MEETING AGENDA 6:00 p.m., STA Board Regular Wednesday ...€¦ · The complete STA Board Meeting Packet is available on STA’s Website at (Note: STA Board Meetings are held at Suisun

The complete STA Board Meeting Packet is available on STA’s Website at www.sta.ca.gov (Note: STA Board Meetings are held at Suisun City Hall, 6:00 p.m. on the 2nd Wednesday of every month

except August (Board Summer Recess) and November (Annual Awards Ceremony.)

MEETING AGENDA

6:00 p.m., STA Board Regular Wednesday, March 11, 2020

Suisun City Hall Council Chambers 701 Civic Center Drive Suisun City, CA 94585

Mission Statement: To improve the quality of life in Solano County by delivering transportation projects to ensure mobility, travel safety, and economic vitality for all.

Public Comment: Pursuant to the Brown Act, the public has an opportunity to speak on any matter on the agenda or, for matters not on the agenda, issues within the subject matter jurisdiction of the agency. Comments are limited to no more than 3 minutes per speaker unless modified by the Board Chair, Gov’t Code § 54954.3(a). By law, no action may be taken on any item raised during the public comment period although informational answers to questions may be given and matters may be referred to staff for placement on a future agenda of the agency. Speaker cards are requested in order to provide public comment. Speaker cards are on the table at the entry in the meeting room and should be handed to the STA Clerk of the Board. Public comments are limited to 3 minutes or less.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): This agenda is available upon request in alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the ADA of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §12132) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Govt. Code §54954.2). Persons requesting a disability related modification or accommodation should contact Johanna Masiclat, Clerk of the Board, at (707) 399-3203 during regular business hours at least 24 hours prior to the time of the meeting.

Translation Services: For document translation please call: Para la llamada de traducción de documentos: 對於文檔翻譯電話

Đối với tài liệu gọi dịch: Para sa mga dokumento tawag sa pagsasalin: 707-399-3203

Staff Reports: Staff reports are available for inspection at the STA Offices, One Harbor Center, Suite 130, Suisun City during regular business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday-Friday. You may also contact the Clerk of the Board via email at [email protected] Supplemental Reports: Any reports or other materials that are issued after the agenda has been distributed may be reviewed by contacting the STA Clerk of the Board and copies of any such supplemental materials will be available on the table at the entry to the meeting room.

Agenda Times: Times set forth on the agenda are estimates. Items may be heard before or after the times shown.

ITEM BOARD/STAFF PERSON

1. CALL TO ORDER/ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE(6:00 p.m.)

Chair Rowlett

2. CONFIRM QUORUM/ STATEMENT OF CONFLICT Chair Rowlett An official who has a conflict must, prior to consideration of the decision; (1) publicly identify in detail the financial interest that causes the conflict; (2) recuse himself/herself from discussing and voting on the matter; (3) leave the room until after the decision has been made. Cal. Gov’t Code § 87200.

STA BOARD MEMBERS Jim Spering Lori Wilson Elizabeth Patterson Thom Bogue Harry Price Ronald Kott Ron Rowlett

(Chair) Bob Sampayan

(Vice Chair)

County of Solano City of Suisun City City of Benicia City of Dixon City of Fairfield City of Rio Vista City of Vacaville City of Vallejo

STA BOARD ALTERNATES Erin Hannigan Mike Segala Lionel Largaespada Steve Bird Chuck Timm Hope Cohn Raymond Beaty Robert McConnell

1

http://www.sta.ca.gov/

mailto:[email protected]

The complete STA Board Meeting Packet is available on STA’s Website at www.sta.ca.gov(Note: STA Board Meetings are held at Suisun City Hall, 6:00 p.m. on the 2nd Wednesday of every month


Daryl Halls

Supervisor Jim Spering

Tony Tavares, Caltrans District 4

3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

4. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT (6:10 – 6:15 p.m.)

5. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT(6:15 – 6:20 p.m.)Pg. 7

6. REPORT FROM THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (MTC)(6:20 – 6:25 p.m.)

7. REPORT FROM CALTRANS(6:25 – 6:35 p.m.)

8. STA PRESENTATIONS(6:35 – 6:55 p.m.)

A. Legislative UpdateB. STA Presentations

1. Managed Lanes2. Regional Transit Coordination3. TDM

C. Directors Reports:1. Projects2. Programs3. Planning

Matt Robinson/Josh Shaw

Daryl Halls Ron Grassi

Lloyd Nadal/Katelyn Costa

Johanna Masiclat

9. CONSENT CALENDARRecommendation:Approve the following consent items in one motion.(Note: Items under consent calendar may be removed for separate discussion.)(6:55 – 7:00 p.m.)

A. Meeting Minutes of the STA Board Meeting of February 12, 2020 Recommendation:Approve the Minutes of the STA Board Meeting of February 12, 2020. Pg. 11

B. Draft Minutes of the STA TAC Meeting of February 26, 2020 Recommendation:Approve the Draft Minutes of the STA TAC Meeting of February 26, 2020.Pg. 19

Johanna Masiclat

2


The complete STA Board Meeting Packet is available on STA’s Website at www.sta.ca.gov(Note: STA Board Meetings are held at Suisun City Hall, 6:00 p.m. on the 2nd Wednesday of every month


C. Lifeline Program Funding Cycle 6Recommendation:Lifeline Program funding by the transit operators continue to be in coordination with the CTSA Advisory Committee and STA Board via the Consortium. Pg. 23

