

** Clean-up

Mar

* Advance

Apr

* Advance

May

** Clean-up

June

* Advance

July

Total LTF

Received

Balance of

LTF Estimate

2007/08 $16,000,000 1,701,600 1,707,927 1,361,300 1,815,000 1,356,688 1,303,000 1,737,300 1,295,171 1,136,700 1,515,600 1,344,007 1,264,500 $17,538,793 1,538,793

2008/09 $15,000,000 1,686,000 1,711,212 1,268,200 1,690,900 1,166,449 1,215,500 1,333,000 1,452,324 967,200 1,289,600 1,273,262 1,076,600 $16,130,248 1,130,248

2009/10 $13,500,000 1,435,400 1,009,849 998,400 1,131,500 1,659,195 1,089,900 1,453,200 1,143,321 889,400 1,299,800 1,266,391 929,600 $14,305,957 805,957

2010/11 $13,000,000 1,239,400 1,634,607 998,300 1,331,100 1,776,631 1,101,900 1,469,200 1,251,144 922,200 1,352,500 1,703,725 1,079,000 $15,859,708 2,859,708

2011/12 $14,300,000 1,438,700 1,662,889 1,080,700 1,440,900 1,801,506 1,150,800 1,534,400 1,672,862 1,079,300 1,439,100 1,680,057 1,187,000 $17,168,215 2,868,215

2012/13 $16,700,000 1,582,600 1,826,792 1,235,600 1,647,400 1,735,608 1,255,800 1,674,400 1,462,514 1,139,000 1,518,600 1,860,351 1,312,700 $18,251,366 1,551,366

2013/14 $18,500,000 1,750,300 1,784,630 1,335,900 1,781,200 1,759,828 1,297,900 1,703,400 1,867,175 1,224,600 1,632,800 1,866,026 1,374,200 $19,377,959 877,959

2014/15 $19,500,000 1,832,300 1,785,244 1,388,600 1,851,500 1,854,438 1,404,300 1,872,400 1,734,177 1,276,100 1,701,400 1,850,954 1,394,900 $19,946,313 446,313

2015/16 $19,900,000 1,859,900 1,947,287 1,442,600 1,923,400 1,872,955 1,462,500 1,950,000 1,795,810 1,316,100 1,754,800 1,899,035 1,436,200 $20,660,587 760,587

2016/17 $20,400,000 1,915,000 2,236,631 1,464,100 1,952,100 2,078,819 1,480,500 1,974,000 2,413,213 1,464,800 1,953,000 1,684,942 1,431,600 $22,048,705 (1,648,705)

2017/18 $20,900,000 1,908,800 2,463,826 1,527,800 $5,900,426 14,999,574

Total 18,350,000 19,770,894 14,101,500 16,565,000 17,062,119 12,762,100 16,701,300 16,087,712 11,415,400 15,457,200 16,428,751 12,486,300 181,287,849

Fiscal Year Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July YTD LTF

2016/17 $20,400,000 1,915,000 2,236,631 1,464,100 $5,615,731

2017/18 $20,900,000 1,908,800 2,463,826 1,527,800 $5,900,426

Difference 500,000 (6,200) 227,195 63,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $284,695

* Using the prior year's quarterly tax allocation as a starting point, the Board of Equalization (BOE) first eliminates nonrecurring transactions such as fund transfers, audit payments and refunds. Then BOE

adjusts for growth and the state tax in order to establish the estimated base amount. BOE distributes 90 percent of the base amount to each local jurisdiction in three monthly installments (advances) prior

to the final computation of the quarter's actual receipts. BOE withholds ten percent as a reserve against unexpected occurrences that can affect tax collections (for example, earthquake, fire, or other

natural disaster) or distributions of revenue such as unusually large refunds or negative fund transfers. The first and second advances each represent 30 percent of the 90 percent distribution, while the

third advance represents 40 percent.

