CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) MAY 6, 2015… · 2015. 5. 1. · MAY 6, 2015•WEDNESDAY•6:00 PM STANCOG BOARD ROOM 1111 I STREET, SUITE 308 MODESTO,CA Committee Agendas and

Sta»i s luu s C o u "rl

City of Ceres • City of Hugllso11 • City of Modesto • City of Newma11 • City of Oakdale • City of Patterso11 Ci(y of Riverba11k • Ci(l' of Turlock • City of Watelforrl • County of Stanislaus

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) MAY 6, 2015•WEDNESDAY•6:00 PM

STANCOG BOARD ROOM 1111 I STREET, SUITE 308

MODESTO,CA

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 !Ill "I" Street, Suite 308, Modesto, CA during normal business hours. The documents are also available on StanCOG's website at www.stancog.org/committees.shtm.

Materials related to an item on U1is Agenda submilted 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 U1e 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, Califomia 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 Conmlittee. Any member of the public wishing to address the Committee during the "Public Comment" period will be lin1ited to 5 minutes unless the Chair of the Committee grants a longer period oftime. At a Special Meeting, members of the public may address the Board on any item on the Agenda at the time U1e item is considered by the Board.

Public Participation on a Matter on the Agenda: Please step to the podium at the time U1e agenda item is announced by the Chairperson. Tn 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 U1e Ralph M. Brown Act (California Govemment 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 Malelcos at (209) 525-4600 during regular business hours at least 72 hours prior to the time of the meeting so that Stan COG can provide an interpreter.

Aviso con Respecto a Personas que no Hablan elldioma de Ingles: Las reuni6nes del los Comites del Consejo de Gobiernos de Stanislaus son conducidas en Ingles y traducciones a otros idiomas no son disponibles. Cualquier persona que desea dirigirse al Comite se le aconseja que traiga su propio interprete o llame a Cindy Malekos al (209) 525-4600 durante horas de oficina regulares o a lo menos 72 horas antes de Ia reuni6n del Consejo de Gobiernos de Stanislaus, para proporcionarle con un interprete.

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.

4. CONSENT CALENDAR

A. Motion to Approve Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Minutes of 4/1/15

5. PRESENTATION

A. Consolidated Transportation Services Agency Annual Report

6. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS

A. Motion to Recommend Policy Board Adopt by Resolution an Amendment to the FFY 2014/15- FFY 2015-16 Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) Competitive Project Listing

B. Motion to Recommend Policy Board Adopt by Resolution the 2016 and 2018 Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Contribution

C. Motion to Recommend Policy Board Adopt by Resolution the 2015 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 2 Regional Project Selection Process

D. Motion to Recommend Policy Board Approve the Amendment to the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Bylaws

7. INFORMATIONITEMS The following items are for information only.

A. Commute Connection Monthly Report - March 2015

B. StanCOG E-Newsletter

C. Policy Board Minutes of 3/18/15

D. Executive Committee Minutes of 3/9/ 15

E. Management and Finance Committee Minutes of 3/5/15

8. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT

9. MEMBER REPORTS

10. ADJOURNMENT

Next Regularly Scheduled CAC Meeting: June 3, 2015 (Wednesday) @ 6:00 P.m StanCOG Board Room 1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA 95354

CONSENT

CALENDAR

City of Ceres • City of Hughson • City of Modesto • City of Newman • City of Oakdale • City of Patterson City of Riverbank • City of Turlock • City of Waterford • County of Stanislaus

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) MEETING StanCOG Board Room

MEMBERS PRESENT:

ALSO PRESENT:

1. CALL TO ORDER

1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA

Minutes of April1, 2015 (Wednesday) 6:00pm

Constance Anderson, Elizabeth Claes, Chris Esther, Terhesa Gamboa, Jeffrey Goschen, Jeremy Rocha

Carla Alviso, Jeanette Fabela, Elisabeth Hahn, Cindy Malekos, Isael Ojeda, Rosa Park, Regina Valentine, (StanCOG); Anna Olide (ACE); Lisa Donahue (Commute Connection); Sue Stevens, Lana Moore (Members of the Public)

Chair Terhesa Gamboa called the meeting to order at 6:03pm.

2. ROLLCALL

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS Anna Olide stated that she was interested in making a presentation about ACE at the next CAC meeting to create awareness for the ACE forward expansion and to educate attendees on the agency.

4. CONSENT CALENDAR

A. Motion to Approve Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Minutes of 3/4/15 *By Motion (Member Elizabeth Claes/Member Jeffrey Goschen), and a unanimous vote, the Citizens Advisory Committee approved the Consent Calendar.

5. PRESENTATION

A. Bike to Work Month- May 2015 Lisa Donahue provided a presentation on the upcoming Bike to Work Month that takes place in May. She stated that this year it would be held during the whole month of May and not just one week as in previous years, and that walking would be included also. She gave an overview ofthe scheduled activities, prizes to be awarded and provided flyers. She outlined what makes a successful event and reviewed resource information to help in planning an event. She also mentioned that information was available online at www.valleybikecommute.com. A discussion followed where the members gave their feedback and had their questions answered.

Page 1 of 3

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 4A


A. Motion to Recommend Policy Board Adopt by Resolution the Project Selection for Remaining Balance of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) FFY 2016/17 and 2017/18 Funding Jeanette Fabela explained the methodology used in the project selection, and clarified the guidelines. She also reviewed the list of projects that were selected for funding. A brief discussion followed.

* By Motion (Member Elizabeth Claes/Member Jeffrey Goschen), and a unanimous vote, the Citizens Advisory Committee recommended that the Policy Board adopt by Resolution the Project Selection for Remaining Balance of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) FFY 2016117 and 2017/18 Funding.

B. 2015 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 2 State Call for Projects Jeanette Fabela stated that on March 261

h the State initiated the 2015 ATP call for projects which was to end on June 151

• She said there was $120 million available and reviewed the breakdown of how the funds would be distributed. She said sample applications of successful 2014 ATP funded projects were available on the Cal trans website and that Caltrans District 10 would be hosting an all day workshop in Stockton on April 14th. A discussion followed and members' questions were answered.

C. Communications and Community Outreach Update Rosa Park stated that a contract had been authorized with Regional Government Services/Flint Strategies to help with public outreach regarding the Regional Transportation Program (R TP) list of priority projects. She explained the two-step outreach plan and stated the meetings with City Managers and staff would start in April.

D. Update to CAC Bylaws Cindy Malekos stated that it was proposed after review by StanCOG legal counsel and the Policy Board, that the Citizens Advisory Committee bylaws be updated. She gave an overview of the recommended updates and asked the CAC members for their feedback. She said that the item would be on the CAC May 6th agenda as a motion, and then would go to the Policy Board for approval at their May 20th meeting. A discussion followed and members' questions were answered.

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

A. Commute Connection Monthly Report- February 2015

B. 2015 Sacramento Valley Voice

C. Policy Board Minutes of 2/18/15

D. Executive Committee Minutes of 12/8/14


Page 2 of 3

F. Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SST A C) Minutes of 2/3/15

8. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Rosa Park introduced two new Stan COG staff members, Senior Planner Elisabeth Hahn, and Assistant Planner Isael Ojeda. She also said that StanCOG would soon be on social media to help with public outreach.

9. MEMBER REPORTS- None

10. ADJOURNMENT Chair Terhesa Gamboa adjourned the meeting at 6:35pm.

Next Regularly Scheduled Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting: May 6, 2015 (Wednesday) @ 6:00 pm StanCOG Board Room 1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA 95354

Minutes Prepared By:

Page 3 of 3

==::::::._... tanCOG Sl. aui s ltllfS Courtci 0( Governments

PRESENTATION

1111 I Street, Suite 308 ● Modesto, CA 95354 ● 209.525.4600 ● Fax 209.558.7833 ● www.stancog.org

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

TO: Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Staff Report Presentation THROUGH: Carlos P. Yamzon, Executive Director

FROM: Rosa De León Park, Deputy Executive Director Regina Valentine, Associate Planner

DATE: April 28, 2015

SUBJECT: Consolidated Transportation Services Agency Annual Report

Background In July 2010, the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) established the Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) in response to an “unmet transit need,” which the StanCOG Policy Board found as “reasonable to meet” during the FY 2009/10 Unmet Transit Needs Assessment, for specialized transportation services to seniors and the disabled communities. The CTSA’s role is to coordinate with and offer support to the region’s existing public transit and social service agencies in an effort to meet the transit needs of Stanislaus County’s senior and disabled communities. The CTSA currently offers two programs to the Stanislaus region, travel training and the BRIDGES Volunteer Driver Program. Additionally, the CTSA continually conducts outreach to the County's senior and disabled communities to educate these residents on transportation options in the region. Discussion The CTSA will present an Annual Report to the StanCOG Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), Social Service Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC), Management and Finance Committee (MFC), and Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) during the May 2015 meetings. Should you have further questions regarding this staff report, please contact Regina Valentine at 209-525-4644 or via e-mail at [email protected].

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 5A

DISCUSSION &

ACTION ITEMS



TO: Management & Finance Committee Staff Report Motion THROUGH: Carlos P. Yamzon, Executive Director

FROM: Rosa Park, Deputy Executive Director Jeanette Fabela, Senior Planner


SUBJECT: Amendment to the FFY 2014/15-FFY 2015/16 Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) Competitive Project Listing

Recommendation By Motion: Recommend that the Policy Board adopt by Resolution:

1) an amendment to the City of Modesto FFY 2015/16 “New Traffic Signals 2015” CMAQ competitive project and apportion $397,013 in CMAQ funds to a new traffic signal at “McHenry Avenue at Grecian Avenue” in FFY 2015/16; and

2) apportion an additional $200,564 in CMAQ funds to the City of Turlock “W. Main/Tegner Intersection Improvements” project in 2015/16.

Background

On April 18, 2012, per Resolution 11-65, the Policy Board adopted a list of CMAQ competitive projects for FFY 2014/15 and FFY 2015/16 funding as identified in Attachment #1. The CMAQ Program provides funding for transportation projects or programs that will reduce transportation-related emissions. The “Competitive” CMAQ projects are solely selected based on Cost Effectiveness $/lb/day. The cost-effectiveness ($/lb/day) is calculated using the formulas in the May 2005 and the March 2010 Air Resource Board Document handbook titled “Methods to Find the Cost-Effectiveness of Funding Air Quality Projects; For evaluating Motor Vehicle Registration Fee Projects and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Projects”. One of the projects approved by the Policy Board on April 18, 2012, per Resolution 11-65, was the City of Modesto’s “New Traffic Signals 2015” project for $597,577 in CMAQ competitive funds. Since April of 2012, the scope for this project has changed.

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 6A


Discussion The scope for the City of Modesto’s “New Traffic Signals 2015” project approved on April 18, 2012 was to construct a new traffic signal at the following two intersections in the City of Modesto: (1) Blue Gum Avenue at Rosemore Avenue and (2) McHenry Avenue at Grecian Avenue. However, due to the addition of new buildings on the West Modesto Junior College (MJC) Campus, representatives from MJC approached the City of Modesto regarding the need for a new traffic signal located at the intersection of Blue Gum Avenue at Prichard Avenue. The distance between the intersections of “Blue Gum Avenue at Rosemore Avenue” and “Blue Gum Avenue at Prichard Avenue” is approximately 640 feet, one block away. On September 2, 2014 the Modesto City Council approved the plans and specifications for MJC to construct a new traffic signal located at the intersection of Blue Gum Avenue at Prichard Avenue Avenue (See Attachment #2 Modesto City Council Resolution No. 2014-327). MJC will be responsible for the costs associated with the construction of this new traffic signal so the City of Modesto. MJC will be responsible for the costs associated with the construction of this new traffic signal so the City of Modesto will not need CMAQ funding for this project. StanCOG staff is recommending approval of the funding for the “McHenry Avenue at Grecian Avenue” traffic signal project. The City of Modesto is requesting the opportunity to retain $397,013 of the $597,577 in CMAQ funding for this project. This amount is based on the engineer’s estimate completed when the CMAQ application was submitted. The $200,564 remaining CMAQ balance from the City of Modesto’s “New Traffic Signals 2015” project, per the approved methodology, is to go to the next cost-effective project on the CMAQ Competitive FFY 2014 -2016 list which is the City of Turlock’s “W. Main/Tegner Intersection Improvements” project. The City of Turlock requested $1.2 million for this project and received $431,973 during the FFY 2014 -2016 call for projects as this was the only amount available due to this project being at the cut-off. Staff is recommending that an additional $200,564 be apportioned to the “W. Main/Tegner Intersection Improvements” project which would be the remaining balance from the City of Modesto’s “New Traffic Signals 2015” project. Attachment #4 is the list of all the projects that requested CMAQ funding in FFY 2014 -2016 under the competitive call for projects. All of the projects at the cost-effectiveness of $64.45 or above were fully funded. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Jeanette Fabela, at 209.525.4645 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Attachment(s):

1. Stanislaus Council of Governments Selected Congestion Mitigation and Air

Quality (CMAQ) Competitive Projects for FFY 2014/15 and 2015/16.

2. Modesto City Council Resolution No. 2014-327

3. Detailed Engineers Estimate for 1) Blue Gum Avenue at Rosemore Avenue and (2) McHenry Avenue at Grecian Avenue

4. StanCOG CMAQ List of Competitive Projects Submitted Requesting Funding in

FFY 2014/15 and 2015/16.

5. StanCOG Draft Resolution


Attachment #1: StanCOG FFY 2014-2016 CMAQ Selected Competitive Projects List 1

Stanislaus Council of Governments

Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) Selected Competitive Projects for

FFY 2014/15 and 2015/16

Cost-Effectiveness $/lb Project Agency

Federal Funds Requested FFY

14/15


15/16

$2.38 Synchronize Traffic Signals Downtown 2015 Modesto $400,000 $0

$2.48 Traffic Signal Synchronization Improvements Ceres $65,512 $270,813

$2.49 Replace '90 bus (01 engine) use TC Modesto $420,000 $0

$2.72 New Traffic Signals 2015 Modesto $85,000 $590,000

$8.37

Signal @ Roselle & Patterson & Pedestrian Crossing Over RR Tracks Riverbank $210,000 $440,000

$11.53 Alternative Fuel/Diesel Motor Grader - Purchase

Stanislaus County $110,000 $0

$15.33

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Signal Synchronization Phase II Ceres $107,653 $350,844

$15.95 Purchase 10 CNG Pickups Turlock $25,000 $250,000

$16.40

Bike/Pedestrian Path Mitchell Road TID: Fowler Rd to Whitmore Ave Ceres $266,564 $0

$22.59

Bike/Pedestrian Path Mitchell Road TID: Roeding Rd to Service Rd Ceres $56,305 $280,375

$25.68 Crows Landing Road at Grayson Road Traffic Signalization


$26.15 Christoffersen/Fosberg Intersection Improvements Turlock $45,455 $454,545

$28.91 Alternative Fuel/Diesel Loader Stanislaus

County $110,000 $0

Attachment #1: StanCOG FFY 2014-2016 CMAQ Selected Competitive Projects List 2

$41.19 Geer Rd at Whitmore Ave Traffic Signalization


$43.51 Geer Rd at Santa Fe Ave. Traffic Signalization


$51.57 Traffic Signal Upgrades 2015 Modesto $100,000 $512,000

$64.45 Walnut/Taylor Intersection Improvements Turlock $90,910 $909,090

$83.44 W. Main/Tegner Intersection Improvements Turlock $109,091 $322,882

All of the projects at the cost-effectiveness of $64.45 or above have been selected to be fully funded. The City of Turlock has accepted the remaining CMAQ competitive balance of $431,973 towards their “W. Main/Tegner Intersection Improvements”.

I ' I II

MODESTO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2014-327

RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS BY THE YOSEMITE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT- MODESTO JUNIOR COLLEGE (MJC) TO CONSTRUCT A TRAFFIC SIGNAL ON BLUE GUM AVENUE AT PRICHARD A VENUE IN THE CITY OF MODESTO

WHEREAS, MJC has requested the City of Modesto approve the plans and

specifications, and be allowed to construct a traffic signal on Blue Gum A venue at

Prichard A venue, and

WHEREAS, the signal installation at the existing intersection will provide a better

and safer vehicle access to and from the West MJ C campus, and

WHEREAS, the signal will provide a better and safer crossing for pedestrians

crossing Blue Gum A venue at Prichard A venue, and

WHEREAS, the signal installation is decided based upon review of traffic delay.

pedestrian activity, the collision history and traffic signal warrant analysis at the

intersection, and

WHEREAS, the traffic signal project is exempt from environmental review under

the Categorical Exemption for existing facilities in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301

Class 1 (c) of the CEQA/NEP A requirements, and

WHEREAS, MJC has indicated they will pay for construction of the traffic signal

and other associated improvements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council oftheCityofModesto

that it hereby approves the proposal by MJC to construct a new traffic signal on Blue

Gum Avenue at Prichard Avenue in Modesto.