Ron Grassi

D. Solano Community College (SCC) Student Transportation FeeUpdateRecommendation:Approve allowing Solano Community College students to continue to ride at no additional cost with a valid Solano Community College student ID on all SolanoExpress routes, including stops outside of Solano County. Pg. 29

Lloyd Nadal Brandon Thomson

E. Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) Fiscal Year (FY)2019-20 FundingRecommendation:Allocate Solano County FY 2019-20 LCTOP Population Based Funds for SolTrans $595,846 (72%) and FAST $231,718 (28%) for electrification infrastructure of the SolanoExpress fleet and distribution for FY 2020-21 LCTOP will be discussed through a cooperative process to be recommended by the Consortium to the STA Board. Pg. 31

Ron Grassi

F. Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) Micro-Grant Program Project UpdateRecommendation:Approve the following:

1. Safe Routes to School Micro-Grant funding recommendations asshown in Attachment A; and

2. The Executive Director to implement these funding recommendationPg. 37

Lloyd Nadal Karin Bloesch

G. I-80/I-680/State Route (SR) 12 Interchange Project AllocationRecommendation:Approve the following:

1. STA Resolution 2020-01 as shown in Attachment A; and2. Funding Allocation Transfer Request from Metropolitan

Transportation Commission (MTC) to transfer $1,059,820 inbridge toll funds to the I-80/I-680/SR 12 Interchange – Right ofWay Phase.

Pg. 41

Janet Adams

3




Janet Adams

Vincent Ma

Robert Guerrero

Triana Crighton

Erika McLitus

Brent Rosenwald

Johanna Masiclat

10. ACTION FINANCIAL ITEMS

A. Regional Measure 3 Bridge Toll Competitive Programs Priority ProjectsRecommendation:Approve the priority capital projects for RM 3 competitive programs as shown in Attachment C.(7:00 – 7:05 p.m.)Pg. 69

11. ACTION NON-FINANCIAL ITEMS

A. Legislative UpdateRecommendation:Support in concept for SB 1408 (Dodd) State Route 37 Toll Bridge Act(7:05 – 7:10 p.m.)Pg. 77

B. Plan Bay Area 2050 – Draft County Discretionary Revenues and Project SubmittalRecommendation:Approve the Solano County Regional Transportation Plan Project List as specified in Attachment A.(7:10 – 7:15 p.m.)Pg. 109

C. Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Equity Chapter Adoption Recommendation:Adopt the CTP Equity Chapter as shown in Attachment A.(7:15 – 7:20 p.m.)Pg. 121

12. INFORMATIONAL – NO DISCUSSION

A. Project Delivery UpdatePg. 123

B. Summary of Funding OpportunitiesPg. 129

C. 2020 STA Board and Advisory Committee Meeting SchedulePg. 131

13. BOARD MEMBERS COMMENTS

14. ADJOURNMENTThe STA Board’s next regularly scheduled meeting is at 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 8, 2020, at theSuisun Council Chambers.

STA Board Meeting Schedule for Calendar Year 2020 4




6:00 p.m., April 8th 6:00 p.m., May 13th 6:00 p.m., June 10th 6:00 p.m., July 8th

No Meeting in August (Board Summer Recess) 6:00 p.m., September 9th 6:00 p.m., October 14th No Meeting November

5:30 p.m., November 4, 2020 – STA’s 23rd Annual Awards Ceremony – City of Dixon 6:00 p.m., December 9th

5


This page is left intentionally blank.

6

Agenda Item 5 March 11, 2020

DATE: March 3, 2020 TO: STA Board FROM: Daryl K. Halls RE: Executive Director’s Report – March 2020

The following is a brief status report on some of the major issues and projects currently being advanced by the Solano Transportation Authority (STA). An asterisk (*) notes items included in this month’s Board agenda.

Adoption of Equity Chapter for County Transportation Plan (CTP)* The draft Equity Chapter was distributed for review and comment following its development by the Equity Work Group and following the STA Board’s modification of the STA’s Mission Statement and adoption of the Equity Guiding Principles. Following the 30-day public comment period, the Equity Chapter is now ready for adoption by the STA Board and incorporated with the rest of the Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) to be adopted later this year.

Caltrans Update by District Director * Caltrans District 4 Director Tony Tavares is scheduled to visit the STA Board at this meeting to provide a presentation/update on Caltrans projects in Solano County.

State Senator Dodd Introduces Bill to Authorize Tolling on SR 37 to Address Flooding and Traffic Congestion * At a media event held at Sonoma Raceway, State Senator Bill Dodd publicly announced his introduction of Senate Bill (SB 1408) to authorize tolling to support the funding for the State Route (SR) 37 Corridor between SR 37/SR 121 (Sears Point) in Sonoma County and the Mare Island Interchange in Solano County. This corridor is particularly vulnerable to seasonal flooding, future inundation, and severe traffic in the morning going west and in the late afternoon/evening going east. Senator Dodd indicated his intent to work with the four North Bay County Transportation Agencies, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Caltrans to support much needed improvements to the SR 37 Corridor, the primary east-west corridor traversing the four North Bay Counties.

Various State Legislative Proposals to Potentially Impact Transit Services and Funding as Region Focuses on Transit Connectivity* This legislative session, there have been a number of potential bills introduced impacting transit services and funding. STA’s state legislative advocate, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange will provide a summary at the Board meeting.