** One advance payment is made each month, and the quarterly reconciliation and payment (cleanup) is distributed in conjunction with the first advance for the subsequent quarter

V:\STANCOG\TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA)\TDA Deposits 16-17\Total LTF as of Aug 2017

FY 2016/17 LTF RECEIVED COMPARED TO FY 2015/16 LTF RECEIVED

LTF SALES TAX RECEIVED BY FISCAL YEAR


LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS (LTF) RECEIVED

FY 2007/08 - FY 2017/18

Page 1 of 5

POLICY BOARD MEETING

StanCOG Board Room 1111 I Street, Suite 308

Modesto, CA

Minutes of September 20, 2017 (Wednesday) 6:00 pm

PRESENT: Chair Bill Zoslocki, Ted Brandvold, Jenny Kenoyer (City of Modesto); Vito Chiesa, Jim DeMartini, Terry Withrow (Stanislaus County); Mike Kline (City of Ceres); Jeramy Young (City of Hughson); Nick Candea (City of Newman); Tom Dunlop (City of Oakdale); Deborah Novelli (City of Patterson); Richard O’Brien (City of Riverbank); Gary Soiseth (arrived during Item 4) (City of Turlock); Mike Van Winkle (City of Waterford)

ALSO PRESENT: Tom Dumas (Caltrans, District 10); Monica Streeter (Neumiller and

Beardslee); Arthur Chen, Elisabeth Hahn, Stephen Hanamaikai, Karen Kincy, Cindy Malekos, Isael Ojeda, Rosa Park, Lakshmi Rajagopalan, Debbie Trujillo (StanCOG); Veronica Tobar (Catholic Charities-Environmental Justice Program); Scott Calkins, Julie Brughelli (Members of the Public); Lisa Donahue (Dibs); Phil McGuire (McGuireManagement Consultancy); Tiffani Fink (Paratransit, Inc.); Kendall Flint (RGS).

1. CALL TO ORDER

Chair Bill Zoslocki called the meeting to order at 6:01 pm.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Scott Calkins inquired about ACE. Member Chiesa indicated that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) had been released, and Member Richard O’Brien said that he would be attending the ACE Board meetings each month on behalf of the Policy Board. Veronica Tobar thanked Kendall Flint for working with her regarding setting up an RTP/SCS workshop.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR

A. Motion to Approve Policy Board Minutes of 6/21/17

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 7D

Page 2 of 5

B. Motion to Accept Designation of One Representative from each Member Agency for the Measure L Citizens Oversight Committee

C. Motion to Adopt by Resolution 17-01 Amendment 6 to the 2017 Federal

Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) – Type 2 & 3 Formal Amendment

*By Motion (Member Jenny Kenoyer/Member Tom Dunlop), and a unanimous vote, the Policy Board approved the Consent Calendar.

6. PRESENTATION

A. Bike to Work Month 2017 Results

Lisa Donahue provided a presentation on the events that took place in the jurisdictions for Bike to Work Month and the overall results of the activities.


A. Motion to Adopt by Resolution 17-02 the FFY 2015-2017 FTA 5310 Regional Project Priority List

Stephen Hanamaikai provided an overview of the FTA Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program. He said that StanCOG had reviewed and evaluated two project applications for vehicle and equipment purchases for this grant cycle, and provided project and funding request information. He noted that the Catholic Charities funding request was for $365,206 and not $265,206 as indicated in the staff report.

*By Motion (Member Richard O’Brien/Member Tom Dunlop), and a unanimous vote, the Policy Board adopted by Resolution 17-02 the FFY 2015-2017 FTA 5310 Regional Project Priority List. B. Motion to Adopt by Resolution 17-03 the FY 2017/18 Budget and Overall Work

Program (OWP) Amendment 1 Karen Kincy provided a summary of the amendment to the budget which resulted in a net reduction of $307 to the budget.