09/0212014/PW/JBameslltem 14 2014-327

The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of

the City ofModesto held on the 2nd day of September, 2014, by Councilmember Lopez,

who moved its adoption, which motion being duly seconded by Councilmember

Madrigal, was upon roll call carried and the resolution adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

(SEAL)

Councilmembers: Gunderson, Kenoyer, Lopez, Madrigal, Zoslocki, Mayor Marsh

Councilmembers: None

Councilmembers: Cogdill

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

09/02120 14/PWIJBameslltem 14 2 2014-327

Agency:

Project Name:

Project Location:

Date of Estimate:

Prepared by:

Item No. Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total

1 Preliminary Engineering, Staff Time 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00

$65,000.00


1 Clearing, Grubbing, and Mobilization 1 LS 26,500.00$ 26,500.00$

2

Traffic Control, Barricades, and Other Related Fees,

Including COZEEP1 LS 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$

3 Potholing and Utility Coordination 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$

4 State Furnished 2070 Controller and 332 Cabinet 1 LS 15,500.00$ 15,500.00$

5 State Furnished Battery Back-up System 1 LS 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$

6 State Furnished Type III-CF Service 1 LS 5,500.00$ 5,500.00$

7 Furnish and Install EVP Dual Channel, Bi-Directional 1 LS 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$

8 Furnish and Install 3 Street Name Signs 3 EA 500.00$ 1,500.00$

9 Furnish and Install R3-4 24"x24" sign 1 EA 250.00$ 250.00$

10 Furnish and Install new Detector Loops, complete in place 42 EA 500.00$ 21,000.00$

11 Furnish and Install new Type A Detector handholes 8 EA 425.00$ 3,400.00$

12 Install new 26-4-100 Signal Standard with 45' Mast Arm 1 EA 14,430.00$ 14,430.00$

13 Furnish and Install new 1-A (10' height) 5 EA 2,000.00$ 10,000.00$

14 Furnish and Install new 1-B (17' height) 1 EA 2,550.00$ 2,550.00$

15 Furnish and Install new 1-B (7' height) 1 EA 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$



18 Install new LED Luminaires 3 EA 750.00$ 2,250.00$

19 Install new Signal Indications on Mast Arm 5 EA 715.00$ 3,575.00$

20 Install new Signal Indications Pole Mount 10 EA 750.00$ 7,500.00$

21 Install new Pedestrian Indications 8 EA 500.00$ 4,000.00$

22 Install new APS Push Buttons 6 EA 750.00$ 4,500.00$

23 Install new Pull Boxes 19 EA 775.00$ 14,725.00$

24 Install New 2" Conduit for DLC's 1035 LF 48.00$ 49,680.00$

25 Install New 2"Conduit for Signals 40 LF 48.00$ 1,920.00$

26 Install new 3" Conduit for Signal 100 LF 48.00$ 4,800.00$

27 Install New 4" Conduit for Signal 410 LF 48.00$ 19,680.00$

$306,760.00

$30,676.00

$46,014.00

$383,450.00

$448,450.00

$397,013

$51,437

Total CMAQ Funds:

Other Federal/Loal Funds:

At the intersections of: Mchnery Avenue and Grecian Avenue

June 16, 2014

Sandeep Sandhu and Mark Murphy

Preliminary Engineering SUBTOTAL:

15% Construction Admin

Construction Total:

Total Cost (PE and CON):

10% Contingency

Preliminary Engineering

Construction

Construction SUBTOTAL:

McHenry Avenue at Grecian Avenue:

Detailed Engineer's EstimateFor Construction Items Only

City of Modesto

New Traffic Signals - 2015

Agency:

Project Name:

Project Location:

Date of Estimate:

Prepared by:


1 Preliminary Engineering, Staff Time 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00

$20,000.00


1 Clearing, Grubbing, and Mobilization 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$

2 Traffic Control, Barricades, and Other Related Fees 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$

3 Potholing and Utility Coordination 1 LS 500.00$ 500.00$

4 Furnish and Install new 170 Controller 1 LS 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$

5 Furnish and Install new 332 Controller Cabinet 1 LS 1,200.00$ 1,200.00$

6 Furnish and Isntall Type III-AF Service 1 LS 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$

7 Furnish and Install EVP Dual Channel, Bi-Directional 1 LS 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$

8 Furnish and Install 4 Street Name Signs 4 EA 250.00$ 1,000.00$

9 Furnish and Install R3-4 24"x24" sign 1 EA 100.00$ 100.00$

10 Furnish and Install FLIR System 1 LS 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$

11 Installation and Removal of Striping 1 LS 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$

12

13 Furnish and Install new 1-A and Foundation 4 EA 2,500.00$ 10,000.00$

14 Furnish and Install new 19-4-100, 30' M.A and Foundation 1 EA 13,000.00$ 13,000.00$

15 Furnish and Install new 24-4-100, 35' M.A and Foundation 1 EA 13,500.00$ 13,500.00$

16 Furnish and Install new 26-4-100, 40' M.A. & Foundation 1 EA 14,500.00$ 14,500.00$

17 Furnish and Install new 29-5-100, 50'M.A. & Foundation 1 EA 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$

18 Install new LED Luminaires 4 EA 650.00$ 2,600.00$

19 Install new Signal Indications on Mast Arm 6 EA 600.00$ 3,600.00$

20 Install new Signal Indications Pole Mount 8 EA 600.00$ 4,800.00$

21 Install new Pedestrian Indications 8 EA 500.00$ 4,000.00$

22 Install new APS Push Buttons 8 EA 550.00$ 4,400.00$

23 Install new Pull Boxes 12 EA 450.00$ 5,400.00$

24

25 Install New 2"Conduit for Signals 40 LF 48.00$ 1,920.00$

26 Install new 3" Conduit for Signal 140 LF 48.00$ 6,720.00$

27 Install New 4" Conduit for Signal 250 LF 48.00$ 12,000.00$

$165,240.00

$16,524.00

$24,786.00

$206,550.00

$226,550.00

$200,565

$25,985

CMAQ Funds:

Other Federal/Local Funds:

Construction SUBTOTAL:

10% Contingency

15% Construction Admin

Construction Total:

Total Cost (PE and CON):

McHenry Avenue at Grecian Avenue:

Detailed Engineer's EstimateFor Construction Items Only

City of Modesto

New Traffic Signals - 2015

At the intersections of: Blue Gum Avenue and Rosemore Avenue

February 23, 2015

Sandeep Sandhu and Mark Murphy

Preliminary Engineering

Preliminary Engineering SUBTOTAL:

Construction

Attachment #2: StanCOG FFY 2014-2016 CMAQ List of Competitive Projects Requesting Funding

1

Stanislaus Council of Governments

Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) List of Competitive Projects

Submitted Requesting Funding in FFY 2014/15 and FFY 2015/16

Cost-Effectiveness

$/lb Project Agency


14/15


15/16

$2.38 Synchronize Traffic Signals

Downtown 2015 Modesto $400,000 $0

$2.48

Traffic Signal

Synchronization

Improvements

Ceres $65,512 $270,813

$2.49 Replace '90 bus (01 engine)

use TC Modesto $420,000 $0

$2.72 New Traffic Signals 2015 Modesto $85,000 $590,000

$8.37

Signal @ Roselle & Patterson

& Pedestrian Crossing Over

RR Tracks

Riverbank $210,000 $440,000

$11.53 Alternative Fuel/Diesel Motor

Grader - Purchase

Stanislaus County

$110,000 $0

$15.33

Intelligent Transportation

Systems (ITS) Signal

Synchronization Phase II

Ceres $107,653 $350,844

$15.95 Purchase 10 CNG Pickups Turlock $25,000 $250,000

$16.40

Bike/Pedestrian Path Mitchell

Road TID: Fowler Rd to

Whitmore Ave

Ceres $266,564 $0

$22.59

Bike/Pedestrian Path Mitchell

Road TID: Roeding Rd to

Service Rd

Ceres $56,305 $280,375

$25.68

Crows Landing Road at

Grayson Road Traffic

Signalization

Stanislaus County

$157,500 $0

$26.15 Christoffersen/Fosberg

Intersection Improvements Turlock $45,455 $454,545

$28.91 Alternative Fuel/Diesel

Loader

Stanislaus County

$110,000 $0

$41.19 Geer Rd at Whitmore Ave

Traffic Signalization

Stanislaus County

$187,500 $0

jfabela

Typewritten Text

jfabela

Typewritten Text

jfabela

Typewritten Text

jfabela

Typewritten Text

jfabela

Typewritten Text

jfabela

Typewritten Text

jfabela

Typewritten Text

jfabela

Typewritten Text

jfabela

Typewritten Text

jfabela

Typewritten Text

Attachment #2: StanCOG FFY 2014-2016 CMAQ List of Competitive Projects Requesting Funding

2

$43.51 Geer Rd at Santa Fe Ave.

Traffic Signalization

Stanislaus County

$202,500 $0

$51.57 Traffic Signal Upgrades 2015 Modesto $100,000 $512,000

$64.45 Walnut/Taylor Intersection

Improvements Turlock $90,910 $909,090

$83.44 W. Main/Tegner Intersection

Improvements Turlock $109,091 $1,090,909

$120.69 Alternative Fuel/Diesel

Patch Truck - Purchase Stanislaus

County $100,000 $0

$129.57

Intersection Improvements

@ Ward Ave & W. Las

Palmas Patterson $37,183 $466,553

$176.22 Purchase of One CNG

Vacuum Truck Newman $0 $300,000

$181.03 Alternative Fuel/Diesel 2-

Trucks - Purchase Stanislaus

County $200,000 $0

$198.61 Oakdale at Mable &

Claritina Improvements Modesto $221,325 $1,204,625

$236.28 Virginia Corridor Trail -

Phase VI Modesto $597,578 $0

$4,388.10 Bus Turnout NB Dale Rd Modesto $66,398 $278,870

$8,316.04 Purchase of One CNG

Dump Truck Newman $150,000 $0

This list contains all of the CMAQ projects that were submitted requesting competitive funds in FFY 2014/15

and FFY 2015/16. All of the projects at the cost-effectiveness of $64.45 or above have been selected to be

fully funded. The City of Turlock has accepted the remaining CMAQ competitive balance of $431,973

towards their “W. Main/Tegner Intersection Improvements”.

STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION

AMENDING THE FFY 2014/15-2015/16 CONGESTION MITIGATION & AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) COMPETITIVE PROJECT LISTING

WHEREAS, the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) is a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Metropolitan Planning Organization, pursuant to State and Federal designation; and

WHEREAS, on April 18, 2012 the Stanislaus Council of Governments

(StanCOG) Policy Board adopted the CMAQ FFY 2014/2015 and FFY 2015/2016 Competitive Project Selection as identified in Attachment #1; and

WHEREAS, the City of Modesto’s “New Traffic Signals 2015” CMAQ project

was approved for funding; and WHEREAS, the “New Traffic Signals 2015” CMAQ project included a traffic

signal at two locations (1) Blue Gum Avenue at Rosemore Avenue and (2) McHenry Avenue at Grecian Avenue; and

WHEREAS, On September 2, 2014 the Modesto City Council approved the plans

and specifications for MJC to construct a new Traffic Signal located at the intersection of Blue Gum Avenue at Prichard Avenue, this signal is approximately 640 feet and one block away from the Blue Gum Avenue at Rosemore Avenue intersection; and

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Modesto’s “New

Traffic Signals 2015” CMAQ project has been amended and $397,013 in CMAQ funds has been apportioned for a new traffic signal at “McHenry Avenue at Grecian Avenue” in FFY 2015/16; and

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that $200,564 in CMAQ

funds is apportioned to the City of Turlock’s “W. Main/Tegner Intersection Improvements” project in FFY 2015/16.

THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was introduced at a regular meeting

of the Stanislaus Council of Governments, on the 20th day of May 2015. A motion was made and seconded to adopt the foregoing Resolution. Motion carried and the Resolution was adopted. MEETING DATE: May 20, 2015

__________________________________________

VITO CHIESA, CHAIR ATTEST: __________________________________________ CARLOS P. YAMZON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR



TO: Citizen Advisory Committee Staff Report Motion THROUGH: Carlos P. Yamzon, Executive Director



SUBJECT: 2016 and 2018 Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Contribution

Recommendation By Motion: Recommend that the Policy Board authorize by Resolution $3,798 of Regional Surface Transportation Program funding in support of the 2016 and 2018 Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Reports. Background The California Statewide Needs Assessment Project has released the 2014 Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Report. The 2014 report evaluates the present condition and future requirements of California’s pavement, bridges, sidewalks and other essential transportation components of the local streets and road network. The report determines the cost to bring the transportation system up to a Best Management Practices condition, which is the most cost effective and efficient condition to maintain pavement. It includes an analysis of current funding available to cities and counties to maintain the local network and identifies a funding shortfall to preserve the public’s $188 billion investment. The report’s findings will be used to help educate policymakers about critical infrastructure needs and the economic and public safety impacts of delaying investment in local facilities. The report is prepared biennially and funded by a consortium of interest groups including California’s Regional Transportation Planning Agencies, the California State Association of Counties, and the California League of Cities.

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 6B


Discussion In 2011, the RTPA’s agreed to financially partner with California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and the California League of Cities (League) for the development of the 2012 and 2014 reports. The reports continue to improve in terms of the quality of data, its use as a tool for educating policy‐ and decision‐makers, and the scope of the assessment. Considering these improvements, the Oversight Committee recommends a modest increase in the budget for the 2016 and 2018 reports of $50,000. This increase would be shared equally by the regions and cities and counties. StanCOG continues to recognize the importance of the Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Report and the importance of its role in educating the public, local elected officials, and key policy‐ and decision‐makers at the state and federal levels on the condition, status of, and needs on the local streets and roads system. CSAC and the League have used the comprehensive data to advocate against, and avoid significant cuts to local transportation funding throughout the state. StanCOG staff recommends the contribution of $3,798 in Regional Surface Transportation Program funds in support of the 2016 and 2018 Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Reports. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Jeanette Fabela, at 209.525.4645 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Attachment(s):

1. Formula Distribution of RTPA Contributions to the LSR Needs Assessment Formulas based

on Actual Final Distribution, 2013-2014 of RSTP/Contributions to CTAP

2. January 30, 2015 Memo from Kiana Buss, California State Association of Counties and Jennifer Whiting, League of California Cities

3. Draft Resolution


Alpine $0 $13,431 $16 0.00% $9

Amador $0 $435,407 $511 0.10% $281

Butte $0 $2,514,754 $2,953 0.59% $1,624

Calaveras $0 $520,988 $612 0.12% $337

Colusa $0 $244,834 $287 0.06% $158

Del Norte $0 $327,032 $384 0.08% $211

El Dorado $702,096 $1,016,281 $2,018 0.40% $1,110

Fresno $7,482,856 $3,152,839 $12,488 2.50% $6,868

Glenn $0 $321,454 $377 0.08% $207

Humboldt $0 $1,538,835 $1,807 0.36% $994

Imperial $0 $1,994,977 $2,342 0.47% $1,288

Inyo $0 $211,994 $249 0.05% $137

Kern $5,989,618 $3,607,952 $11,269 2.25% $6,198

Kings $0 $1,748,691 $2,053 0.41% $1,129

Lake $0 $739,166 $868 0.17% $477

Lassen $0 $398,874 $468 0.09% $257

Los Angeles $111,376,742 $856,788 $131,779 26.36% $72,478

MTC $70,270,698 $11,467,256 $95,973 19.19% $52,785

Madera $0 $1,724,493 $2,025 0.40% $1,114

Mariposa $0 $208,622 $245 0.05% $135

Mendocino $0 $1,004,084 $1,179 0.24% $648

Merced $0 $2,923,893 $3,433 0.69% $1,888

Modoc $0 $110,718 $130 0.03% $71

Mono $0 $162,339 $191 0.04% $105

Monterey $0 $4,744,392 $5,571 1.11% $3,064

Nevada $0 $1,128,942 $1,326 0.27% $729

Orange Co. $34,356,295 $52,764 $40,402 8.08% $22,221

Placer $2,911,445 $951,949 $4,536 0.91% $2,495

Plumas $0 $228,694 $269 0.05% $148

Riverside $18,833,416 $6,195,714 $29,388 5.88% $16,163

SACOG $16,088,802 $4,332,475 $23,978 4.80% $13,188

San Benito $0 $631,763 $742 0.15% $408

San Bernardino $22,906,083 $357,792 $27,315 5.46% $15,023

San Diego $33,893,706 $1,487,889 $41,543 8.31% $22,849

San Joaquin $4,236,023 $3,597,504 $9,198 1.84% $5,059

San Luis Obispo $0 $3,082,140 $3,619 0.72% $1,990

Santa Barbara $0 $4,845,417 $5,689 1.14% $3,129

Santa Cruz $0 $2,999,210 $3,522 0.70% $1,937

Shasta $0 $2,025,783 $2,379 0.48% $1,308

Sierra $0 $37,035 $43 0.01% $24

Siskiyou $0 $513,238 $603 0.12% $332

Stanislaus‐Modesto $4,094,157 $1,786,401 $6,905 1.38% $3,798

TRPA $0 $470,671 $553 0.11% $304

Tehama $0 $725,427 $852 0.17% $469

Trinity $0 $157,584 $185 0.04% $102

Tulare 2,508,513 $2,545,903 $5,935 1.19% $3,264

Tuolumne $0 $632,861 $743 0.15% $409

Ventura $6,351,731 $3,059,370 $11,050 2.21% $6,077

Statewide Totals $342,002,181 $83,836,620 $500,000 100.00% $275,000

Formula Distribution of RTPA contributions

to the Statewide Local Streets and Roads (LSR) Needs Assessment

Formulas based on Actual Final Distribution, 2013‐2014 of RSTP/contributions to CTAP