Solano County Projects for Plan Bay Area 2050 Regional Plan* MTC continues to proceed forward with the regional transportation plan called “Plan Bay Area 2050.” The next step is for STA to submit a list of priority projects to be included in the “fiscally constrained” portion of Plan Bay Area 2050. The list for Solano County, and the other eight counties, has been reduced to fit into the lower available funding level expected to be

7

Executive Director’s Memo March 3, 2020

Page 2 of 2 available over the next 30 years. STA staff has discussed with the STA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and prepared a narrower list of priority projects to be submitted for either regional funding or county share funding. Priorities for Regional Measure 3 (RM 3) Competitive Programs * While the Regional Measure 3 toll revenue is being collected and escrowed due to a pending lawsuit, regional discussions have been initiated by MTC regarding the regionally competitive categories of the RM 3 Expenditure Plan. In preparation, STA staff has updated STA’s list of priorities for these various categories and reviewed them with the SolanoExpree Intercity Transit Consortium and STA TAC. These are presented for review and approval by the STA Board. STA Board to Award New Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) Micro-Grants * The STA Board authorized the establishment of a new SR2S Micro-Grant Program and issued a call for projects. There was a strong response and staff is submitting the list of recommended projects for funding. Due to the strong interest from throughout Solano County for these smaller SR2S projects, staff is planning to recommend a continuation of this program next fiscal year. STA Board to Program Low Carbon Transit Program (LCTP) Funds for SolanoExpress Electrification * This year, STA staff is recommending the STA Board focus the allocation of LCTP funds on the electrification of the SolanoExpress Bus Service and Fleet operated by Solano County Transit (SolTrans) and Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST). Both SolanoExpress service providers have initiated the expensive and important process of funding and implementing the installation of the necessary EV infrastructure for the estimated 35 SolanoExpress Buses that serve the four SolanoExpress Bus Routes. This funding recommendation will help both transit operators continue to advance their efforts. Expanding College Student Fee to SolanoExpress Service Outside of Solano County * With the support of the SolanoExpress Transit Consortium, the STA staff is recommending to the STA Board that the Solano Community College (SCC) Fee for SolanoExpress be utilized to allow SCC students to ride for free just by showing their student identification for transit trips outside of Solano County, in addition to trips within Solano County. Solano County Cities Join New Solano Housing Investment Partnership (SolHIP) Six of the seven cities have officially joined the Sol HIP effort with a focus on planning, funding and implementing affordable housing projects located in Priority Development Areas (PDAs) adjacent to regional transit centers and services. A letter of interest for potential projects has been distributed and initial meetings with participating cities are being held. STA staff continues to work with the cities of Fairfield and Vacaville on two pilot affordable housing projects which consists of regional pilot funding provided by MTC to STA. The first pilot project is scheduled to be brought forward to the STA Board in the April/May timeframe of this year. Attachments:

A. Summary of Meetings in the month of February 2020 (Provided to the STA Board Members under separate cover.)

B. STA Acronyms List

8

STA ACRONYMS LIST OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS Last Updated by JM: October 2018

A AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACTC Alameda County Transportation Commission ADA American Disabilities Act ADT Average Daily Traffic APDE Advanced Project Development Element (STIP) AQMD Air Quality Management District ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ATP Active Transportation Program ATWG Active Transportation Working Group AVA Abandoned Vehicle Abatement B BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAC Bicycle Advisory Committee BACTA Bay Area Counties Transportation Agencies BAIFA Bay Area Infrastructure Financing Authority BART Bay Area Rapid Transit BATA Bay Area Toll Authority BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission BUILD Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development C CAF Clean Air Funds CalSTA California State Transportation Agency CALTRANS California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CCAG City-County Association of Governments (San Mateo) CCCC (4’Cs) City County Coordinating Council CCCTA (3CTA) Central Contra Costa Transit Authority CCJPA Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CHP California Highway Patrol CIP Capital Improvement Program CMA Congestion Management Agency CMIA Corridor Mobility Improvement Account CMAQ Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Program CMGC Construction Manager/General Contractor CMP Congestion Management Plan CNG Compressed Natural Gas CPI Consumer Price Index CTA California Transit Agency CTC California Transportation Commission CTP Comprehensive Transportation Plan CTSA Consolidated Transportation Services Agency D DBE Disadvantaged Business Enterprise DOT Department of Transportation E ECMAQ Eastern Solano Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency EV Electric Vehicle F FAST Fairfield and Suisun Transit FAST Act Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act FASTER Freedom. Affordability. Speed. Transparency. Equity. Reliability. FASTLANE Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the Long-term Achievement of National Efficiencies

FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report FHWA Federal Highway Administration FPI Freeway Performance Initiative FTA Federal Transit Administration G GARVEE Grant Anticipating Revenue Vehicle GHG Greenhouse Gas GIS Geographic Information System H HIP Housing Incentive Program HOT High Occupancy Toll HOV High Occupancy Vehicle HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Plan I INFRA Infrastructure for Rebuilding America ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ITIP Interregional Transportation Improvement Program ITS Intelligent Transportation System J JARC Jobs Access Reverse Commute Program JPA Joint Powers Agreement L LATIP Local Area Transportation Improvement Program LCTOP Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) LEV Low Emission Vehicle LIFT Low Income Flexible Transportation Program LOS Level of Service LS&R Local Streets & Roads LTR Local Transportation Funds M MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century MAZ Micro Analysis Zone MIS Major Investment Study MLIP Managed Lanes Implementation Plan MOU Memorandum of Understanding MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MTAC Model Technical Advisory Committee MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission MTS Metropolitan Transportation System N NCTPA Napa County Transportation & Planning Agency NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHS National Highway System NOP Notice of Preparation NVTA Napa Valley Transportation Authority O OBAG One Bay Area Grant OPR Office of Planning and Research OTS Office of Traffic Safety P PAC Pedestrian Advisory Committee PCA Priority Conservation Area PCC Paratransit Coordinating Council PCI Pavement Condition Index PCRP Planning & Congestion Relief Program PDS Project Development Support PDA Priority Development Area PDT Project Delivery Team PDWG Project Delivery Working Group PMP Pavement Management Program 9