*By Motion (Member Richard O’Brien/Member Tom Dunlop), and a unanimous vote, the Policy Board adopted by Resolution 17-03 the FY 2017/18 Budget and OWP Amendment 1. C. Motion to Adopt Resolution 17-04 to Change the Designation of the Consolidated

Transportation Services Agency (CTSA); and Adopt Resolution 17-05 to Terminate Current Agreement with Paratransit, Inc. and Authorize the Executive Director to Enter into Contract with a Newly Designated Agency

Rosa Park provided background information on the implementation of the CTSA by the Policy Board in 2010. She indicated that, with the passage of Measure L and the amount of local funding available to the CTSA/MOVE increasing, a locally-based organization was the more appropriate structure. She addressed some items that were raised in a letter to Policy Board members from Tiffani Fink, that was brought to her attention. Phil McGuire provided comments on the transition process. Tiffani Fink had comments about the short timeline involved in the transition. There was a discussion on the benefits and the steps involved in moving in a new direction, while also ensuring there was no interruption in

Page 3 of 5

service to the community. Members Vito Chiesa and Terry Withrow offered their appreciation to Paratransit for the work it had done as the CTSA for Stanislaus County. *By Motion (Member Richard O’Brien/Member Jenny Kenoyer), and a unanimous vote, the Policy Board adopted Resolution 17-04 to rescind the CTSA designation from Innovative Pardigm/Paratransit, Inc. effective October 31, 2017; and designate MOVE Stanislaus as the CTSA for the Stanislaus County Region effective November 1, 2017.

*By Motion (Member Richard O’Brien/Member Mike Van Winkle), and a unanimous vote, the Policy Board adopted Resolution 17-05 to terminate the Professional Services Agreement with Paratransit, Inc. for the operation of the CTSA effective October 31, 2017 and authorize the Executive Director to send a termination notice; and authorized the Executive Director to execute a three-year contract with MOVE Stanislaus for the operation of the Stanislaus Region’s CTSA effective November 1, 2017, in an amount not to exceed $750,000 in Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds for year 1, an amount not to exceed $800,000 for year 2, and an amount not to exceed the annual amount claimed per Article 4.5 PUC 99233.7 of the TDA. D. Motion to Approve Recommended Projects for the 2018 Regional Transportation

Improvement Program (RTIP) Lakshmi Rajagopalan explained that the newly-adopted 2018 STIP Estimate included $17 million in funding for Stanislaus County. She reminded members that in 2016 the Estimate had been reduced by the State which delayed funding for the McHenry Avenue Widening and State Route 132 West Freeway/Expressway projects. She said that based on the criteria, those two projects were suggested for funding with the 2018 STIP. Scott Calkins had questions about the SR 132 project in the RTIP. Rosa Park answered that the draft RTIP would be available for a public review and comment period from October 1-30, 2017.

*By Motion (Member Vito Chiesa/Member Jenny Kenoyer), and a unanimous vote, the Policy Board approved the recommended two projects (McHenry Avenue Widening and State Route 132 West Freeway/Expressway) for the 2018 RTIP. E. Motion to Approve the Demographic Forecast; Land Use Scenario Themes; Goals and

Objectives, and Performance Measures for Development of the 2018 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Elisabeth Hahn provided an overview of the elements that would be used in the development of the 2018 RTP/SCS that the Valley Vision Stanislaus (VVS) Steering Committee had been reviewing and discussing at their meetings.

*By Motion (Member Richard O’Brien/Member Tom Dunlop), and a unanimous vote, the Policy Board approved the Demographic Forecast; Land Use Scenario Themes; Goals and Objectives, and Performance Measures for Development of the 2018 RTP/SCS. F. Motion to Recommend the Proposed Amendment Language to the Transportation

Development (TDA) be Sent to Senator Anthony Cannella’s Office for Consideration Stephen Hanamaikai provided an overview of the discussions that had been taking place regarding the challenges transit operators were having in meeting the current fare box ratio requirements, and a possible amendment to the TDA for the Stanislaus region. He said proposed language for an amendment was included in the staff report that staff and the transit operators had developed. Member Mike Kline suggested that broader

Page 4 of 5

language be used. *By Motion (Member Richard O’Brien/Member Tom Dunlop), and a 13-0-1 vote (with Mike Kline abstaining), the Policy Board recommended the proposed amendment language to the TDA be sent to Senator Anthony Cannella’s office for consideration.

G. State Route (SR) 132 West Cooperative Agreement with the City of Modesto

Monica Streeter reviewed the agreement that had been developed with the City of Modesto for the Plans, Specifications and Estimates Stage of Phase 1 of the State Route 132 Project with the City of Modesto. There was a discussion about the terms included in the agreement. Julie Brughelli cited health issues of residents near the project. Scott Calkins expressed concerns about the project.