CTAP

Adjustment

STP Small Area

Apportionment

STP Large Urbanized

Apportionment

Area

MPO/RTPA/County

Percent

Share to

CTAP

Proposed

LSR Assessment

Contribution

(2015)

California State Association of Counties 1100 K Street, Suite 101 Sacramento, CA 95814

January 30, 2015 To: Executive Directors, Regional Transportation Planning Agencies

From: Kiana Buss, Legislative Representative, California State Association of Counties Jennifer Whiting, Assistant Legislative Director, League of California Cities Re: Ongoing Financing for the California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment

Background. The California State Association of Counties (CSAC), League of California Cities (League), County Engineers Association of California (CEAC), and the state’s regional transportation planning agencies just completed another successful assessment of the statewide local streets and roads network. The 2014 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Report (Report) is the fourth report of its kind since the start of this important effort in 2007. The Report is a comprehensive and systematic statewide assessment of the state’s local street and road network. It includes an analysis of current funding available to cities and counties to maintain the local network and identifies a funding shortfall to preserve the public’s $188 billion investment. It is updated biennially to ensure that information is up to date. The goal of the Report is to educate the public, and policy‐ and decision‐makers at all levels of government about the infrastructure investments needed to provide California with a seamless, safe, and efficient multi‐modal transportation system. The Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Oversight Committee (Oversight Committee), consisting of the project manager and representatives from counties, cities, and regional transportation planning agencies, have already begun work on the 2016 Report. The cost of developing the 2012 and 2014 reports was approximately $550,000. The Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPA’s) contributed $250,000; cities and counties contributed $250,000; and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission provided a one‐time contribution of $50,000 dedicated to a robust analysis of the statewide bridge needs as part of the 2012 Report. Value of the Report. The Report continues to be extremely valuable. In addition to educating the public, local elected officials, and key policy‐ and decision‐makers at the state and federal levels on the condition, status of, and needs on the local streets and roads system, CSAC and the League have used the comprehensive data to advocate against, and avoid significant cuts to local transportation funding. Most recently, the report even helped CSAC and the League to advocate for a share of cap and trade auction proceeds. The auction proceeds will support complete streets and active transportation projects on the local system that are consistent with SB 375 sustainable communities strategies and other greenhouse gas emission reducing regional plans. Moving forward, the Report will serve counties and cities well as we work towards generating and appropriating new revenues for transportation. Funding Proposal. In 2011, the RTPA’s agreed to financially partner with CSAC and the League for the development of the 2012 and 2014 reports. The reports continue to improve in terms of the quality of data, its use as a tool for educating policy‐ and decision‐makers, and the scope of the assessment. For instance, the 2012 Report introduced new information about sustainable pavement practices that are cost‐effective and environmentally friendly. Considering these improvements, the Oversight Committee recommends a modest increase in the budget for the 2016 and 2018 reports of $50,000. This increase would be shared equally by the regions and cities and counties.

With your continued support and approval of the budget augmentation, we propose using the same formula that was used to determine Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) contributions to the Caltrans’ Cooperative Training Assistance Program (CTAP). Specifically, we request that each region send a letter to Caltrans by March 31, 2015 authorizing Caltrans to reduce its share of Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funding by the specific formula amounts shown in the attached chart as each region’s contribution to the effort. After March 31, 2015, Caltrans will reduce the RSTP balance for each Region in accordance with the letter to Caltrans. The amounts contributed by regions would then be provided to the County Engineer’s Association of California (CEAC) who is responsible for payments on the Report contract. Attached is a template letter to Ray Zhang at Caltrans Local Assistance that you could use for your request to Caltrans. Please copy Chris Lee with CSAC on your letter by email or hard copy ([email protected] or California State Association of Counties, 1100 K Street, Suite 101, Sacramento, CA 95814). If you would prefer to contribute to this effort with different funds (i.e. Non RSTP funds), please send a check payable to “CEAC” directly to Mike Crump, CEAC Treasurer, or contact Chris Lee to discuss alternative options.

Mike Crump Director of Public Works Butte County Department of Public Works 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965

Finally, while Executive Directors in many regions have authority to contribute funds to this effort without board approval, for those that would like to take this action to their boards, a sample resolution that could be used is attached. Thank you in advance for your consideration of our request. Contact. If you have any questions regarding this request, or want more information on the history of or specific findings from the reports, please contact Jennifer Whiting, League Assistant Legislative Director, at (916) 658‐8249 or [email protected], or Chris Lee, CSAC Legislative Analyst at (916) 327‐7500 ext. 521 or [email protected]. cc: Regional Transportation Planning Agency Group Rural Counties Task Force

STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS TO

CONTRIBUTE REGIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FUNDING TO THE ONGOING CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS

NEEDS ASSESSMENT EFFORT

WHEREAS, a regional transportation network is comprised of local streets and roads, highways, mass transit, airports, seaports, land ports, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and

WHEREAS, each transportation component is critical in ensuring a seamless, safe, and

efficient multi-modal transportation network in all local communities across the state; and WHEREAS, 80% of the roads in California are locally owned and operated by cities and

counties, where every trip begins and ends, and the local system is critical for safety and mobility of the traveling public, farm to market needs, multimodal needs, and commerce; and

WHEREAS, while federal and state governments regularly assess their transportation

system needs, until 2008, no such data existed for the local component of California’s transportation network; and

WHEREAS, transportation infrastructure is underfunded and deteriorating and existing

funding sources are not sufficient to meet even basic maintenance needs, but without credible and defensible data, efforts to advocate for increased funding for transportation purposes are difficult at best; and

WHEREAS, the California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment

provides critical analysis and information on the local transportation network’s condition and funding needs; and

WHEREAS, the results of the 2014 Assessment Update, which indicate that the condition

of the local transportation network is deteriorating as predicted in the 2008 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment, are being used in the California Transportation Commission’s efforts to study alternatives to the state gas tax as a mechanism to pay for transportation infrastructure; and

WHEREAS, it costs approximately $275,000 to update the California Statewide Local

Streets and Roads Needs Assessment report every two years; and WHEREAS, California’s regional transportation planning agencies have been financial

partners since 2010 and provided ongoing technical support since 2008; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Stanislaus Council of

Governments will contribute its proportional share of $3,798 of regional surface transportation program funding towards the effort in support of the positive work that has been done to date, the

usefulness of the findings of the report, and the continued use the report will serve as the collective transportation community advocates for scarce transportation revenues.

THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was introduced at a regular meeting of the Stanislaus

Council of Governments, on the 20th day of May 2015. A motion was made and seconded to adopt the foregoing Resolution. Motion carried and the Resolution was adopted.

MEETING DATE: May 20, 2015

__________________________________________




TO: Citizen Advisory Committee Staff Report Motion THROUGH: Carlos P. Yamzon, Executive Director



SUBJECT: 2015 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 2 Regional Project Selection Process

Recommendation By Motion: Recommend that the Policy Board adopt by Resolution the 2015 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 2 Regional Project Selection Process. Background The Active Transportation Program (ATP) was created by Senate Bill 99 (Chapter 359, Statutes of 2013) and Assembly Bill 101 (Chapter 354, Statutes of 2013) to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking. ATP was signed into law on September 26, 2013 and combines small-dedicated grant programs, which fund programs like Safe Routes to Schools, bicycle programs, and recreational trails. The intent of combining this funding is to improve flexibility and reduce the administrative burden of having several small independent grant programs. Discussion The 2015 Active Transportation Program Fund Estimate indicates the funds available for each of the program components. Consistent with these requirements, the Active Transportation Program funds have distributed forty percent to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in urban areas with populations greater than 200,000. The funds programmed and allocated under this must be selected through a competitive process by the MPOs in accordance with the 2015 ATP guidelines approved by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) on March 26, 2015. Projects selected by MPOs may be in large urban, small urban, or rural areas and a minimum of 25% of the funds distributed to each MPO must benefit disadvantaged communities. The 2015 ATP Cycle 2 covers a three year period of Fiscal Year 2016/17 through Fiscal Year 2018/19. StanCOG has received an apportionment of $2.175 million for the 2015 ATP Cycle 2; $725,000 per fiscal year 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19.

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 6C


MPOs may choose to use the same project selection criteria and weighting, minimum project size, match requirement, and definition of disadvantage communities as used by the Commission for the statewide competition and may delegate its project selection to the Commission. An MPO delegating its project selection to the Commission may not conduct a supplemental call for projects. If electing to have a supplemental MPO specific call for projects, the projects within the MPO boundaries that were not selected through the statewide competition must be considered along with those received in the supplemental call for projects. StanCOG staff recommends that the project selection process be based on the “2015 Active Transportation Program Guidelines 3/26/15” and its project selection criteria. In addition, staff recommends that a project evaluation committee be established, as required by the guidelines, to review and evaluate the applications. StanCOG staff is recommending that the ATP project evaluation committee be as follows: 1 Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee Member 1 StanCOG Staff Representative 1 Large Local Agency Representative 1 Small/Medium Local Agency Representative 1 Transit Operator

In order to meet the California Transportation Commission (CTC) deadline to submit recommended projects, StanCOG proposes the following ATP call for projects schedule.

StanCOG 2015 ATP Cycle 2 Call for Projects Schedule

July 16, 2015 StanCOG ATP Cycle 2 Call for Projects Begins

August 13, 2015 StanCOG ATP Cycle 2 Call for Projects Ends

September 11th ATP Project Evaluation Committee Completes Applications Review

October 21, 2015 Policy Board Approval of ATP Programming Recommendations

November 16, 2015 StanCOG submits Programming Recommendations to CTC

December 9-10, 2015 CTC adopts MPO Selected Projects

Should you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Jeanette Fabela, at 209.525.4645 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Attachment(s):

1. 2015 Active Transportation Program Guidelines 3/26/15 2. 2015 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Fund Estimates 3. Draft Resolution


2015 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM

GUIDELINES

March 26, 2015 California Transportation Commission

i

CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2015 ATP GUIDELINES TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 1. Background ................................................................................................................. 1 2. Program Goals ............................................................................................................ 1 3. Program Schedule ...................................................................................................... 1

II. Funding ............................................................................................................................. 2 4. Source ......................................................................................................................... 2 5. Distribution .................................................................................................................. 2 6. Matching Requirements ............................................................................................. 3 7. Funding for Active Transportation Plans .................................................................. 4 8. Reimbursement ........................................................................................................... 4

III. Eligibility ........................................................................................................................... 5 9. Eligible Applicants ...................................................................................................... 5 10. Partnering With Implementing Agencies ................................................................... 6 11. Eligible Projects .......................................................................................................... 6 12. Minimum Request For Funds ..................................................................................... 8 13. Project Type Requirements ........................................................................................ 8

IV. Project Selection Process ..............................................................................................11 14. Project Application ....................................................................................................11 15. Sequential Project Selection .....................................................................................12 16. MPO Competitive Project Selection ..........................................................................12 17. Screening Criteria ......................................................................................................13 18. Scoring Criteria ..........................................................................................................13 19. Project Evaluation Committee ..................................................................................14

V. Programming ...................................................................................................................15

VI. Allocations .......................................................................................................................16

VII. Project Delivery ...........................................................................................................17 20. Federal Requirements ...............................................................................................18 21. Design Standards ......................................................................................................18 22. Project Inactivity ........................................................................................................19 23. Project Reporting .......................................................................................................19

VIII. Roles And Responsibilities ........................................................................................20 24. California Transportation Commission (Commission) ............................................20 25. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) ................................................20 26. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) With Large Urbanized Areas ..........21 27. Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) Outside an MPO with Large Urbanized Areas and MPOs without Large Urbanized Areas ...........................................22 28. Project Applicant .......................................................................................................22

IX. Program Evaluation ........................................................................................................22

California Transportation Commission 2015 ATP Guidelines March 26, 2015

1

I. Introduction

1. Background The Active Transportation Program was created by Senate Bill 99 (Chapter 359, Statutes of 2013) and Assembly Bill 101 (Chapter 354, Statutes of 2013) to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking. These guidelines describe the policy, standards, criteria, and procedures for the development, adoption and management of the Active Transportation Program. The guidelines were developed in consultation with the Active Transportation Program Workgroup. The workgroup includes representatives from Caltrans, other government agencies, and active transportation stakeholder organizations with expertise in pedestrian and bicycle issues, including Safe Routes to School programs. The California Transportation Commission (Commission) adopted the initial Active Transportation Program guidelines on March 20, 2014. The Commission may amend the adopted guidelines after conducting at least one public hearing. The Commission must 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 Goals

Pursuant to statute, the goals of the Active Transportation Program are to:

• Increase the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and walking.

• Increase the safety and mobility of non-motorized users.

• Advance the active transportation efforts of regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals as established pursuant to Senate Bill 375 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008) and Senate Bill 391 (Chapter 585, Statutes of 2009).

• Enhance public health, including reduction of childhood obesity through the use of programs including, but not limited to, projects eligible for Safe Routes to School Program funding.

• Ensure that disadvantaged communities fully share in the benefits of the program.

• Provide a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of active transportation users.

3. Program Schedule The guidelines for the second program of projects must be adopted by March 26, 2015. This second program of projects must be adopted by the Commission by December 2015. Subsequent programs must be adopted not later than April 1 of each odd-numbered year; however, the Commission may alternatively elect to adopt a program annually. The following schedule lists the major milestones for the development and adoption of the 2015 Active Transportation Program (ATP):


2

Draft ATP Guidelines presented to Commission January 22, 2015

Commission adopts ATP Fund Estimate March 26, 2015

Commission hearing and adoption of ATP Guidelines March 26, 2015

Call for projects March 26, 2015

Project applications to Caltrans (postmark date) June 1, 2015

Large MPOs submit optional guidelines to Commission June 1, 2015

Commission approves or rejects MPO guidelines June 24-25, 2015

Staff recommendation for statewide and small urban and rural portions of the program Sept. 15, 2015

Commission adopts statewide and small urban and rural portions of the program Oct. 21-22, 2015

Projects not programmed distributed to large MPOs based on location Oct. 22, 2015

Deadline for MPO project programming recommendations to the Commission Nov. 16, 2015

Commission adopts MPO selected projects Dec. 9-10, 2015

*Dates coincide with the Commission’s adopted 2015 CTC meeting calendar.

II. Funding

4. Source The Active Transportation Program is funded from various federal and state funds appropriated in the annual Budget Act. These are:

• 100% of the federal Transportation Alternative Program funds, except for federal Recreation Trail Program funds appropriated to the Department of Parks and Recreation.

• $21 million of federal Highway Safety Improvement Program funds or other federal funds.

• State Highway Account funds.

In addition to furthering the goals of this program, all Active Transportation Program projects must meet eligibility requirements specific to at least one Active Transportation Program funding source.

5. Distribution

State and federal law segregate the Active Transportation Program into multiple, overlapping components. The Active Transportation Program Fund Estimate must indicate the funds available for each of the program components. Consistent with these requirements, the Active Transportation Program funds must be distributed as follows:


3

• Forty percent to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) in urban areas with populations greater than 200,000.

These funds must be distributed based on total MPO population. The funds programmed and allocated under this paragraph must be selected through a competitive process by the MPOs in accordance with these guidelines. Projects selected by MPOs may be in large urban, small urban, or rural areas. A minimum of 25% of the funds distributed to each MPO must benefit disadvantaged communities.

The following statutory requirements apply specifically to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)

o SCAG must consult with county transportation commissions, the Commission, and Caltrans in the development of competitive project selection criteria.

o The criteria used by SCAG should include consideration of geographic equity, consistent with program objectives.

o SCAG must place priority on projects that are consistent with plans adopted by local and regional governments within the county where the project is located.

o SCAG must obtain concurrence from the county transportation commissions.