STA ACRONYMS LIST OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS Last Updated by JM: October 2018

PMS Pavement Management System PNR Park & Ride POP Program of Projects PPA Priority Production Area PPM Planning, Programming & Monitoring PPP (P3) Public Private Partnership PS&E Plans, Specifications & Estimate PSR Project Study Report PTA Public Transportation Account PTAC Partnership Technical Advisory Committee (MTC) R RABA Revenue Alignment Budget Authority REPEG Regional Environmental Public Education Group RFP Request for Proposal RFQ Request for Qualification RM 1/2/3 Regional Measure 1/2/3 (Bridge Toll) RMRP Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program RORS Routes of Regional Significance RPC Regional Pedestrian Committee RRP Regional Rideshare Program RTEP Regional Transit Expansion Policy RTIF Regional Transportation Impact Fee RTP Regional Transportation Plan RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program RTMC Regional Transit Marketing Committee RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Agency S SACOG Sacramento Area Council of Governments SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equality Act-a Legacy for Users SATP Solano Active Transportation Plan SCS Sustainable Community Strategy SCTA Sonoma County Transportation Authority SFCTA San Francisco County Transportation Authority SGC Strategic Growth Council SJCOG San Joaquin Council of Governments SHOPP State Highway Operations & Protection Program SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SMART Sonoma Marin Area Rapid Transit SMART Safety, Mobility and Automated Real-time SMCCAG San Mateo City-County Association of Governments SNABM Solano-Napa Activity-Based Model SNCI Solano Napa Commuter Information SoHip Solano Highway Partnership SolTrans Solano County Transit SOV Single Occupant Vehicle SPOT Solano Projects Online Tracking SP&R State Planning & Research SPUR San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research SR State Route SR2S Safe Routes to School SR2T Safe Routes to Transit SRTP Short Range Transit Plan SSARP Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program SSPWD TAC Solano Seniors & People with Disabilities Transportation

Advisory Committee STAF State Transit Assistance Fund STA Solano Transportation Authority STBG Federal Surface Transportation Block Grant Program

STIA Solano Transportation Improvement Authority STIP State Transportation Improvement Program STP Federal Surface Transportation Program T TAC Technical Advisory Committee TAM Transportation Authority of Marin TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families TAZ Transportation Analysis Zone TCI Transportation Capital Improvement TCIF Trade Corridor Improvement Fund TCM Transportation Control Measure TCRP Transportation Congestion Relief Program TDA Transportation Development Act TDM Transportation Demand Management TE Transportation Enhancement TEA Transportation Enhancement Activity TEA-21 Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century TFCA Transportation Funds for Clean Air TIF Transportation Investment Fund TIGER Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery TIP Transportation Improvement Program TIRCP Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program TLC Transportation for Livable Communities TMA Transportation Management Association TMP Transportation Management Plan TMS Transportation Management System TMTAC Transportation Management Technical Advisory Committee TNC Transportation Network Company TOD Transportation Operations Systems TOD Transit Oriented Development TOS Traffic Operation System T-Plus Transportation Planning and Land Use Solutions TRAC Trails Advisory Committee TSMO Transportation System Management and Operations U, V, W UZA Urbanized Area USDOT United States Department of Transportation VHD Vehicle Hours of Delay VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VTA Valley Transportation Authority (Santa Clara) W2W Welfare to Work WCCCTAC West Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory Committee WETA Water Emergency Transportation Authority Y, Z YCTD Yolo County Transit District YSAQMD Yolo/Solano Air Quality Management DistrictZ ZEV Zero Emission Vehicle

10

Agenda Item 9.A March 11, 2020

SOLANO TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Board Minutes for Meeting of

February 12, 2020

1. CALL TO ORDERChair Rowlett called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. A quorum was confirmed.

MEMBERSPRESENT: Ron Rowlett, Chair City of Vacaville

Bob Sampayan, Vice Chair City of Vallejo Elizabeth Patterson City of Benicia Thom Bogue City of Dixon Harry Price City of Fairfield Ron Kott City of Rio Vista Lori Wilson City of Suisun City Jim Spering County of Solano

MEMBERS ABSENT: None.

STAFF PRESENT: (In alphabetical order by last name.)

Anthony Adams Project Manager Janet Adams Deputy Executive Director/Director of Projects Betsy Beavers SR2S Program Coordinator Karin Bloesch SR2S Senior Program Coordinator Bernadette Curry Legal Counsel Triana Crighton Assistant Planner Susan Furtado Accounting & Administrative Services Mgr. Ron Grassi Director of Programs Robert Guerrero Director of Planning Daryl Halls Executive Director Debora Harris Accountant I Vincent Ma Marketing & Legislative Program Manager Johanna Masiclat Office Manager/Clerk of the Board Corester McLemore SR2S Program Coordinator Lloyd Nadal Program Svcs. Division Manager Brent Rosenwald Planning Assistant Brandon Thomson Transit Mobility Coordinator Sue Violette SR2S Program Coorindator

11

ALSO PRESENT: (In alphabetical order by last name.) Mike Barnbaum Sacramento Transit Advocate Jack Batchelor District Rep. for Congressman John Garamendi Raymond Beaty Vacaville Council Member and STA Board Alternate Hope Cohn Rio Vista Vice Mayor and STA Board Alternate Greg Folsom City Manager, City of Suisun City Patrick Gilster Toole Design George Gwynn Suisun City Resident Kyle Ochenduszko City of Benicia Josh Pilachowski DKS Dan Sequeira City of Benicia Matt Tuggle Solano County

2. SWEARING-IN OF NEW ALTERNATE STA BOARD MEMBERS • Vice Mayor Hope Cohn

Alternate Board Member representing the City of Rio Vista • Vice Mayor Raymond Beaty

Alternate Board Member representing the City of Vacaville

3. CONFIRM QUORUM/STATEMENT OF CONFLICT A quorum was confirmed by the Clerk of the Board, Johanna Masiclat. There was no Statement of Conflict declared at this time.