*By Motion (Member Tom Dunlop/Member Mike Van Winkle), and a unanimous vote, the Policy Board approved the SR 132 West Cooperative Agreement with the City of Modesto.

8. INFORMATION ITEMS The following items were provided for information only A. Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) Overview

B. Measure L Funds Received

C. 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Monthly Project Status

Report FFY 2016/17

D. Executive Committee Minutes of 8/7/17 and 9/11/17

E. Management and Finance Committee Minutes of 8/2/17 and 9/6/17

F. Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Minutes of 8/2/17 and 9/6/17

G. Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) Minutes of 8/1/17 and 9/5/17

H. Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Minutes of 8/2/17

I. Valley Vision Stanislaus (VVS) Steering Committee Minutes of 7/20/17, 8/1/17 and

9/5/17

9. CALTRANS REPORT Tom Dumas provided copies of the latest issue of the Milemarker. He also said that Planning grants were due October 20th.

10. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT – NONE

11. MEMBER REPORTS Member Richard O'Brien reported that the CEO of Lyft said at the League of California Cities Conference that he attended that a high amount of electric self-driving vehicles would be in use by 2025. .

12. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bill Zoslocki adjourned the meeting at 8:05 pm.

Next Regularlv Scheduled Poliq' Board Meeting: October 11, 2017 (Wednesday) @ 6:00pm StanCOG Boanl Room 1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA 95354


Page 5 of5

Page 1 of 2

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING

StanCOG Board Room 1111 I Street, Suite 308

Modesto, CA

Minutes of September 11, 2017 (Monday) 12:00 pm

PRESENT: Chair Bill Zoslocki (City of Modesto), Vice-Chair Gary Soiseth (City of Turlock); Vito Chiesa, Terry Withrow (Stanislaus County)

ALSO PRESENT: Karen Kincy, Cindy Malekos, Rosa Park (StanCOG); Monica Streeter

(Neumiller and Beardslee); Jenny Kenoyer, Phil McGuire

1. CALL TO ORDER

Chair Bill Zoslocki called the meeting to order at 12:11 pm.

2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS – NONE

4. CONSENT CALENDAR

A. Motion to Approve Executive Committee Meeting Minutes of 8/7/17

B. Motion to Re-Appoint Member to Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)

C. Motion to Appoint Member to Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)

*By Motion (Member Terry Withrow/Member Vito Chiesa), and a unanimous vote, the Executive Committee approved the Consent Calendar.


A. 2018 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Funding

Rosa Park explained that the newly-adopted 2018 STIP Estimate included $17 million in funding for Stanislaus County. She reminded members that in 2016 the Estimate had been reduced by the State which delayed funding for the McHenry Avenue Widening and State Route 132 West Freeway/Expressway projects. She said that based on the criteria, those two

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 7E

projects were suggested for funding with the 2018 STIP. There was support for these two projects to be included.

B. Transportation Development Act (TDA) Amendment Update Rosa Park updated the committee on discussions regarding the current fare box ratio requirements and a possible amendment to the TDA for the Stanislaus region. She said a meeting was held with staff from Senator Anthony Cannella' s office, and that proposed language for an amendment was included in the staff report that staff and the transit operators had developed. There was consensus to bring this issue on to the Policy Board.

C. FY 2017/18 Budget and Overall Wor k Program (OWP) Amendment 1

D. Consolidated Transpo·rtation Services Agency (CTSA) Contract

E. State Route 132 West PS&E Cooperative Agreement with the City of Modesto

F. Draft September Policy Board Agenda Review

6. INFORMATION ITEMS

A. Measure L Funds Received

7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT- NONE

8. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bill Zoslocki adjourned the meeting at 1 :26 pm.

Next Regularly Scheduled Executive Committee Meeting: October 2, 2017 (Monday) @ 12:00 pm StanCOG Board Room 1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA 95354


Page 2 of2

Documents

11/01/2017 MANAGEMENT AND FINANCE …...2017/11/01 · B. 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Monthly Project Status Report FFY 2016/17 C. Local Transportation