• Ten percent to small urban and rural areas with populations of 200,000 or less, with projects competitively awarded by the Commission to projects in those regions. Federal law segregates the Transportation Alternative Program into separate small urban and rural competitions based upon their relative share of the state population. Small Urban areas are those with populations of 5,001 to 200,000. Rural areas are those with populations of 5,000 or less.

A minimum of 25% of the funds in the Small Urban and Rural programs must benefit disadvantaged communities. Projects within the boundaries of an MPO with an urban area with a population of greater than 200,000 are not eligible for funding in the Small Urban or Rural programs.

• Fifty percent to projects competitively awarded by the Commission on a statewide basis.

A minimum of 25% of the funds in the statewide competitive program must benefit disadvantaged communities. Additional minimums may be applied, such as a minimum for safe routes to schools projects, subject to the annual State Budget Act.

6. Matching Requirements

Although the Commission encourages the leveraging of additional funds for a project, matching funds are not required. If an agency chooses to provide match funds, those funds cannot be expended prior to the Commission allocation of Active Transportation Program funds in the


4

same project phase (permits and environmental studies; plans, specifications, and estimates; right-of-way; and construction). Matching funds must be expended concurrently and proportionally to the Active Transportation Program funds. The Matching funds may be adjusted before or shortly after contract award to reflect any substantive change in the bid compared to the estimated cost of the project. Large MPOs, in administering a competitive selection process, may require a funding match for projects selected through their competitive process. Applicants from within a large MPO should be aware that the match requirements may differ between the MPO and statewide competitive programs.

7. Funding for Active Transportation Plans

Funding from the Active Transportation Program may be used to fund the development of community wide active transportation plans in disadvantaged communities, including bike, pedestrian, safe routes to schools, or comprehensive active transportation plans. A list of the components that must be included in an active transportation plan can be found in Section 13, subsection E. The Commission intends to set aside up to 3% of the funds in the statewide competitive component and in the small urban and rural component for funding active transportation plans in predominantly disadvantaged communities. A large MPO, in administering its portion of the program, may make up to 3% of its funding available for active transportation plans in disadvantaged communities within the MPO boundaries. The first priority for the funding of plans will be for cities, counties, county transportation commissions, regional transportation planning agencies, MPOs, school districts, or transit districts that have neither a bicycle plan, a pedestrian plan, a safe routes to schools plan, nor a comprehensive active transportation plan. The second priority for the funding of plans will be for cities, counties, county transportation commissions, regional transportation planning agencies, or MPOs that have a bicycle plan or a pedestrian plan but not both. The lowest priority for funding of plans will be for updates of active transportation plans older than 5 years. The Commission intends to decrease this set aside to 2% in the 2017 cycle, and reassess the set aside for plans in future program cycles. Applications for plans may not be combined with applications for infrastructure or other non-infrastructure projects.

8. Reimbursement

The Active Transportation Program is a reimbursement program for eligible costs incurred. Reimbursement is requested through the invoice process detailed in Chapter 5, Accounting/Invoices, Local Assistance Procedures Manual. 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.


5

III. Eligibility

9. Eligible Applicants

The applicant and/or implementing agency for Active Transportation Program funds assumes responsibility and accountability for the use and expenditure of program funds. Applicants and/or implementing agencies must be able to comply with all the federal and state laws, regulations, policies and procedures required to enter into a Local Administering Agency-State Master Agreement (Master Agreement). Refer to Chapter 4, Agreements, of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual for guidance and procedures on Master Agreements. The following entities, within the State of California, are eligible to apply for Active Transportation Program funds:

• Local, Regional or State Agencies- Examples include city, county, MPO*, and Regional Transportation Planning Agency.

• Caltrans*

• Transit Agencies - Any agency responsible for public transportation that is eligible for funds under the Federal Transit Administration.

• Natural Resources or Public Land Agencies - Federal, Tribal, State, or local agency responsible for natural resources or public land administration. Examples include:

o State or local park or forest agencies

o State or local fish and game or wildlife agencies

o Department of the Interior Land Management Agencies

o U.S. Forest Service

• Public schools or School districts.

• Tribal Governments - Federally-recognized Native American Tribes.

• Private nonprofit tax-exempt organizations may apply for projects eligible for Recreational Trail Program funds recreational trails and trailheads, park projects that facilitate trail linkages or connectivity to non-motorized corridors, and conversion of abandoned railroad corridors to trails. Projects must benefit the general public, and not only a private entity.

• Any other entity with responsibility for oversight of transportation or recreational trails that the Commission determines to be eligible.

For funding awarded to a tribal government, a fund transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs may be necessary. A tribal government may also partner with another eligible entity to apply if desired. * Caltrans and MPOs, except for MPOs that are also regional transportation planning agencies, are not eligible project applicants for the federal Transportation Alternative Program funds appropriated to the Active Transportation Program. Therefore, funding awarded to projects submitted directly by Caltrans and MPOs are limited to other Active Transportation Program funds. Caltrans and MPOs may partner with an eligible entity to expand funding opportunities.


6

10. Partnering With Implementing Agencies

Entities that are unable to apply for Active Transportation Program funds or that are unable to enter into a Master Agreement with the State must partner with an eligible applicant that can implement the project. Entities that are unfamiliar with the requirements to administer a Federal-Aid Highway Program project may partner with an eligible applicant that can implement the project. If another entity agrees to assume responsibility for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the facility, documentation of the agreement (e.g., letter of intent) must be submitted with the project application, and a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding or Interagency Agreement between the parties must be submitted with the first request for allocation. The implementing agency will be responsible and accountable for the use and expenditure of program funds.

11. Eligible Projects All projects must be selected through a competitive process and must meet one or more of the program goals. Because the majority of funds in the Active Transportation Program are federal funds, projects must be federal-aid eligible:

• Infrastructure Projects: Capital improvements that will further the goals of this program. This typically includes the environmental, design, right-of-way, and construction phases of a capital (facilities) project. A new infrastructure project will not be programmed without a complete project study report (PSR) or PSR equivalent. The application will be considered a PSR equivalent if it defines and justifies the project scope, cost and schedule. Though the PSR or equivalent may focus on the project components proposed for programming, it must provide at least a preliminary estimate of costs for all components. PSR guidelines are posted on the Commission’s website: http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/ATP.htm.

A capital improvement that is required as a condition for private development approval or permits is not eligible for funding from the Active Transportation Program.

• Plans: The development of a community wide bicycle, pedestrian, safe routes to school, or active transportation plan in a disadvantaged community.

• Non-infrastructure Projects: Education, encouragement, and enforcement activities that further the goals of this program. The Commission intends to focus funding for non-infrastructure projects on pilot and start-up projects that can demonstrate funding for ongoing efforts. The Active Transportation Program funds are not intended to fund ongoing program operations. Non-infrastructure projects are not limited to those benefiting school students.

• Infrastructure projects with non-infrastructure components.

A. Example Projects Below is a list of projects considered generally eligible for Active Transportation Program funding. This list is not intended to be comprehensive; other types of projects that are not on this list may also be eligible if they further the goals of the program. Components of an otherwise eligible project may not be eligible. For information on ineligible components, see the Department’s Local Assistance/ATP website.


7

• Development of new bikeways and walkways that improve mobility, access, or safety for non-motorized users.

• Improvements to existing bikeways and walkways, which improve mobility, access, or safety for non-motorized users.

o Elimination of hazardous conditions on existing bikeways and walkways.

o Preventative maintenance of bikeways and walkways with the primary goal of extending the service life of the facility.

• Installation of traffic control devices to improve the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists.

• Safe Routes to School projects that improve the safety of children walking and bicycling to school, in accordance with Section 1404 of Public Law 109-59.

• Safe routes to transit projects, which will encourage transit by improving biking and walking routes to mass transportation facilities and school bus stops.

• Secure bicycle parking at employment centers, park and ride lots, rail and transit stations, and ferry docks and landings for the benefit of the public.

• Bicycle-carrying facilities on public transit, including rail and ferries.

• Establishment or expansion of a bike share program.

• Recreational trails and trailheads, park projects that facilitate trail linkages or connectivity to non-motorized corridors, and conversion of abandoned railroad corridors to trails.

• Development of a community wide bike, pedestrian, safe routes to schools, or active transportation plan in a disadvantaged community.

• Education programs to increase bicycling and walking, and other non-infrastructure investments that demonstrate effectiveness in increasing active transportation, including but not limited to:

o Development and implementation of bike-to-work or walk-to-work school day/month programs.

o Conducting bicycle and/or pedestrian counts, walkability and/or bikeability assessments or audits, or pedestrian and/or bicycle safety analysis to inform plans and projects.

o Conducting pedestrian and bicycle safety education programs.

o Development and publishing of community walking and biking maps, including school route/travel plans.

o Development and implementation of walking school bus or bike train programs.

o Components of open streets events directly linked to the promotion of a new infrastructure project.

o Targeted enforcement activities around high pedestrian and/or bicycle injury and/or fatality locations (intersections or corridors). These activities cannot be general traffic enforcement but must be tied to improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

o School crossing guard training.

o School bicycle clinics.


8

o Development and implementation of programs and tools that maximize use of available and emerging technologies to implement the goals of the Active Transportation Program.

12. Minimum Request for Funds In order to maximize the effectiveness of program funds and to encourage the aggregation of small projects into one larger comprehensive project, the minimum request for Active Transportation Program funds that will be considered is $250,000. This minimum does not apply to non-infrastructure projects, Safe Routes to Schools projects, Recreational Trails projects, and plans. MPOs, in administering a competitive selection process, may use a different minimum funding size. Use of a minimum project size greater than $500,000 must be approved by the Commission prior to an MPO’s call for projects.

13. Project Type Requirements

As discussed in the Funding Distribution section (above), State and Federal law segregate the Active Transportation Program into multiple, overlapping components. Below is an explanation of the requirements specific to these components.

A. Disadvantaged Communities For a project to contribute toward the Disadvantaged Communities funding requirement, the project must clearly demonstrate a direct, meaningful, and assured benefit to a community that meets any of the following criteria:

• The median household income is less than 80% of the statewide median based on the most current census tract level data from the American Community Survey. Data is available at:

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

• An area identified as among the most disadvantaged 25% in the state according to the CalEPA and based on the latest version of the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen) scores. This list can be found at the following link under SB 535 List of Disadvantaged Communities:

http://www.calepa.ca.gov/EnvJustice/GHGInvest/

• At least 75% of public school students in the project area are eligible to receive free or reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program. Data is available at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/sd/filessp.asp. Applicants using this measure must indicate how the project benefits the school students in the project area or, for projects not directly benefiting school students, explain why this measure is representative of the larger community.

If a project applicant believes a project benefits a disadvantaged community but the project does not meet the aforementioned criteria, the applicant must submit for consideration a quantitative assessment of why the community should be considered disadvantaged, or how the project connects a disadvantaged community to outside resources or amenities.

http://www.calepa.ca.gov/EnvJustice/GHGInvest/


9

MPOs, in administering a competitive selection process, may use different criteria for determining which projects benefit Disadvantaged Communities if the criteria are approved by the Commission prior to an MPO’s call for projects.

B. Safe Routes to School Projects For a project to contribute toward the Safe Routes to School funding requirement, the project must directly increase safety and convenience for public school students to walk and/or bike to school. Safe Routes to Schools infrastructure projects must be located within two miles of a public school or within the vicinity of a public school bus stop. Other than traffic education and enforcement activities, non-infrastructure projects do not have a location restriction.

C. Recreational Trails Projects Trail projects that are primarily recreational should meet the federal requirements of the Recreational Trails Program as such projects may not be eligible for funding from other sources (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/).

D. Technical Assistance Resource Center Typical Technical Assistance Resource Center roles include:

• Providing technical assistance and training to help agencies deliver existing and future projects and to strengthen community involvement in future projects including those in disadvantaged communities.

• Developing and providing educational materials to local communities by developing a community awareness kit, creating an enhanced Safe Routes to Schools website, and providing other educational tools and resources.

• Participating in and assisting with the Safe Routes to Schools Advisory Committee.

• Assisting with program evaluation.

The Commission intends to fund a state technical assistance center by programming funds to the Department, who will administer contracts to support all current and potential Active Transportation Program applicants.

E. Active Transportation Plan A city, county, county transportation commission, regional transportation planning agency, MPO, school district, or transit district may prepare an active transportation plan (bicycle, pedestrian, safe-routes-to-school, or comprehensive). An active transportation plan prepared by a city or county may be integrated into the circulation element of its general plan or a separate plan which is compliant or will be brought into compliance with the Complete Streets Act, Assembly Bill 1358 (Chapter 657, Statutes of 2008). An active transportation plan must include, but not be limited to, the following components or explain why the component is not applicable:

• The estimated number of existing bicycle trips and pedestrian trips in the plan area, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all trips, and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle trips and pedestrian trips resulting from implementation of the plan.

• The number and location of collisions, serious injuries, and fatalities suffered by bicyclists and pedestrians in the plan area, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all collisions and injuries, and a goal for collision, serious injury, and fatality reduction after implementation of the plan.


10

• A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which must include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public buildings, major employment centers, and other destinations.

• A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transportation facilities, including a description of bicycle facilities that serve public and private schools and, if appropriate, a description of how the five Es (Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Engineering, and Evaluation) will be used to increase rates of bicycling to school.

• A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-trip bicycle parking facilities.

• A description of existing and proposed policies related to bicycle parking in public locations, private parking garages and parking lots and in new commercial and residential developments.

• A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transport and parking facilities for connections with and use of other transportation modes. These must include, but not be limited to, bicycle parking facilities at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels.

• A map and description of existing and proposed pedestrian facilities, including those at major transit hubs and those that serve public and private schools and, if appropriate, a description of how the five Es (Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Engineering, and Evaluation) will be used to increase rates of walking to school. Major transit hubs must include, but are not limited to, rail and transit terminals, and ferry docks and landings.

• A description of proposed signage providing wayfinding along bicycle and pedestrian networks to designated destinations.

• A description of the policies and procedures for maintaining existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including, but not limited to, the maintenance of smooth pavement, ADA level surfaces, freedom from encroaching vegetation, maintenance of traffic control devices including striping and other pavement markings, and lighting.

• A description of bicycle and pedestrian safety, education, and encouragement programs conducted in the area included within the plan, efforts by the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce provisions of the law impacting bicycle and pedestrian safety, and the resulting effect on collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians.

• A description of the extent of community involvement in development of the plan, including disadvantaged and underserved communities.

• A description of how the active transportation plan has been coordinated with neighboring jurisdictions, including school districts within the plan area, and is consistent with other local or regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans, including, but not limited to, general plans and a Sustainable Community Strategy in a Regional Transportation Plan.

• A description of the projects and programs proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation, including the methodology for project prioritization and a proposed timeline for implementation.


11

• A description of past expenditures for bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs, and future financial needs for projects and programs that improve safety and convenience for bicyclists and pedestrians in the plan area. Include anticipated revenue sources and potential grant funding for bicycle and pedestrian uses.

• A description of steps necessary to implement the plan and the reporting process that will be used to keep the adopting agency and community informed of the progress being made in implementing the plan.

• A resolution showing adoption of the plan by the city, county or district. If the active transportation plan was prepared by a county transportation commission, regional transportation planning agency, MPO, school district or transit district, the plan should indicate the support via resolution of the city(s) or county(s) in which the proposed facilities would be located.

A city, county, school district, or transit district that has prepared an active transportation plan may submit the plan to the county transportation commission or transportation planning agency for approval. The city, county, school district, or transit district may submit an approved plan to Caltrans in connection with an application for funds for active transportation facilities which will implement the plan. Additional information related to active transportation plans can be found in the sections on Funding for Active Transportation Plans and Scoring Criteria.

IV. Project Selection Process

14. Project Application Active Transportation Program project applications will be available at: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/index.html. A project application must include the signature of the Chief Executive Officer or other officer authorized by the applicant’s governing board. Where the project is to be implemented by an agency other than the applicant, documentation of the agreement between the project applicant and implementing agency must be submitted with the project application. A project application must also include documentation of all other funds committed to the projects. Project applications should be addressed or delivered to:

Caltrans Division of Local Assistance, MS-1 Attention: Chief, Office of Active Transportation and Special Programs P.O Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 95814

Except for applications submitted through an optional MPO supplemental call for projects, the Commission will consider only projects for which five hard copies and one electronic copy (via cd or portable hard drive) of a complete application are postmarked by the application deadline. By the same date, an additional copy must also be sent to the Regional Transportation Planning Agency or County Transportation Commission within which the project is located and to the MPO (a contact list can be found at www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/orip/). The copy may be hard copy or electronic – check with your regional agency or county commission for their preference.