4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA On a motion by Board Member Patterson, and a second by Board Member Price, the STA Board approved the agenda to include amendment to Agenda Item 11.B, BAAQMD Transportation Fund for TFCA for FY 2020-21 County Program Manager. (7 Ayes, 1 Absent – Lori Wilson)

5. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT 1. Mike Barnbaum, Sacramento Transit Advocate, provided an update to the transit system in

the Sacramento and Yolo Counties. 2. George Gwynn, Jr. commented on Brown Act and RM 3 related matters.

6. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Daryl Halls provided an update on the following items: • Call for Solano County Projects for Plan Bay Area 2050 • Caltrans to Preview Current and Future SHOPP Projects in Solano County • Large Crowd Attend City County Coordinating Council (4 Cs) Summit on Housing • STA to Partner with Area Agency on Aging to Provide Medical Trips Program • Express Bus Replacement for SolTrans and Low Carbon Transit Operations Program

(LCTOP) Funding Allocations • Solano Mobility Program Updates • STA Staff Update

7. REPORT FROM THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (MTC) MTC Commissioner and STA Board Member Jim Spering reported on the Commissioners Retreat held on January 30-31, 2020 and topics discussed as follows:

1. Joint ABAG MTC Committee initiates discussion on Governance; 2. Governing policies of the Express Lanes; 3. Bay Area Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing

12

8. REPORT FROM CALTRANS None presented. Lori Wilson arrived at the meeting.

9. STA PRESENTATIONS A. Priority Freeway, Highway and Interchange Projects and Corridor Plans Update

presented by Janet Adams B. Parking Demand Study/Mode of Transition Plan Update presented by Erika McLitus, STA

and Josh Pilachowski, DKS Associates 1. Fairfield-Vacaville Hannigan Station 2. Dixon Park and Ride 3. Fairfield Transportation Center

C. Directors Reports: 1. Projects 2. Programs – Safe Routes to School Annual Report presented by Karin Bloesch 3. Planning

10. CONSENT CALENDAR

Recommendation: Approve the following consent items in one motion. On a motion by Board Member Patterson, and a second by Board Member Price, the STA Board approved Items A through F. (8 Ayes)

A. Meeting Minutes of the STA Board Meeting of January 8, 2020 Recommendation: Approve the Minutes of the STA Board Meeting of January 8, 2020.

B. Draft Minutes of the STA TAC Meeting of January 29, 2020 Recommendation: Approve the Draft Minutes of the STA TAC Meeting of January 29, 2020.

C. 2020 Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) Overall Work Plan Recommendation: Approve the 2020 BAC Overall Work Plan

D. 2020 Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC) Overall Work Plan and Appointments Recommendation: Approve the following:

1. Adopt the 2020 PAC Overall Work Plan; and 2. Approve renewals for Sandra Newell to represent the City of Dixon and Kevin

McNamara to represent the City of Rio Vista on the PAC for three-year terms to expire on December 31, 2022.

E. Solano Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program Annual Report for FY 2018-19

Recommendation: Approve the Solano Safe Routes to School Annual Report for FY 2018-19 as shown in Attachment A.

F. Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC) Membership Appointments Recommendation:

Approve the following: 1. Appoint Heather Barlow as Social Services Provider for another 3-year term; and 2. Re-appoint Lisa Hooks, Social Services Provider for another 3-year term.

13


A. Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) – Project Allocation for the SR 12 Complete Streets Project Erika McLitus presented the allocation process for the SR 12 Complete Streets Project and requested approval for the allocation of $1 million in RTIF funds advanced to provide the match funding for $102 million in State Highway Operations Protection Program (SHOPP) programmed by Caltrans in the 2020 SHOPP for SR 12 and $400,000 in local Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) to be provided by the City of Rio Vista. She specified that this advance of RTIF funds will be paid back by future RTIF funds from working Group #2.

Board/Public Comments: Board Member Patterson commented that Caltrans needs to fund all the amenities included for the Complete Streets.

Recommendation: Approve the following:

1. Allocation of $1M in RTIF funds for the SR 12 Complete Streets Project; and 2. Authorize the Executive Director to enter into a Funding Agreement between STA,

Caltrans, and the City of Rio Vista for the SR 12 Complete Streets Project components not-to-exceed $1M of RTIF funds.

On a motion by Board Member Patterson and a second by Board Member Wilson, the STA

Board approved the recommendations. (8 Ayes)

B. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Fiscal Year (FY) 2020-21 County Program Manager Funds Triana Crighton presented the BAAQMD TFCA FY 2020-21 County Program Manager Funds. She reviewed staff’s recommendation to allocate $300,000 in TFCA funds provided by the BAAQMD for the Solano Mobility Program ($175,000) and Electric Vehicle Implementation Program ($125,000); the remaining funds, estimated at $65,000, are to be allocated following a call for projects.

Board/Public Comments: None presented.