12

15. Sequential Project Selection

All project applications, except for applications submitted through an optional MPO supplemental call for projects, must be submitted to Caltrans for consideration in the statewide competition. The Commission will consider approval of a competitive grant only when it finds that the grant request meets the requirements of statute and that the project has a commitment of any supplementary funding needed for a full funding plan. Projects not selected for programming in the statewide competition must be considered in the large MPO run competitions or the state run Small Urban and Rural competitions. A large urban MPO may elect to have a supplemental MPO specific call for projects. The projects received in this call must be considered along with those not selected through the statewide competition.

16. MPO Competitive Project Selection As stated above, projects not selected for programming in the statewide competition must be considered by the MPOs in administering a competitive selection process. An MPO choosing to use the same project selection criteria and weighting, minimum project size, match requirement, and definition of disadvantaged communities as used by the Commission for the statewide competition may delegate its project selection to the Commission. An MPO delegating its project selection to the Commission may not conduct a supplemental call for projects. An MPO, with Commission approval, may use a different project selection criteria or weighting, minimum project size, match requirement, or definition of disadvantaged communities for its competitive selection process. Use of a minimum project size of $500,000 or less, or of a different match requirement than in the statewide competitive program does not require prior Commission approval. An MPO may also elect to have a supplemental MPO specific call for projects. The projects received in this call must be considered along with those not selected through the statewide competition. In administering a competitive selection process, an MPO must use a multidisciplinary advisory group to assist in evaluating project applications. Following its competitive selection process, an MPO must submit its programming recommendations to the Commission along with the following:

• Project applications that were not submitted through the statewide program

• List of the members of its multidisciplinary advisory group

• Description of unbiased project selection methodology

• Program spreadsheet with the following elements

o All projects evaluated

o Projects recommended with total project cost, request amount, fiscal years, phases, state only funding requests

• Board resolution approving program of projects


13

• Updated Project Programming Requests (PPRs)

17. Screening Criteria

Demonstrated needs of the applicant: A project that is already fully funded will not be considered for funding in the Active Transportation Program. ATP funds cannot be used to supplant other committed funds. Consistency with a regional transportation plan: All projects submitted must be consistent with the relevant adopted regional transportation plan that has been developed and updated pursuant to Government Code Section 65080. Applicants must provide the supporting language cited from the adopted regional transportation plan that shows that the submitted project is consistent with the plan.

18. Scoring Criteria

Proposed projects will be scored and ranked on the basis of applicant responses to the below criteria. Project programming recommendations may not be based strictly on the rating criteria given the various components of the Active Transportation Program and requirements of the various fund sources.

• Potential for increased walking and bicycling, especially among students, including the identification of walking and bicycling routes to and from schools, transit facilities, community centers, employment centers, and other destinations; and including increasing and improving connectivity and mobility of non-motorized users. (0 to 30 points)

• Potential for reducing the number and/or rate of pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities and injuries, including the identification of safety hazards for pedestrians and bicyclists. (0 to 25 points)

• Public participation and Planning. (0 to 15 points)

Identification of the community-based public participation process that culminated in the project proposal, which may include noticed meetings and consultation with local stakeholders. Project applicants must clearly articulate how the local participation process (including the participation of disadvantaged community stakeholders) resulted in the identification and prioritization of the proposed project. For projects costing $1 million or more, an emphasis will be placed on projects that are prioritized in an adopted city or county bicycle transportation plan, pursuant to Section 891.2, pedestrian plan, safe routes to school plan, active transportation plan, trail plan, or circulation element of a general plan that incorporated elements of an active transportation plan. In future funding cycles, the Commission expects to make consistency with an approved active transportation plan a requirement for large projects.

• Improved public health through the targeting of populations with high risk factors for obesity, physical inactivity, asthma or other health issues, with a description of the intended health benefits of the proposed project. (0 to 10 points)

• Benefit to disadvantaged communities. (0 to 10 points)

Applicants must:


14

o Demonstrate how the project connects the disadvantaged community(ies) to commonly identified resources or amenities such as medical facilities, employers, parks, community centers and grocery stores.

o Provide a map that delineates the specific disadvantaged census tract(s) or school(s) that will benefit from the project in relationship to the project site.

• Cost-effectiveness. (0 to 5 points)

Applicants must:

o Discuss the relative costs and benefits of the range of alternatives considered.

o Quantify the safety and mobility benefit in relationship to both the total project cost and the funds provided.

Caltrans has developed a first generation benefit/cost model for infrastructure and non-infrastructure active transportation projects in order to improve information available to decision makers at the state and MPO level. Applicants must use the benefit/cost model for active transportation projects developed by Caltrans when responding to this criterion (a link to the model is posted on the Commission’s website under Programs/ATP). Applicants are encouraged to provide feedback on instructions, ease of use, inputs, etc. This input will be useful in determining future revisions of the model.

• Leveraging of non-ATP funds on the ATP project scope proposed. (0 to 5 points)

• Use of the California Conservation Corps or a qualified community conservation corps, as defined in Section 14507.5 of the Public Resources Code, as partners to undertake or construct applicable projects in accordance with Section 1524 of Public Law 112-141. Points will be deducted if an applicant does not seek corps participation or if an applicant intends not to utilize a corps in a project in which the corps can participate. (0 or to -5 points)

The California Conservation Corps can be contacted [email protected]. Qualified community conservation corps can be contacted at [email protected]. Direct contracting with the California Conservation Corps or a qualified community conservation corps without bidding is permissible provided that the implementing agency demonstrates cost effectiveness per 23 CFR 635.204 and obtains approval from Caltrans. A copy of the agreement between the implementing agency and the proposed conservation corps must be provided to the Department.

• Applicant’s performance on past grants. This may include project delivery, project benefits (anticipated v. actual), and use of the California Conservation Corps or qualified community conservation corps (planned v. actual). Applications from agencies with documented poor performance records on past grants may be excluded from competing or may be penalized in scoring. (0 or to -10 points)

19. Project Evaluation Committee Commission staff will form a multidisciplinary Project Evaluation Committee to assist in evaluating project applications. In forming the Project Evaluation Committee, staff will seek participants with expertise in bicycling and pedestrian transportation, including Safe Routes to Schools type projects, and in projects benefiting disadvantaged communities, and will seek



15

geographically balanced representation from state agencies, large MPOs, regional transportation planning agencies, local jurisdictions in small urban and rural areas, and non-governmental organizations. Priority for participation in the evaluation committee will be given to those who do not represent a project applicant, or will not benefit from projects submitted by others. In reviewing and selecting projects to be funded with federal Recreational Trails program funds, the Commission and/or Caltrans staff will collaborate with the Department of Parks and Recreation to evaluate proposed projects. MPOs, in administering a competitive selection process, must use a multidisciplinary advisory group, similar to the aforementioned Project Evaluation Committee, to assist in evaluating project applications.

V. Programming Following at least one public hearing, the Commission will adopt a program of projects for the Active Transportation Program, by April 1 of each odd numbered year. However, for the 2015 program, the deadline for programming is December 31, 2015. The Active Transportation Program must be developed consistent with the fund estimate and the amount programmed in each fiscal year must not exceed the amount identified in the fund estimate. The program of projects for each fiscal year will include, for each project, the amount to be funded from the Active Transportation Program, and the estimated total cost of the project. In the case of a large project delivered in segments, include the total cost of the segment for which ATP funds are requested. Project costs in the Active Transportation 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) construction. The cost of each project component will be listed in the Active Transportation Program no earlier than in the fiscal year in which the particular project component can be implemented. When proposing to fund only preconstruction components for a project, the applicant must demonstrate the means by which it intends to fund the construction of a useable segment, consistent with the regional transportation plan. When project design, right-of-way or construction are programmed before the implementing agency completes the environmental process, updated cost estimates, updated analysis of the project’s cost effectiveness, and updated analysis of the project’s ability to further the goals of the program must be submitted to the Commission following completion of the environmental process. If this updated information indicates that a project is expected to accomplish fewer benefits or is less cost effective as compared with the initial project application, future ATP funding for the project may be deleted from the program. For the MPO selected competitions, this information must be submitted to the MPO. It is the responsibility of the MPO to recommend that the project be deleted from the program if warranted. 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 Active Transportation Program and other committed funding. 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 Surface Transportation Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality


16

Improvement Program, and federal formula transit funds, the commitment may be by Federal approval of the Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. For federal discretionary funds, the commitment may be by federal approval of a full funding grant agreement or by grant approval. If the program of projects adopted by the Commission does not program the full capacity identified in the fund estimate for a given fiscal year, the balance will remain available to advance programmed projects. Subject to the availability of federal funds, a balance not programmed in one fiscal year will carry over and be available for projects in the following fiscal year. The intent of the Commission is to consolidate the allocation of federal funds to as few projects as practicable. Therefore, the smallest project may be designated, at the time of programming, for state-only funding.

VI. Allocations The Commission will consider the allocation of funds for a project when it receives an allocation request and recommendation from Caltrans in the same manner as for the STIP (see section 64 of the STIP guidelines). The recommendation will include a determination of project readiness, the availability of appropriated funding, and the availability of all identified and committed supplementary funding. Where the project is to be implemented by an agency other than the applicant, the allocation request must include a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding or Interagency Agreement between the project applicant and implementing agency. 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 Active Transportation Program. In order to ensure the timely use of all program funds, the Commission will, in the last quarter of the fiscal year, allocate funds to projects programmed in a future fiscal year on a first-come, first served basis. If there are insufficient funds, the Commission may delay the allocation of funds to a project until the next fiscal year without requiring an extension. Should requests for allocations exceed available capacity, the Commission will give priority to projects programmed in the current-year. Allocation requests for a project in the MPO selected portion of the program must include a recommendation by the MPO. In compliance with Section 21150 of the Public Resources Code, the Commission will not allocate funds for a non-infrastructure project or plan, or for design, right-of-way, or construction of an infrastructure project, prior to documentation of environmental clearance under the California Environmental Quality Act. As a matter of policy, the Commission will not allocate funds, other than for the environmental phase, for a federally funded project prior to documentation of environmental clearance under the National Environmental Policy Act. Exceptions to this policy may be made in instances where federal law allows for the acquisition of right-of-way prior to completion of National Environmental Policy Act review. If an implementing agency requests an allocation of funds in an amount that is less than the amount programmed, the balance of the programmed amount may be allocated to a


17

programmed project advanced from a future fiscal year. An MPO, in administering its competitive portion of the Active Transportation Program, must determine which projects to advance and make that recommendation to the Commission. Unallocated funds in one fiscal year will carry over and be available for projects in the following fiscal year. Any amount allocated for environmental may also be expended for design. In addition, a local agency may expend an amount allocated for environmental, design, right of way, or construction for another allocated project component, provided that the total expenditure shifted to a component in this way is not more than 20 percent of the amount actually allocated for either component. This means that the amount transferred by a local agency from one component to another may be no more than 20 percent of whichever of the components has received the smaller allocation from the Commission.

VII. Project Delivery Active Transportation Program allocations must be requested in the fiscal year of project programming, and construction allocations are valid for award for six months from the date of allocation unless the Commission approves an extension. Applicants may submit and the Commission will evaluate extension requests in the same manner as for STIP projects (see section 66 of the STIP guidelines) except that extension to the period for project allocation and for project award will be limited to twelve months. Extension requests for a project in the MPO selected portion of the program must include a recommendation by the MPO, consistent with the preceding requirements. If there are insufficient funds, the Commission may delay the allocation of funds to a project until the next fiscal year without requiring an extension. Whenever programmed funds are not allocated within the fiscal year they are programmed or within the time allowed by an approved extension, the project will be deleted from the Active Transportation Program. Funds available following the deletion of a project may be allocated to a programmed project advanced from a future fiscal year. An MPO, in administering its competitive portion of the Active Transportation Program, must determine which projects to advance and make that recommendation to the Commission. Unallocated funds in one fiscal year will carry over and be available for projects in the following fiscal year. The implementing agency must enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans and, if the project is federally funded, obligate the federal funds within six 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. After the award of a 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 implementing agency has six months after contract acceptance to make the final payment to the contractor or vendor, prepare the Final Report of Expenditures and submit the final invoice to Caltrans for reimbursement. It is incumbent upon the implementing agency to develop accurate project cost estimates. If the amount of a contract award is less than the amount allocated, or if the final cost of a component is less than the amount allocated, the savings generated will not be available for future programming.


18

Caltrans will track the delivery of Active Transportation Program projects and submit to the Commission a semiannual report showing the delivery of each project phase.

20. Federal Requirements

Unless programmed for state-only funding, project applicants must comply with the provisions of Title 23 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations and with the processes and procedures contained in the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual and the Master Agreement with Caltrans. Below are examples of federal requirements that must be met when administering Active Transportation Program projects.

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance and documentation is required on all projects. Refer to Chapter 6, Environmental Procedures, of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual for guidance and procedures on complying with NEPA and other federal environmentally related laws.

• Project applicants may not proceed with the final design of a project or request "Authorization to proceed with Right-of-Way" or "Authorization to proceed with Construction" until Caltrans has signed a Categorical Exclusion, a Finding of No Significant Impact, or a Record of Decision. Failure to follow this requirement will make the project ineligible for federal reimbursement.

• If the project requires the purchase of right of way (the acquisition of real property), the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 apply. For more information, refer to Chapter 13, Right of Way, of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual.

• If the project applicant requires the consultation services of architects, landscape architects, land surveyors, or engineers, the procedures in the Chapter 10, Consultant Selection, of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual must be followed.

• Contract documents are required to incorporate applicable federal requirements such as Davis Bacon wage rates, competitive bidding, Disadvantaged Business Enterprises/Equal Employment Opportunity provisions, etc. For more information, refer to Chapter 9, Civil Rights and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, and Chapter 12, Plans, Specifications & Estimate, of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual

• Failure to comply with federal requirements may result in the repayment to the State of Active Transportation Program funds.

21. Design Standards

Streets and Highways Code Section 891 requires that all city, county, regional, and other local agencies responsible for the development or operation of bikeways or roadways where bicycle travel is permitted utilize all minimum safety design criteria established by Caltrans, except that an agency may utilize other minimum safety design criteria if specific conditions are met, as described in Streets and Highways Code Section 891(b). Chapter 11, Design Standards, of the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual describes statewide design standards, specifications, procedures, guides, and references that are acceptable in the geometric, drainage, and structural design of Local Assistance projects. For capital projects off the state highway system, the project applicant will be responsible for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the facility. If another entity agrees to assume


19

responsibility for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the facility, documentation of the agreement must be submitted with the project application, and a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding or Interagency Agreement between the parties must be submitted with the request for allocation. All facilities constructed using Active Transportation Program funds cannot revert to a non-Active Transportation Program use for a minimum of 20 years or its actual useful life as documented in the project application, whichever is less, without approval of the Commission.

22. 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 if proper justification is not provided.

23. Project Reporting As a condition of the project allocation, the Commission requires the implementing agency to submit semi-annual reports on the activities and progress made toward implementation of the project and a final delivery report. An agency implementing a project in the MPO selected portion of the program must also submit copies of its semi-annual reports and of its final delivery report to the MPO. The purpose of the reports is to ensure that the project is executed in a timely fashion and is within the scope and budget identified when the decision was made to fund the project. Within one year of the project becoming operable, the implementing agency must provide a final delivery report to the Commission which includes:

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

• Before and after photos documenting the project.

• The final costs as compared to the approved project budget.

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

• Performance outcomes derived from the project as compared to those described in the project application. This should include before and after pedestrian and/or bicycle counts, and an explanation of the methodology for conducting counts.

• Actual use of the California Conservation Corps or qualified community conservation corps as compared to the use described in the project application.

Please note that the final delivery report required by this section is in addition to the aforementioned Final Report of Expenditures. For the purpose of this section, a project becomes operable when the construction contract is accepted or acquired equipment is received, or in the case of non-infrastructure activities, when the activities are complete. Caltrans must audit a selection of Active Transportation Program projects to evaluate the performance of the project, determine whether project costs incurred and reimbursed are in compliance with the executed project agreement or approved amendments thereof; state and


20

federal laws and regulations; contract provisions; and Commission guidelines, and whether project deliverables (outputs) and outcomes are consistent with the project scope, schedule and benefits described in the executed project agreement or approved amendments thereof. A report on the projects audited must be submitted to the Commission annually.

VIII. Roles And Responsibilities

24. California Transportation Commission (Commission)

The Commission responsibilities include:

• Adopt guidelines and policies for the Active Transportation Program.

• Adopt Active Transportation Program Fund Estimate.

• Evaluate, score and rank projects, including forming and facilitating the Project Evaluation Committee.

• In consultation with Regional Agencies and Caltrans, recommend and adopt a program of projects, including:

o The statewide component of the Active Transportation Program,

o The small urban & rural component of the Active Transportation Program, and

o The MPO selected component of the program based on the recommendations of the MPOs.

o Ensure that at least 25% of the funds benefit disadvantaged communities.

• Post recommendations and final adopted list of approved projects on the Commission’s website.

• Allocate funds to projects.

• Evaluate and report to the legislature.

25. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Caltrans has the primary responsibility for the administration of the adopted Active Transportation Program. Responsibilities include:

• Provide statewide program and procedural guidance (i.e. provide project evaluation of materials and instructions), conduct outreach through various networks such as, but not limited to, the Active Transportation Program website, and at conferences, meetings, or workgroups.

• Provide program training.

• Solicit project applications for the program.

• Facilitate the Program Advisory Committee.

• Assist in facilitating the Project Evaluation Committee.

• Perform eligibility and deliverability reviews of Active Transportation Program projects and inform the Commission of any identified issues as they arise.

• Assist as needed to evaluate and score applications.


21

• Notify successful applicants of their next steps after each call for projects.

• Recommend project allocations (including funding type) to the Commission.

• Track and report on project implementation, including project completion.

• Audit a selection of projects

• Serve as the main point of contact in project implementation, including administering the contract(s) for the technical assistance resource center.

26. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) With Large Urbanized Areas

MPOs with large urbanized areas are responsible for overseeing a competitive project selection process in accordance with these guidelines. The responsibilities include:

• Ensure that at least 25% of the funds in each MPO benefit disadvantaged communities.

• If using different project selection criteria or weighting, minimum project size greater than $500,000, match requirement, or definition of disadvantaged communities for its competitive selection process, the MPO must obtain Commission approval prior to the MPO’s call for projects.

• If electing to have a supplemental MPO specific call for projects, the projects within the MPO boundaries that were not selected through the statewide competition must be considered along with those received in the supplemental call for projects. An MPO must notify the Commission of their intent to have a supplemental call no later than the application deadline.

• In administering a competitive selection process, an MPO must use a multidisciplinary advisory group to assist in evaluating project applications.

• In administering a competitive selection process, an MPO must explain how the projects recommended for programming by the MPO include a broad spectrum of projects to benefit pedestrians and bicyclists. The explanation must include a discussion of how the recommended projects benefit students walking and cycling to school.

• An MPO choosing to use the same project selection criteria and weighting, minimum project size, match requirement, and definition of disadvantaged communities as used by the Commission for the statewide competition may delegate its project selection to the Commission. An MPO delegating its project selection to the Commission must notify the Commission by the application deadline, and may not conduct a supplemental call for projects.

• If electing to have a contingency list of projects to be amended into the program in the event a programmed project is delivered for less or fails, approve and recommend such amendments for Commission approval. This contingency list will be provided to the Commission and will be in effect only until the adoption of the next statewide program.

• Recommend allocation requests for a project in the MPO selected portion of the program.

• Determine which projects to advance and make that recommendation to the Commission.

• Submit an annual assessment of its portion of the program it terms of its effectiveness in achieving the goals of the Active Transportation Program.


22

In addition, the following statutory requirements apply specifically to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG):

• SCAG must consult with county transportation commissions, the Commission, and Caltrans in the development of competitive project selection criteria. The criteria should include consideration of geographic equity, consistent with program objectives.

• SCAG must place priority on projects that are consistent with plans adopted by local and regional governments within the county where the project is located.

• SCAG must obtain concurrence from the county transportation commissions.

27. Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) Outside an MPO with Large Urbanized Areas and MPOs without Large Urbanized Areas

These Regional Transportation Planning Agencies and MPOs (outside the nine large MPOs) may make recommendations or provide input to the Commission regarding the projects within their boundaries that are applying for Active Transportation Program funding.

28. Project Applicant

Project applicants nominate Active Transportation Program projects for funding consideration. If awarded Active Transportation Program funding for a submitted project, the project applicant (or partnering implementing agency if applicable) has contractual responsibility for carrying out the project to completion and complying with reporting requirements in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and these guidelines. For infrastructure projects off the state highway system, the project applicant will be responsible for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the facility. If another entity agrees to assume responsibility for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the facility, documentation of the agreement must be submitted with the project application, and a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding or Interagency Agreement between the parties must be submitted with the request for allocation.

IX. Program Evaluation The Active Transportation Program will be evaluated for its effectiveness in increasing the use of active modes of transportation in California. Applicants that receive funding for a project must collect and submit data to Caltrans as described in the "Project Reporting" section. The Commission will include in its annual report to the Legislature a discussion on the effectiveness of the program in terms of planned and achieved improvement in mobility and safety and timely use of funds, and will include a summary of its activities relative to the administration of the Active Transportation Program including:

• Projects programmed,

• Projects allocated,

• Projects completed to date by project type,

• Projects completed to date by geographic distribution,

• Projects completed to date by benefit to disadvantaged communities, and


23

• Projects completed to date with the California Conservation Corps or qualified community conservation corps.

Reference No.: 4.15March 26, 2015Attachment

3-Year 4-Year2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Total Total

STATE RESOURCESBeginning Balance $0 $0State Highway Account 34,200 34,200 34,200 34,200 102,600 136,800

State Resources Subtotal $34,200 $34,200 $34,200 $34,200 $102,600 $136,800

FEDERAL RESOURCESTransportation Alternatives Program (TAP) $63,650 $63,650 $63,650 $63,650 $190,950 $254,600TAP Recreational Trails 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 5,700 7,600Other Federal 19,950 19,950 19,950 19,950 59,850 79,800

Federal Resources Subtotal $85,500 $85,500 $85,500 $85,500 $256,500 $342,000

TOTAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE $119,700 $119,700 $119,700 $119,700 $359,100 $478,800

URBAN REGIONS (MPO Administered)State ($13,221) ($13,221) ($13,221) ($13,221) ($39,663) ($52,884)Federal (34,659) (34,659) (34,659) (34,659) (103,977) (138,636)

Urban Regions Subtotal ($47,880) ($47,880) ($47,880) ($47,880) ($143,640) ($191,520)

SMALL URBAN & RURAL REGIONS (State Administered)State ($4,829) ($4,829) ($4,829) ($4,829) ($14,487) ($19,316)Federal (7,141) (7,141) (7,141) (7,141) (21,423) (28,564)

Small Urban & Rural Regions Subtotal ($11,970) ($11,970) ($11,970) ($11,970) ($35,910) ($47,880)

STATEWIDE COMPETITION (State Administered)State ($16,150) ($16,150) ($16,150) ($16,150) ($48,450) ($64,600)Federal (43,700) (43,700) (43,700) (43,700) (131,100) (174,800)

Statewide Competition Subtotal ($59,850) ($59,850) ($59,850) ($59,850) ($179,550) ($239,400)

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS ($119,700) ($119,700) ($119,700) ($119,700) ($359,100) ($478,800)

FEDERAL TAP

FEDERAL OTHER STATE TOTAL

SHARESDisadvantaged Communities*

MTC Region 5,252$ 1,915$ 2,908$ 10,075$ 2,519$ SACOG Region 1,472 609 1,123 3,205 801 SCAG Region 14,493 4,833 6,106 25,432 6,358 Fresno COG (Fresno UZA) 559 249 503 1,311 328 Kern COG (Bakersfield) 448 225 510 1,183 296 SANDAG (San Diego UZA) 2,526 829 1,006 4,361 1,090 San Joaquin COG (Stockton) 317 183 465 966 241 Stanislaus COG (Modesto) 306 138 281 725 181 Tulare CAG (Visalia) 187 118 317 623 156 Total 25,559$ 9,100$ 13,221$ 47,880$ 11,970$

URBAN REGIONS

Note: Individual numbers may not add to total due to independent rounding. Final dollar amounts may vary based on actual apportionment and obligational authority by FHWA or any changes in Federal

Note: Individual numbers may not add to total due to independent rounding. Final dollar amounts may vary based on actual apportionment and obligational authority by FHWA or any changes in Federal guidance.

DISTRIBUTION

* Per Senate Bill 99, guidelines shall include a process to ensure no less than 25 percent of overall program funds benefit disadvantaged communities.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (ATP)FUND ESTIMATE

($ in thousands)

RESOURCES

jfabela

Line

jfabela

Oval

STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION

ADOPTING THE 2015 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (ATP) CYCLE 2

PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS

WHEREAS, the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) is a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Metropolitan Planning Organization, pursuant to State and Federal designation; and

WHEREAS, the Active Transportation Program (ATP) was created by Senate Bill 99 (Chapter 359, Statutes of 2013) and Assembly Bill 101 (Chapter 354, Statutes of 2013) to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking; and

WHEREAS, the 2015 ATP Cycle 2 covers a three year period of Fiscal Year 2016/17

through Fiscal Year 2018/19; and WHEREAS, on March 26, 2015, the California Transportation Commission (CTC)

adopted the 2015 ATP Guidelines and Fund Estimate (FE); and WHEREAS, the 2015 ATP Fund Estimate identifies $725,000 ATP funds available in the

Stanislaus Region for each fiscal year of FFY 2016/17, FFY 2017/18 and FFY 2018/19; and WHEREAS, StanCOG is recommending that a the regional project selection process for

the 2015 ATP Cycle 2 apportionments be based on the 2015 ATP Guidelines 3/26/15 and the corresponding project selection criteria; and

WHEREAS, StanCOG further recommends that a StanCOG ATP project evaluation

committee be formed as identified below:

1 Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee Member 1 StanCOG Staff Representative 1 Large Local Agency Representative 1 Small/Medium Local Agency Representative 1 Transit Operator

WHEREAS, StanCOG further recommends the following 2015 ATP Regional Call for

Projects Schedule:

StanCOG 2015 ATP Cycle 2 Call for Projects Schedule

July 16, 2015 StanCOG ATP Cycle 2 Call for Projects Begins

August 13, 2015 StanCOG ATP Cycle 2 Call for Projects Ends

September 11th ATP Project Evaluation Committee Completes Applications Review

October 21, 2015 Policy Board Approval of ATP Programming Recommendations

November 16, 2015 StanCOG submits Programming Recommendations to CTC

December 9-10, 2015 CTC adopts MPO Selected Projects

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the 2015 ATP Cycle 2 regional project

selection process herein is hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Executive Director is authorized to make

administrative changes, as needed, to ensure that the project selection is implemented in the most efficient and cost effective manner possible.

THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was introduced at a regular meeting of the

Stanislaus Council of Governments on the 20th day of May, 2015. A motion was made and seconded to adopt the foregoing Resolution. Motion carried and the Resolution was adopted.

MEETING DATE: May 20, 2015 __________________________________________




TO: Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Staff Report Discussion THROUGH: Carlos P. Yamzon, Executive Director

FROM: Rosa Park, Deputy Executive Director Cindy Malekos, Manager of Administrative Services


SUBJECT: Amendment to CAC Bylaws

Recommendation By Motion: Approve the amendment to the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Bylaws as reflected on the attached revised CAC Bylaws. Background StanCOG is a joint powers agency that was created by a joint powers agreement originally entered into on May 11, 1971, and last amended on December 12, 2007. The member agencies of StanCOG are Stanislaus County and all of the incorporated cities within Stanislaus County, which includes the Cities of Ceres, Hughson, Modesto, Newman, Oakdale, Patterson, Riverbank, Turlock and Waterford. On March 18, 2015, the Policy Board approved updates to the JPA to include the following: 1) update some of the standing committee descriptions and composition information to more accurately describe the committees; 2) clarify selection process for Executive Committee so that the five members are selected annually; 3) adjust Chair and Vice-Chair term of office from fiscal year to calendar year to be more in line with elected officials terms of office. The CAC Bylaws serve as an appendix to the JPA.

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 6D


Discussion

During the JPA update, the CAC Bylaws were reviewed by staff and legal counsel for any needed updates. It is proposed that some of the language be revised to become more consistent with the Bylaws of the Policy Board and the Bylaws of the other standing committees, and that the following five items be updated:

1. Article II Membership: Revise current membership composition from fifteen residents of Stanislaus County to one representative from each of the jurisdictions for a total of ten members, to be consistent with the composition of the other standing committees. Please note: It is recognized that there are several members currently serving on the CAC from one jurisdiction whose service is greatly appreciated. This provision would not take effect until after those members’ terms are completed on the CAC.

2. Article IV Meetings: Addition of, “The Policy Board shall establish a regular place and time for meetings of the Committee, in consultation of the Committee members”;

3. Article IV Meetings: Addition of, “The Executive Director may designate agenda items for any meetings of the Committee. The members of the Committee may also designate agenda items for consideration by the Committee”;

4. Article VII Officers, Rules, and Procedures: Addition of, “The Committee shall conduct all proceedings in conformity with Robert’s Rules of Order and the Brown Act”;

5. Article VII Officers, Rules, and Procedures: Addition of “All references to “year” (in regards to the term of office for the Chair and Vice-Chair) shall refer to the StanCOG fiscal year, July 1 through June 30.”

The CAC Bylaws state that: Changes or amendments to these Bylaws shall be approved by two-thirds of the members of that committee present and voting, and shall be subject to the majority approval of the Stanislaus Council of Governments Policy Board members present and voting. In no case shall a vote on a proposed amendment be conducted unless the said proposed amendment has been submitted in writing to the members of the Committee at least fifteen (15) days prior to the meeting at which a vote is to be taken. This item was presented for discussion at the CAC meeting on April 1, 2015 meeting. It is being brought before the CAC at their May 6, 2015 meeting for action. The revised CAC Bylaws would then be presented for approval to the Policy Board. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Rosa Park, Deputy Executive Director at 209.525.4600 or via e-mail at rpark@ stancog.org. Attachment: Revised CAC Bylaws

INFORMATION

ITEMS



TO: Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Staff Report Information THROUGH: Carlos P. Yamzon, Executive Director

FROM: Rosa De León Park, Deputy Executive Director Regina Valentine, Associate Planner


SUBJECT: Commute Connection Monthly Reports – March 2015

Background Commute Connection is the transportation demand management (TDM) program for the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG). As a designated non-attainment region, the Commute Connection program serves as Stanislaus County’s transportation control measure that satisfies the mitigation measure requirements contained in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s air quality plan. Implementing this program also allows the Stanislaus region to receive approximately seven million dollars ($7,000,000) annually in federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. Discussion: Commute Connection has served as the TDM program for Stanislaus County since 1987. Commute Connection provides the following services for StanCOG:

• Rideshare matching; • Vanpool formation, subsidies and maintenance; • Employer and commuter outreach promotions and education; • Emergency Ride Home Program; and • Marketing of services to the commuting public and employers.

During the month of March, Commute Connection helped organize and promote Bike to Work events at Frito Lay and the City of Modesto. Commute Connection also met with Parker Hannifin and the Center for Human Services to discuss vanpool opportunities for employees. Should you have further questions regarding this staff report, please contact Regina Valentine at 209-525-4644 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Attachments:

1. Commute Connection’s March 2015 Monthly Report

[email protected]



calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 7A

THE MONTHLY REPORT

March, 2015 San Joaquin / Stanislaus / Merced

Pacific Coast

Producers City of Merced Parker Hannifin

Meet the newest member to the Commute

Connection Community, Scholle Packaging.

Lisa Donahue, Commute Connection

Outreach representative for Stanislaus and

Merced met with the H.R./Environmental

Coordinator for Scholle. Scholle employs

over 150 people and manufacturers

packaging for a variety of industries such as, wine, dairy,

automotive and oil. Lisa assisted with Rule 9410 compliance

and is planning to promote the program directly to employees

at the work site.

MERCED

A “Lunch and Learn” was held at the

Center for Human Services in Modesto.

Lisa Donahue presented to a group of

employees on the benefits and tools

available when choosing an alternative to driving

alone. Commute Connection will partner with the

Center and Stanislaus County to offer more

opportunities to assist commuters find the right

choice. The Center plans to promote Bike to Work

activities in the near future at this site as well as

their other sites in Stanislaus County.

San Joaquin County

Commute

Connection Outreach

Representative, Kari

McNickle

participated in the

annual REXPO,

sponsored by the

Green Team San

Joaquin. The Green

Team is a great

partner providing opportunities to meet new employers

and showcase the Commute Connection program to the

community. Kari was also greeted by a special visitor, Dr.

Alexander Sherriffs, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution

Control District and California Air Resources Board

Member. Dr. Sherriffs was complimentary of the

program as it relates to AB 32 and offered his support

and assistance.