1. Adopt the FY 2020-21 expenditure criteria for the TFCA County Program Manager fund;

2. Set aside $175,000 from FY 2020-21 TFCA Program Manager Funds for the Solano Mobility Program;

3. Authorize the Executive Director to sign MCE’s non-binding Letter of Intent for the CALeVIP grant application;

4. Set aside $100,000 - $125,000 for STA’s Solano EV Implementation Program; and 5. Issue a Call for Projects for the remaining balance of FY 2020-21 TFCA Program

Manager Funds.

On a motion by Board Member Patterson, and a second by Board Member Price, the STA Board approved the recommendations as amended shown above in bold italics. (8 Ayes) 14

12. ACTION NON-FINANCIAL

A. Golden Pass Program for SolanoExpress for Solano Residents 80 Plus Debbie McQuilkin reviewed the implementation process of the Golden Pass Program. She commented that three transit operators and STA were in agreement (as is the Consolidated Transportation Service Agency at their January 23, 2020 meeting) were in agreement with moving forward to add the program to all four SolanoExpress routes and recommended the option for operators to check IDs vs. issuing paper media and Modify the Golden Pass Program for participants to show ID to ride for free for Solano County residents who are age 80 or older.

Board/Public Comments: Mike Barnbaum recited an Assembly Bill introduced by Assembly Member Chu (Coauthored by Assembly Member Nazarian) dated January 28, 2020.

“AB 2012, as introduced, Chu. Free senior transit passes: eligibility for state funding. Existing law declares that the fostering, continuance, and development of public transportation systems are a matter of state concern. Existing law authorizes the Department of Transportation to administer various programs and allocates moneys for various public transportation purposes. This bill would require transit agencies to offer free senior transit passes to persons over 65 years of age in order to be eligible for state funding under the Mills-Deddeh Transit Development Act, the State Transit Assistance Program, and the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program. The bill would require those free senior transit passes to count as full price fares for purposes of calculating the ratio of fare revenues to operating costs.”

Recommendation:

Approve the following: 1. Expand the Golden Pass Program to SolanoExpress routes; and 2. Modify the Golden Pass Program for participants to show ID to ride for free for

Solano County residents who are age 80 or older.

On a motion by Board Member Price and a second by Board Member Patterson, the STA Board approved the recommendations. (8 Ayes)

B. Draft Solano Active Transportation Plan (ATP) of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Anthony Adams and Patrick Gilster, Toole Design, presented and reviewed the administrative draft of the Solano ATP. They noted that contained within the draft is a comprehensive look at the project’s timeline and illustration of how the plan has achieved. They commented that the Solano Active Transportation Plan is funded primarily through a Caltrans Sustainable Communities Grant that is set to expire as of February 20, 2020. They also reviewed the finalization schedule being proposed so that the plan can be considered for approval, subsequent to incorporating public comment, at the February 12, 2020 STA Board meeting

15

Board/Public Comments: Board Member Patterson prefaced by commending staff for the hard work and commented that she looks forward to reviewing the plan.

Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to release Solano Active Transportation Plan of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) for a 60 day public comment period reflecting the issues yet to be addressed in the Plan by each member agency.

On a motion by Board Member Patterson, and a second by Board Member Wilson, the STA Board approved the recommendations. (8 Ayes)

C. Solano Suburban Housing Incentive Pool (SubHIP) – Letters of Interest Robert Guerrero presented and reviewed the submittal process of eligible project proposals due to MTC by May 1, 2020. He commented that STA staff is working with the cities of Fairfield and Vacaville in order to meet MTC’s program deadline. He added that STA staff is recommending the STA issue a request for letters of interest for future SubHIP funds to help assess and gauge the level of future interest in the pilot program.

Board/Public Comments: None presented.

Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to issue a request for Letters of Interest for future Solano Suburban Housing Incentive Pool (SubHIP) Program funds.

On a motion by Board Member Price and a second by Board Member Patterson, the STA Board approved the recommendations. (8 Ayes)

13. INFORMATIONAL – NO DISCUSSION

A. Plan Bay Area 2050 – Draft County Discretionary Revenues and Project Submittals

B. Priority Freeway, Highway and Interchange Projects and Corridor Plans Update

C. Parking Demand Study/Mode of Transition Plan Update 1. Fairfield-Vacaville Hannigan Station 2. Dixon Park and Ride 3. Fairfield Transportation Center

D. Legislative Update

E. Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 Abandoned Vehicle Abatement (AVA) Program First Quarter

Report

F. Summary of Funding Opportunities

G. 2020 STA Board and Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule

16

14. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS

15. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. The next STA Board meeting is scheduled at 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, March 11, 2020, Suisun Council Chambers.

Attested by: Johanna Masiclat STA Clerk of the Board

17


18

Agenda Item 9.B March 11, 2020

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT Minutes for the Meeting of

February 26, 2020

1. CALL TO ORDERThe regular meeting of the STA’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order byDaryl Halls at approximately 1:30 p.m. in the Solano Transportation Authority (STA)’sConference Room 1.

TAC MembersPresent: William Tarbox City of Benicia

Paul Kaushal City of Fairfield Matt Medill City of Suisun City Shawn Cunningham City of Vacaville Terrance Davis City of Vallejo Matt Tuggle County of Solano

TAC Members Absent: Joe Leach City of Dixon

Robin Borre City of Rio Vista STA Staff and Others Present: (In Alphabetical Order by Last Name)

Janet Adams STA Karin Bloesch STA/SR2S Ada Chan ABAG Triana Crighton STA Matthew Gleason City of Vallejo Ron Grassi STA Robert Guerrero STA Daryl Halls STA Johanna Masiclat STA John McKenzie Caltrans District 4 Erika McLitus STA Brent Rosenwald STA Dan Sequeira City of Benicia Nouae Vue City of Benicia

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDAOn a motion by Terrance Davis, and a second by William Tarbox, the STA TAC unanimouslyapproved the agenda to include amendment to Agenda Item 5.D, Low Carbon Transit OperationsProgram (LCTOP) FY 2019-20 Funding. (5 Ayes – 3 Absent: Borre, Cunningham, and Leach)

19

3.

OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT None presented. Shawn Cunningham arrived at the meeting.

4. REPORTS FROM MTC, STA, AND OTHER AGENCIES John McKenzie, Caltrans, provided an update on the Solano I-80 East Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (CMCP).

5. CONSENT CALENDAR On a motion Matt Tuggle, and a second by Paul Kaushal, the STA TAC approved Items A through D to include amendment to Item D as shown below in bold italics. (6 Ayes – 2 Absent: Borre and Leach)

A. Minutes of the TAC Meeting of January 29, 2020 Recommendation: Approve TAC Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2020.

B. Lifeline Program Funding Cycle 6 Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board recommending Lifeline Program funding by the transit operators continue to be in coordination with the CTSA Advisory Committee and STA Board via the Consortium.

C. Solano Community College (SCC) Student Transportation Fee Update Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to approve allowing Solano Community College students to continue to ride at no additional cost with a valid Solano Community College student ID on all SolanoExpress routes, including stops outside of Solano County.

D. Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 Funding Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to allocate Solano County FY 2019-20 LCTOP Population Based Funds for SolTrans $595,846 (72%) and FAST $231,718 (28%) for electrification infrastructure of the SolanoExpress fleet and distribution for FY 2020-21 LCTOP will be discussed through a cooperative process to be recommended by the Consortium to the STA Board.


A. Regional Measure 3 Bridge Toll Competitive Programs Priority Project Janet Adams reviewed and outlined the competitive programs in priority order with staff recommendation on the priority projects and funding amount to be sought for each project. She noted that STA is seeking projects that will be competitive to secure funding from these programs and that will attract RM 3 funding for projects that provide regional benefit, projects that are ready to begin construction within 3 to 5 years and projects that have high local support, including local funding to demonstrate this local support.

20

Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to approve the priority capital projects for RM 3 as shown in Attachment C.

On a motion by Shawn Cunningham, and a second by Terrance Davis, the STA TAC unanimously approved the recommendation. (6 Ayes – 2 Absent: Borre and Leach)

B. Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) Micro-Grant Program Project Update Karin Bloesch provided an update to the application process of the SR2S Micro Grant that took place over a two month period from November 2019 to January 2020. She noted that the applications were reviewed and scored by the Micro-Grant subcommittee with a list of project award and funding recommendations. She cited that 16 SR2S Micro-Grant applications were received totaling $211,466.10 and of that total, $9,270 consisted of equipment, supplies and incentives which were all recommended for funding. She concluded by stating that STA staff is currently planning joint meetings with applicant cities and school districts to facilitate project implementation pending approval.

Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to accept Safe Routes to School Micro-Grant funding recommendations as shown in Attachment B.

On a motion by Shawn Cunningham, and a second by William Tarbox, the STA TAC unanimously approved the recommendation. (6 Ayes – 2 Absent: Borre and Leach)

7. ACTION NON FINANCIAL ITEMS

A. Plan Bay Area 2050 – Draft County Discretionary Revenues and Project Submittal Robert Guerrero distributed Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) project narrative and reviewed the recommended changes from the previous project list to the new RTP submittals. He commented that at the January TAC meeting, STA staff informed the TAC members that the original RTP project submittals would have to be revised to be consistent with the new RTP county budget assumption reduced from $2.4 billion to $460 million. He concluded by noting that in order to meet MTC’s March 27th deadline, STA staff is requesting the STA TAC approve the revised project list for STA Board’s approval at their March 11th Board meeting.

Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to approve the Solano County Regional Transportation Plan Project List as specified in Attachment A.

On a motion by Matt Tuggle, and a second by Shawn Cunningham the STA TAC unanimously approved the recommendation. (6 Ayes – 2 Absent: Borre and Leach)

B. Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Equity Chapter Adoption Triana Crighton distributed the Equity Chapter to the TAC members at the meeting. She commented that the Equity Chapter was circulated through a variety of Citizen Based Advisory Committees and external equity-focused groups within the county during the comment period. She cited that positive comments were received and that no recommendation changes to the Equity Chapter were provided.

21

Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to adopt the CTP Equity Chapter as shown in Attachment A.

On a motion by Matt Tuggle, and a second by Matt Medill, the STA TAC unanimously approved the recommendation. (6 Ayes – 2 Absent: Borre and Leach)

8. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS – DISCUSSION

A. Legislative Update Daryl Halls noted that there are a lot of spot bills that have been introduced that is mostly related to transit. He mentioned the Bay Area Seamless Transit Act that would require public transit system operating in the nine Bay Area Counties to integrate fares and payment systems.

B. Project Delivery Update Erika McLitus provided an update to three Solano Countywide OBAG Cycle 1 projects scheduled for obligation in FY 2016-17 and seven OBAG 2 Projects scheduled for obligation in FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20.

NO DISCUSSION

C. Summary of Funding Opportunities

D. Draft Meeting Minutes of STA Board & Advisory Committees

E. STA Board and Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule for Calendar Year 2020

9. UPCOMING TAC AGENDA ITEMS

10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m.

The next regular meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee is scheduled at 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at the STA.