IT TAKES A

VILLAGE Partnerships make a

difference

SAN JOAQUIN STANISLAUS

Commute Connection / 555 E. Weber Avenue / Stockton, CA / 800-52-SHARE / commuteconnection.com

A Program of the San Joaquin Council of Governments, Stanislaus Council of Governments

and Merced County Association of Governments

March Activities & Outreach

Rideshare Database Profile Total Registered Commuters Commuters Added Total Vanpools Vanpools Added

San Joaquin 4,912 32 81 1

Stanislaus 1,958 3 25 0

Merced 341 2 7 0

Finalized contract with Vendor for new TDM System

Worked with graphic designer to create Bike Month designs, secured donations from SJVAPCD, Frito Lay and Diamond Foods and continued BTW Planning

Coordinated implementation of MTC Rideshare Database Sharing MOU

Performed significant database maintenance on commuter profiles

Met with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to discuss collaboration opportunities on Rule 9410 and marketing to employers

Held discussions with vanpool providers on collaboration opportunities to promote vanpools

Sent Commute Connection Newsletter to Employers and Commuters

Continued work with SJRTD to implement NTD Vanpool Reporting

Continued work with Interregional TDM Action Plan

Attended Green Team Meeting for Employer and Community Networking

Met with the City of Lodi to plan Bike to Work Community Event

Participated at Green Team REXPO Event and hosted a table exhibit

Attended Lathrop Chamber Network Mixer

Presented to the City of Tracy Transportation Commission

Met with Frito Lay’s Environmental Coordinator to discuss BTW sponsorship and distribute brochures

Met with Parker Hannifin’s Env. Manager to discuss vanpool opportunities

Met with City of Modesto Rideshare Coordinator to discuss Bike To Work Day City Event


Presented to group of employees at Center for Human Services

Presented to TAC and SSTAC for Bike To Work

Met with H.R./ Env. Coordinator with Scholle Packaging to discuss Rule 9410 and Commute Connection


STA

NIS

LAU

S TR

I-C

OU

NTY

M

ERC

ED

SAN

JO

AQ

UIN



TO: Citizens Advisory Committee Staff Report Information THROUGH: Carlos P. Yamzon, Executive Director

FROM: Jeanette Fabela, Senior Planner Debbie Trujillo, Planning Technician


SUBJECT: StanCOG E-Newsletter

Background StanCOG develops and distributes an electronic newsletter entitled On the Move. The purpose of the newsletter is to highlight the activities of StanCOG, its Policy Board Members and its Member Agencies in a concise and focused format and to encourage public engagement in the issues of the region. Each issue features information about projects, upcoming public meetings and events.

Discussion The latest edition of the StanCOG newsletter is attached in English and in Spanish. Regional news and events from the last few months are featured. The newsletter is distributed via e-mail. It is also posted on the StanCOG website. Additionally, a hard copy is sent to the 13 public libraries in the Stanislaus region to be posted where the public has access to it. On the Move is a tool that is used to enhance public awareness, involvement and participation in the transportation planning process in the Stanislaus region. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Jeanette Fabela at 209.525.4645 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Attachments: StanCOG E-Newsletters in English and Spanish


calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 7B

calviso

Typewritten Text

A quarterly publication of the Stanislaus Council of Governments

The South County Corridor

project is a feasibility study to

determine if there is a

suitable route connecting

Interstate 5 and State Highway

99 in the southern portion of

Stanislaus County and if so,

can it be funded for

construction. The purpose of

this effort is to foster and

promote a viable and vital

expressway facility that would improve goods

movement in the southern portion of the County

and promote a successful business climate,

including the inclusion of appropriate, desirable

land uses which would increase investment and

enhance the South County Corridor area for all

travel modes.

The project generally encompasses the vicinity of

West Main Street / Las Palmas Avenue, an east-west

corridor in rural Stanislaus County that traverses

between the City of Turlock and the cities of

Patterson and Newman. Currently, the road is

generally a two-lane highway through rural areas;

although there are four-lane segments within the

city limits of Turlock and three

lane segments within the city

limits of Patterson. It is

anticipated that the ultimate

connector will be a four‐lane

divided expressway.

StanCOG has allocated

$200,000 of State Planning,

Programming, and Monitoring

(PPM) funds for the Study.

The County contributed $100,000 and the Cities of

Patterson and Turlock are contributing $22,000

each with the City of Newman contributing $6,000

for a total of $350,000.

The first round of public workshops were held in

February to provide an overview of the planning

process and identify key issues. A second round is

planned for April to review alternative routes and

alternative performance measures, and a third

round later this year to review the results of the

alternative analysis and funding scenarios. The

Study is expected to be completed by February of

2016.

South County Corridor - Connecting I-5 and SR 99

AROUND THE REGION

Get Involved

Get involved and let your voice be heard! StanCOG is seeking interested citizens to serve on two of its

standing committees. The Citizens Advisory Committee is comprised of citizens from the region who provide

their recommendations on matters that go before the Policy Board. The Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory

Committee is made up of bicycle and pedestrian enthusiasts who offer their insight on issues related to

non-motorized transportation. For more information on how you can be a part of these two committees,

visit www.stancog.org/cac-committee.shtm and www.stancog.org/bpac-committee.shtm.

2015 Sacramento Valley Voice Trip

On March 4th, StanCOG Policy

Board Chair Vito Chiesa and

Member Luis Molina, along with

other elected officials from the

San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council, met with key state legislators and staff during the annual "Valley

Voice" advocacy trip to Sacramento. Some of the legislators that they met with included State Senator Anthony

Cannella, and State Assembly Members Adam Gray and Henry Perea.

Legislators and their staff had the opportunity to listen to the San Joaquin Valley's priorities and concerns, and

offer their comments and feedback. This year’s platform included the need to fund major regionally significant

corridors; the need for reliable, adequate water quality supply; continued support and increased funding for

state-supported passenger rail services; and consideration of a new $15 billion bond exclusively for state

highway safety, maintenance and capital improvements. The trip to Sacramento was a huge success and

allowed the Valley to demonstrate its strong level of regional collaboration.

Upcoming Meetings

StanCOG meetings listed below are open to the public. Citizens are encouraged to

attend. Meeting and agendas available at www.stancog.org.

MAY

5 Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC)

5 Valley Vision Stanislaus (VVS) Steering Committee

6 Management & Finance Committee

6 Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)

11 Executive Committee

20 Policy Board 22 San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Location TBD JUNE

2 Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC)

3 Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)

3 Management & Finance Committee

3 Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)

8 Executive Committee

17 Policy Board 19 San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council—Location TBD

JULY

24 San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Location TBD

AROUND THE REGION

City of Newman City of Modesto Tuesday, May 12th Thursday, May 14th 7:00—9:00 AM 6:30—8:30 AM Downtown Plaza 10th Street Plaza City of Oakdale City of Turlock TBD Saturday, May 16th 9:00 AM City of Patterson Farmer’s Market TBD For more information visit the Valley Bike Commute website.

Stanislaus Region Local Events

North County Corridor Update The North County Corridor project is in full swing with the expectation

of the release of the draft environmental document in May or June of

2015. Approximately 30 days following the release of the NCC

environmental document, the second public outreach session will be

held in Oakdale. The NCC Project Development Team has been working

diligently to approve intersection designations which will identify what

type of control will be implemented at new intersections, either

signalized or roundabouts. The approval of the intersection

designations is an important step in the facilitation of the NCC project

timeline.

There are no

StanCOG meetings for

the month of July

http://www.stancog.org

http://www.valleybikecommute.com/stanislaus.html

City of Ceres

Councilmember Mike Kline

City of Hughson

Mayor Matt Beekman *

City of Modesto

Councilmember Jenny Kenoyer Councilmember Tony Madrigal Councilmember Bill Zoslocki, Vice Chair *

City of Newman

Mayor Ed Katen

City of Oakdale

Councilmember Tom Dunlop

City of Patterson

Mayor Luis Molina *

City of Riverbank

Mayor Richard O’Brien

City of Turlock

Mayor Gary Soiseth

City of Waterford

Mayor Michael Van Winkle

Stanislaus County

Supervisor Vito Chiesa, Chair * Supervisor Jim DeMartini Supervisor Dick Monteith Supervisor Bill O’Brien * Supervisor Terry Withrow

Ex-Officio

Dennis T. Agar, Caltrans Director District 10 * Executive Committee Member StanCOG Executive Director Carlos P. Yamzon Editor: Jeanette Fabela Design: Debbie Trujillo

STANCOG MEMBER AGENCIES

AND POLICY BOARD MEMBERS

1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto CA, 95354 www.stancog.org

Donna is a wonderful example of how

mobility training can change your life.

When Donna moved from Rhode Island to

Turlock, she did not have a vehicle to

meet her transportation needs. Donna

began taking the Bus Line Service of

Turlock (BLST), although she was not

comfortable attempting to transfer to any

other bus systems.

One day, however, Donna learned about

the StanCOG-designated Consolidated

Transportation Services Agency (CTSA)

during a presentation at her apartment

complex. She decided to join the group that was going to be

trained how to travel on several bus systems. During the training,

Donna was shown how to easily get to and from Modesto and

transfer between several bus systems. She is now able to go to

places she would not have been able to travel to before.

With mobility training from the CTSA, she now uses the BLST,

Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT), and Modesto Area Express

(MAX) buses. Donna utilizes the bus routes to frequently meet her

son and friends for lunch, shopping, and to attend doctor’s

appointments. She loves the convenience of the bus stop being

only two blocks from her residence. Donna says she has lots of fun

while taking the bus, stating that the drivers are always friendly

and accommodating. Donna says that she lives by the motto “My

going shoes are always on.”

The goal of the CTSA is to coordinate transportation and assist

individuals with finding the best modes of transportation to meet

their needs. The CTSA can be contacted at (209) 522-2300 to assist

anyone who is unsure how to travel around Stanislaus County or

needs assistance with learning how to ride public transit.

CTSA’S CORNER

Donna, City of Turlock Resident

Una publicación trimestral del Consejo de Gobiernos de Stanislaus

El proyecto Eje Vial del Sur del

Condado es un estudio de

viabilidad para determinar si

existe una adecuada ruta para

conectar la autopista

Interestatal 5 con la Ruta

Estatal 99 en el sector sur del

Condado Stanislaus y, de ser

así, si es posible financiar su

construcción. El propósito de

esta iniciativa es impulsar y

promover una importante y

posible vía expresa que mejore el movimiento de

mercaderías en la sección sur del condado de modo

que incluya variados tipos de carriles para todo tipo

de transporte y que estimule un buen clima

comercial que atraiga la inversión en toda el área

del Eje Vial Sur del Condado.

En general, el proyecto comprende la vecindad de la

Calle Main Oeste / Avenida Las Palmas, un eje vial

este-oeste en el sector rural entre la ciudad de

Turlock y las ciudades de Patterson y Newman. En

este momento la ruta es generalmente de dos

pistas en doble sentido por los sectores rurales,

aunque dentro de los límites urbanos de Turlock hay

secciones de cuatro carriles y de tres dentro de los

límites de Patterson. Se espera

que la conexión final sea una

vía rápida de dos carriles

dobles, separados.

El StanCOG ha designado $200

000 de fondos para

Planificación, Programación y

Supervisión Estatal (PMM, por

sus siglas en inglés) para

ejecutar el estudio. El

Condado contribuyó $100 000,

los ayuntamientos de Patterson y Turlock

contribuyeron $22 000 cada uno, y el de Newman

$6 000 para un gran total de $350 000.

La primera ronda de foros abiertos al público se

celebró en febrero para presentar una reseña

general de los planes e identificar problemas de

importancia. Se ha programado una segunda ronda

para abril en la que se tratará tanto rutas

alternativas como diferentes indicadores de

rendimiento. En una tercera ronda —más tarde en

el año— se compararán los resultados de los análisis

de alternativas y escenarios de financiación. Se

estima que el Estudio esté terminado para febrero

del 2016.

Eje Vial del Sur del Condado - Conectando I-5 con la Ruta Estatal 99

POR LA REGIO N

Participe

¡Participe y hágase escuchar! StanCOG busca ciudadanos interesados en integrarse a dos de sus comités

permanentes. El Comité Asesor Ciudadano se compone de ciudadanos de la región que aportan sus

recomendaciones en temas que se presentarán al Comité de Políticas. El Comité Asesor Ciclopeatonal está

integrado por entusiastas del ciclismo y de caminar quienes ofrecen su opinión sobre el transporte sin

motor. Para mayor información sobre cómo integrarse a estos dos comités, visite

www.stancog.org/cac-committee.shtm and www.stancog.org/bpac-committee.shtm.

Viaje Voz del Valle 2015 a Sacramento

El 4 de marzo el presidente del

Comité de Políticas del StanCOG,

Vito Chiesa, y el miembro del

mismo, Luis Molina —junto a otras

autoridades electas del Consejo

Regional de Políticas del Valle San Joaquín— se reunieron con legisladores y personal claves durante el viaje

anual de cabildeo “Voz del Valle”. Los legisladores visitados incluyeron al senador estatal Anthony Canella y los

asambleístas Adam Gray y Henry Perea.

Los legisladores y su personal tuvieron la oportunidad de escuchar sobre las prioridades y preocupaciones del

Valle San Joaquín, ofreciendo comentarios y respuestas. La plataforma de este año incluía la necesidad de

financiar dos ejes viales de gran importancia regional; la necesidad de contar con un suministros de agua de

calidad, estable y adecuado; continuar e incrementar fondos para servicios ferroviarios de pasajeros

subvencionados por el estado; y que se considere un nuevo fideicomiso por $15 mil millones para utilizarlo

exclusivamente en seguridad, mantenimiento e importantes inversiones viales. La visita a Sacramento fue muy

provechosa y permitió que el Valle demostrase su alto nivel de colaboración.

Próximas Juntas

Las juntas del StanCOG listadas a continuación son abiertas al público. Se invita a todo ciudadano a que asista. Los horarios y agenda de cada reunión están

disponibles en www.stancog.org.

MAYO

5 Consejo Asesor de Transporte de Servicio Social (SSTAC)

5 Comité Orientador Proyección Stanislaus del Valle (VVS)

6 Comité de Administración y Finanzas

6 Comité Asesor Ciudadano (CAC)

11 Comité Ejecutivo

20 Comité de Políticas del StanCOG 22 Jurisdicción de Autoridad Unificada de

San Joaquín— Local a Determinarse

JUNIO

2 Consejo Asesor de Transporte de Servicio Social (SSTAC)

3 Comité Asesor Ciclo-Peatonal (BPAC)

3 Comité de Administración y Finanzas

3 Comité Asesor Ciudadano (CAC)

8 Comité Ejecutivo

17 Comité de Políticas del StanCOG 19 Consejo Regional de Políticas del Valle

San Joaquín—Local por Anunciarse

JULIO

24 Jurisdicción de Autoridad Unificada de San Joaquín - Local a Determinarse

POR LA REGIO N

Ciudad de Newman Ciudad de Modesto Martes 12 de mayo Jueves 14 de mayo 7:00—9:00 AM 6:30—8:30 AM Downtown Plaza 10th Street Plaza Ciudad de Oakdale Ciudad de Turlock Por Anunciarse Sábado 16 de mayo 9:00 AM Ciudad de Patterson Mercado de Agricultores Por Anunciarse

Para más información visite el sitio virtual de

Valley Bike Commute

Eventos Locales en la Región Stanislaus

Actualización sobre el Eje Vial del Norte del Condado TEl proyecto Eje Vial del Norte del Condado (NCC, por sus siglas en

inglés) avanza y se encuentra en espera que se publique el documento

preliminar de impacto medioambiental en mayo o junio del 2015. Más o

menos 30 días después de la publicación se celebrará en Oakdale una

segunda sesión abierta al público. El Grupo de Desarrollo del Proyecto

NCC ha trabajado diligentemente para que se aprueben la designación

de intersecciones de modo que saber qué tipo de control se

implementará en ellas: señalización o rotonda. La aprobación de

designación de intersecciones es un importante paso para avanzar en el

calendario del proyecto NCC.

No hay reunions de

StanCOG durante el

mes de julio

http://www.stancog.org

http://www.valleybikecommute.com/stanislaus.html

Ayuntamiento de Ceres

Concejal Mike Kline

Ayuntamiento de Hughson

Alcalde Matt Beekman *

Ayuntamiento de Modesto

Concejal Jenny Kenoyer Concejal Tony Madrigal Concejal Bill Zoslocki, Vice Chair *

Ayuntamiento de Newman

Alcalde Ed Katen

Ayuntamiento de Oakdale

Concejal Tom Dunlop

Ayuntamiento de Patterson

Alcalde Luis Molina *

Ayuntamiento de Riverbank

Alcalde Richard O’Brien

Ayuntamiento de Turlock

Alcalde Gary Soiseth

Ayuntamiento de Waterford

Alcalde Michael Van Winkle

Condado Stanislaus

Supervisor Vito Chiesa, Chair * Supervisor Jim DeMartini Supervisor Dick Monteith Supervisor Bill O’Brien * Supervisor Terry Withrow

De-Oficio Dennis T. Agar, director del 10º Distrito de Caltrans

*Miembro del Comité Ejecutivo

Director Ejecutivo: Carlos P. Yamzon

Editor: Jeanette Fabela Diseño: Debbie Trujillo

AGENCIAS Y MIEMBROS DEL

COMITÉ DE POLÍTICAS DEL

STANCOG

Calle I, Nº1111, Suite 308 Modesto CA, 95354 www.stancog.org

Donna es un maravilloso ejemplo de

cuanto puede cambiarle la vida la

capacitación para movilizarse. Cuando

Donna se mudó a Turlock desde Rhode

Island no tenía vehículo para movilizarse

de un lado a otro. Comenzó hablando con

el Servicio de Autobuses de Turlock (BLST,

por sus siglas en inglés) a pesar que no se

sentía cómoda cambiándose a cualquier

otro sistema de locomoción pública.

No obstante llegó el día que durante una

presentación en el complejo habitacional

donde residía Donna supo de la Agencia

de Servicios de Transporte Público Consolidados (CTSA, por sus

siglas en inglés). Decidió unirse a un grupo que iban a capacitar en

cómo trasbordar entre diferentes sistemas de buses. Ahora puede

ir a lugares a los cuales nunca antes había podido viajar antes.

Con esa capacitación de movilidad de la CTSA ahora utiliza

autobuses del BLST, StaRT (Movilización Pública Regional de

Stanislaus) y el Expreso del Área de Modesto (MAX). Donna usa

con frecuencia las rutas colectivas para juntarse con su hijo y sus

amigas para almorzar, ir de compras y a citas médicas, Le encanta

la conveniencia que el autobús se detenga a solo dos cuadras de su

residencia. Donna dice que es muy entretenido viajar en autobús,

notando que los choferes son siempre amistosos y están

dispuestos a ayudarla. Donna dice que su lema es “Mis zapatos

para salir están siempre listos”.

El objetivo de la CTSA es coordinar transporte y asistir a que toda

persona encuentre el método de traslado que más le acomode a

sus necesidades. Toda persona que no esté segura de cómo

trasladarse por el Condado Stanislaus o necesite ayuda para saber

cómo usar el sistema colectivo puede llamar a la CTSA al teléfono

(209) 522-2300.

ESQUINA CTSA

Donna, Residente de la Ciudad de Turlock

City of Ceres • City of Hugltson • City of Modesto • City of Newma11 • City of Oakdale • City of Patterson City of Riverba11k • City of Turlock • City of Waterford • County of Stanislaus

PRESENT:

ALSO PRESENT:

1. CALL TO ORDER

POLICY BOARD MEETING StanCOG Board Room 1111 I Street, Suite 308

Modesto, CA

Minutes of March 18,2015 (Wednesday) 6:00pm

Chair Vito Chiesa, Jim DeMartini, Bill O'Brien, Teny Withrow (departed after Item 7B) (Stanislaus County); Mike Kline (City of Ceres); Jill Silva (City of Hughson); Jenny Kenoyer, Tony Madrigal (alTived during Item SF), Bill Zoslocki (City ofModesto); Ed Katen (City ofNewman); Tom Dunlop (City of Oakdale); Luis Molina (City ofPatterson); Richard O'Brien (City of Riverbank); Gary Soiseth (City of Turlock); Mike Van Winlde (City of Waterford)

Dennis Agar (Caltrans, District 10); Monica Streeter (Neumiller and Beardslee); Arthur Chen, Jeanette Fabela, Cindy Malekos, Rosa Park, Regina Valentine, Cathy Wang, Carlos Yamzon (StanCOG); Kendall Flint (Flint Strategies); Rhett Calkins (Member of the Public)

Chair Vito Chiesa called the meeting to order at 6:00p.m.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLLCALL

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS-None

5. CONSENT CALLENDAR

A. Motion to Approve Policy Board Minutes of 2/18/15

B. Motion to Adopt Resolution 14-30 to Approve the 2015 Public Participation Plan (PPP)

C. Motion to Adopt Resolution 14-31 to Approve Methodology for Distribution of Additional Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) Funds for FFY 2014/15-2015/16

Page 1 of 4

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 7C

D. Motion to Adopt Resolution 14-32 to Approve Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Execution of Certifications and Assurances and Resolution 14-33 to Approve the Distribution of FY 2014/15 Funds

E. Motion to Adopt Resolution 14-34 to Adopt FY 2015/16 Unmet Transit Needs Identification and Analysis Report and Findings

*By Motion (Member Luis Molina/Member Mike Van Winkle), and a unanimous vote, the Policy Board approved Item A-E of the Consent Calendar.

F. Motion to Adopt Resolution 14-35 to Authorize Executive Director to Execute Contract with Mobility Planners LLC for Public Transit- Human Services Coordination Plan Member Bill O'Brien asked that this item be pulled for discussion. He asked if the RFP should be re-released to allow for more bids to be received. Rosa Park said that the recommended consultant was qualified and that due to a short timeline dictated by Caltrans, action was required.

*By Motion (Member Luis Molina/Member Jenny Kenoyer), and a 14-1 vote (with Member Bill O'Brien voting No), the Policy Board adopted Resolution 14-35 to authorize the Executive Director to Execute a Contract with Mobility Planners LLC for the Public Transit- Human Services Coordination Plan.

6. PRESENTATION

A. Communications and Community Outreach Services Update Kendall Flint provided an overview of the planned community outreach to prioritize projects included in the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) on a regional basis and an individual community basis. She indicated that the timeline would be for the outreach to be completed in August.


A. Motion to Adopt Resolution 14-36 to Approve Submission of Sustainable Agricultural Land Strategy Grant Application Carlos Y amzon described a grant opportunity from the Strategic Growth Council for a farmland preservation planning grant. The focus of the Sustainable Agricultural Land Strategy Grant was to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) by avoiding the conversion of farmland to urban uses. He said that the Valley Vision Stanislaus Steering Committee was convened to discuss this item and that they recommended focusing on two items: community consensus-building to develop a strategy for agricultural land preservation; and planning for critical agricultural infrastructure needs; such as processing facilities, local marketing oppmtunities, water quality or quantity improvements, or waste handling, to support sustainability in existing rural and agricultural communities.

There was an extensive discussion among members. Members R. O' Brien and B. O'Brien were concerned about some of the wording in the grant application. Members B. O'Brien and Zoslocki thought more outreach should involve the community. Members Zoslocki and Kenoyer were concerned about the tight timeline to review and approve the grant application.

By Motion (Member Bill O'Brien and Member Mike Kline) and a 9-6 vote (with Members Bill O'Brien, Mike Kline, Jenny Kenoyer, Tony Madrigal, Bill Zoslocki, Ed Katen, Tom Dunlop, Richard O'Brien, Mike Van Winkle voting Yes, and Members Vito Chiesa, Jim

Page 2 of 4

DeMartini, Terry Withrow, Jill Silva, Luis Molina, Gary Soiseth voting No), the Policy Board voted not to submit the grant application, to prepare next year to work on it as soon as it is notified that the grant could be available, and to work on a grant application that gets submitted and voted on by the Valley Vision Stanislaus Committee (VVS), by the Management and Finance Committee and the Executive Committee.

B. Motion to Adopt Resolution 14-37 to Amend StanCOG Joint Powers Agreement Rosa Park explained that it was suggested that the JP A, last amended in 2007, be updated to: 1) reflect an update to the standing committee descriptions and composition information to more accurately describe the committees; 2) clarify the selection process for the executive committee so that the five members are selected annually; and 3) to adjust the Chair and Vice-Chair term of office from fiscal year to calendar year to be more in line with elected officials' terms of offices. Rhett Calkins asked if this was discussed at the December 17 Policy Board workshop. Carlos Y amzon indicated that if approved, the JP A would then be circulated to member agencies for adoption by resolution through their governing bodies.

*By Motion (Member Terry Withrow/Member Tony Madrigal), and a unanimous vote, the Policy Board adopted Resolution 14-37 to amend the StanCOG Joint Powers Agreement.

8. INFORMATION ITEMS The fo llowing items were provided for information only.

A. Commute Connection Monthly Report- January 2015

B. 2015 FTIP Monthly Project Status Report FFY 2014/15

C. StanCOG E-Newsletter

D. Executive Committee Minutes of 3/9/15


F. Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Minutes of 3/4/15

G. Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SST A C) Minutes of 3/3/15

H. Valley Vision Stanislaus (VVS) Steering Committee Minutes of 3/3/15

9. CAL TRANS REPORT Dennis Agar highlighted some of the activities of District 10. He said that the California Transportation Plan 2040 was out for public review and comment through April 17th. He announced that District 10 was hosting an ATP workshop on April 14th regarding the second round of funding. Member Bill O'Brien thanked the director for attending the meeting. Member Richard O'Brien thanked the director for visiting Riverbank recently and for his assistance regarding an issue there.

10. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Carlos Yamzon announced that StanCOG Associate Planner Arthur Chen was leaving StanCOG. He introduced new StanCOG employees Elisabeth Hahn, Senior Planner and Isael Ojeda, Assistant Planner. He also thanked Chair Chiesa and Member Molina for attending the San Joaquin Valley Voice trip in Sacramento.

Page 3 of 4

11. MEMBER REPORTS Jill Silva thanked those Stan COG members and staff that attended the Hughson State of the City address. Member Tony Madrigal announced that the 2nd annual child safety car seat inspection event would be held on May 30 at Los Amigos Tire.

12. ADJOURNMENT Chair Vito Chiesa adjourned the meeting at 7:37pm.

Next Regularly Scheduled Policy Board Meeting: April15, 2015 (Wednesday) @ 6:00 m StanCOG Board Room 1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA 95354

Page 4 of 4

St. a u isla u s

City of Ceres • City of Hughson • City of Modesto • City of Newman • City of Oakdale • City ofPattersoll City of Riverbank • City of Turlock • City of Waterford • County of Stanislaus

PRESENT:

ALSO PRESENT:

1. CALL TO ORDER

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING StanCOG Board Room 1111 I Street, Suite 308

Modesto, CA

Minutes of March 9, 2015 (Monday) 5:00 pm

Chair Vito Chiesa (Stanislaus County); Vice-Chair Bill Zoslocki (City of Modesto); Matt Beekman (City ofHughson); Luis Molina (City ofPatterson); Bill O'Brien (Stanislaus County)

Monica Streeter (Neumiller and Beardslee); Cindy Malekos, Rosa Park, Carlos Y amzon (Stan COG)

Chair Vito Chiesa called the meeting to order at 5:02pm.

2. ROLLCALL


4. CONSENT CALENDAR

A. Motion to Approve Executive Committee Meeting Minutes of 12/8/15

*By Motion (Member Luis Molina/Member Matt Beekman), and a unanimous vote, the Executive Committee approved the Consent Calendar.


A. Update to Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) Cindy Malekos explained that an update to the JP A was proposed to reflect changes in the mimes and composition of some of the standing committees, to adjust the terms of office for the Chair and ViceChair from fiscal year to calendar year, and to clarify that the Executive Committee members be selected annually. It was also noted that a change to the Policy Board membership was not needed in regard to a dedicated transit representative.

Page 1 of 2

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 7D

*By Motion (Member Matt Beckman/Member Luis Molina), and a unanimous vote, the Executive Committee recommended that the Policy Board adopt by Resolution the update to the Joint Powers Agreement.

B. Draft FY 2015/16 Budget and Overall Work Program Carlos Yamzon stated that the Draft FY 2015/ 16 Budget and OWP had been submitted to FHW A, FTA and Cal trans by the required due date. He reviewed the budget and described the highlights of plans for the next fiscal year. Members offered comments and Carlos Y amzon indicated that staff would bring the item to the April meeting for further discussion and with comments received by then from the funding agencies.

C. Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation Program (SALCP) -Sustainable Agricultural Land Strategy Grant Carlos Y amzon described a grant opportunity from the Strategic Growth Council for a farmland preservation planning grant. He said there was a tight timeframe and it would be presented to the Policy Board meeting in March.

E. Draft March Policy Board Agenda Review Carlos Y amzon reviewed agenda items on the draft agenda. It was noted that the grant and JP A items would be listed under Discussion/ Action and the remainder of the items would be on the Consent Calendar ofthe Policy Board agenda.

6. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT-None

7. ADJOURNMENT Chair Vito Chiesa adjourned the meeting at 6:05 pm.

Next Regularly Scheduled Executive Committee Meeting A ril 6, 2015 (Monday) @ 5:00pm StanCOG Board Room 1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA 95354


~~ Cmdy ekes Manager of Administrative Services

Page 2 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 Stanislaus

MANAGEMENT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING StanCOG Board Room

MEMBERS PRESENT :

ALSO PRESENT:

1. CALL TO ORDER

1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA

Minutes of March 5, 2015 (Thursday) 3:00pm

Bryan Whitemyer (arrived during Item 5A) (City of Oakdale); Toby Wells (City of Ceres); Jaylen French (City ofHughson); Bill Sandhu, Jim Holgersson (arrived during Item 5A) (City of Modesto); Mike Willett (City of Patterson); Kathleen Cleek (City ofRiverbank); Roy Wasden (City ofTurlock); Tim Ogden (City ofWaterford); Keith Boggs (Stanislaus County)

Arthur Chen, Jeanette Fabela, Travis Jacobs, Karen Kincy, Cindy Malekos, Rosa Park, Debbie Trujillo, Regina Valentine, Cathy Wang, Robin Whitehead, Carlos Y amzon (StanCOG)

Vice-Chair Tim Ogden called the Management and Finance Committee meeting to order at 3:02pm.

2. ROLLCALL


4. CONSENT CALENDAR

A. Motion to Approve Management and Finance Committee Minutes of 2/4/15

*By Motion (City of Patterson/City of Turlock), and a unanimous vote, the Management and Finance Committee approved the Consent Calendar.


A. Motion to Recommend Policy Board Adopt by Resolution the 2015 Public Participation Plan (PPP) Jeanette Fabela explained that the PPP had been updated to reflect new federal mandates and to enhance the public involvement process. Carlos Y amzon reviewed the outreach efforts that had taken place to inform the public.

Page 1 of 3

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 7E

calviso

Typewritten Text

*By Motion (Stanislaus County/City of Ceres), and a unanimous vote, the Management and Finance Committee recommended that the Policy Board adopt by Resolution the 2015 Public Participation Plan (PPP).

Chair Bryan Whitemyer took over as the Chairperson of the meeting after Item 5A.

B. Motion to Recommend Policy Board Adopt by Resolution the Methodology for the Distribution of Additional Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) Funds for FFY 2014/15-2015/16 Jeanette Fabela said that the Stanislaus region had over-obligated federal funding for the past four years and explained that Caltrans had allocated additional RSTP funding to the region.

*By Motion (City of Modesto/City of Patterson), and a unanimous vote, the Management and Finance Committee recommended that the Policy Board adopt by Resolution the Methodology for the Distribution of Additional Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) Funds for FFY 2014/15-2015/16.

C. Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) Regina Valentine provided information about LCTOP, and said that the City of Modesto and Stanislaus County had submitted requests for the region' s available funds for eligible projects. There was a brief discussion about utilizing future funding of this type for potential projects such as ACE.

D. FY 2015/16 Unmet Transit Needs Identification and Analysis Report Regina Valentine provided an overview of the Unmet Transit Needs process and reviewed the various forms of outreach that were used to inform the public. She said there were a total of 44 public comments received, and it was determined that there were no unmet transit needs that were reasonable to meet for FY 15/16.

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

A. Commute Connection Monthly Report- January 2015

B. 2015 FTIP Monthly Project Status Report FFY 2014/15

C. Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Schedule of Actual Receipts

D. StanCOG E-Newsletter

E. Policy Board Minutes of 1/21115

F. Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) Minutes of 116/15

G. Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Minutes (BPAC) of 12/3/14

7. CALTRANS REPORT-None Chair Bryan Whitemyer noted that it was beneficial for Caltrans to be in attendance at MFC meetings.

Page 2 of 3

8. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Carlos Y amzon described a grant opportunity from the Strategic Growth Council for a farmland preservation planning grant. He said there was a tight timeframe and it would be presented to the Policy Board meeting in March. Some MFC members thought LAFCO was more appropriate to lead the effort. It was also announced that Arthur Chen was leaving StanCOG.

9. MEMBER REPORTS-None Bryan Whitemyer asked about the downward trend in the gas tax.

10. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bryan Whitemyer adjourned the meeting at 3:48 pm.

Next Regularlv Scheduled Management and Finance Committee Meeting: A rill, 2015 (Wednesday) @ 3:00pm StanCOG Board Room 1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA 95354


dm~Wt111iw-

Page 3 of 3

Documents

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) MAY 6, 2015… · 2015. 5. 1. · MAY 6, 2015•WEDNESDAY•6:00 PM STANCOG BOARD ROOM 1111 I STREET, SUITE 308 MODESTO,CA Committee Agendas and