22

Agenda Item 9.C March 11, 2020

DATE: March 2, 2020 TO: STA Board FROM: Ron Grassi, Director of Programs

Debbie McQuilkin, Mobility Coordinator RE: Lifeline Program Funding Cycle 6

Background/Discussion: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Lifeline Transportation Funding Program is intended to improve mobility for residents of low-income communities and, more specifically, to fund solutions identified through locally developed Community Based Transportation Plans. Each community’s needs are unique and will therefore require different solutions to address local circumstances. In Solano and other counties, these funds have been used to fund Community Based Transportation Planning (CBTP) priority projects and transit routes that serve low-income communities.

Lifeline Program Funds in the past (Cycles 1-5) were a combination of fund sources that included Congestion and Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ), Prop 1B, State Transit Assistance Funds (STAF) and Job Access Reverse Commute Funds (JARC)/5307. In February 2018 the STAF Lifeline set-aside funding was removed per MTC Resolution No. 4321. STAF population based funding were then restructured as a County Block Grant. The only remaining funds for Lifeline Cycle 6 are solely JARC funds. The estimate for Solano County for FYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 is $666,679.

In prior years, MTC delegated the management of the Lifeline Program to the County Transportation Agencies (CTAs), including STA for Solano County. MTC is considering two options for the Lifeline Cycle 6 distribution to allocate funds as described in Transit Finance Working Group Memo Dated February 5, 2020 (Attachment A). The general consensus of the Transit Finance Working Group was to allocate directly to the transit operators. STA staff is recommending either option be coordinated with the Consolidation Transit Service Agency (CTSA) Advisory Board and STA Board via the Consortium.

The Intercity Transit Consortium and the Technical Advisory Committee at their February 2020 meetings unanimously approved to forward the recommendation to the STA Board.

Fiscal Impact: The Lifeline Funding for Solano County Transit Operators is estimated at $666,679 for FYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 to serve low income communities. The breakdown by agency can be found in Attachment A.

Recommendation: Lifeline Program funding by the transit operators continue to be in coordination with the CTSA Advisory Committee and STA Board via the Consortium.

Attachment: A. Transit Finance Working Group Memo Dated February 5, 2020

23


24

TFWG Item 12

TO: Transit Finance Working Group DATE: February 5, 2020

FR: Judis Santos

RE: Policy Options for Cycle 6 – Lifeline Transportation

Program (LTP)

Background The Lifeline Transportation Program (LTP) was originally set up to administer a variety of fund sources with significant amounts of funding (Cycles 1-5). These fund sources included CMAQ, Prop 1B, State Transit Assistance (STA), and JARC/5307, with funds apportioned to counties based on the county’s share of the regional low-income population. As of February 2018, per MTC Resolution No. 4321, the STA population-based funding program was restructured as a County Block Grant, and a separate Lifeline set-aside was discontinued, leaving the LTP with one remaining fund source – FTA 5307 funds from the Transit Capital Priorities program (TCP). The STA County Block Grant Program provides each County Transportation Agency (CTA) the authority to determine how to invest in transit operating needs, including mobility service for low-income residents. Over the FY 2016/17 – FY 2019/20 four-year TCP program cycle (MTC Resolution No. 4242), the Lifeline set-aside is approximately 1.6% of the region’s FTA Section 5307 apportionments.

MTC is now in the 6th Cycle of the Lifeline Transportation Program with a total of $7,088,441 in FTA 5307 funds available regionwide across FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20. We are soliciting your feedback to align our current program administration structure with the evolution of the Lifeline Transportation Program. The intent is to provide a simplified structure that reflects Lifeline’s more limited single fund source.

A description of the options was presented to the Transit Finance Working Group and CTA Planning Director’s Meeting in January. Tables illustrating the apportionment of funds per option are provided below.

Options:

OPTION A: No Change: MTC continues to work with CTAs (as in Lifeline Cycles 1 – 5). Funds are apportioned to counties based on the county’s share of the regional low-income population. CTAs conduct “calls for projects” process to award their county share of the LTP funds (See Tables 1 and 2).

25

TFWG Item 12

J:\COMMITTE\Partnership\Partnership TFWG\_Transit Finance WG\2020\Memos\02_February_2020\12_Lifeline_Cycle 6_2020_February_Final.docx

Table 1: Lifeline Transportation Program, Cycle 6, By Urbanized Area (UZA)

Table 2: Lifeline Transportation Program, Cycle 6, By County

County & Share of Regional Low Income Population(1)

FY 18 FY 19 Total 5307 5307

Alameda 23.1% 780,866 796,992 1,577,858 Contra Costa 14.7% 499,151 509,458 1,008,609 Marin 2.7% 89,778 91,632 181,410 Napa 2.1% 77,528 79,129 156,657 San Francisco 12.2% 413,192 421,725 834,917 San Mateo 8.4% 284,192 290,061 574,253 Santa Clara 22.5% 815,228 832,062 1,647,290 Solano 6.6% 329,933 336,746 666,679 Sonoma 7.7% 218,132 222,637 440,769 Participatory Budgeting Pilot - - - Total 100.0% 3,508,000 3,580,442 7,088,442

Urbanized Area Section 5307 – LTP Set-Aside Large UAs FY2018-19 FY2019-20 TOTAL San Francisco-Oakland

1,686,399 1,721,224 3,407,623

San Jose 726,455 741,456 1,467,911 Concord 172,518 176,081 348,599 Antioch 169,903 173,412 343,315 Santa Rosa 175,097 178,713 353,810 Subtotal Large UAs 2,930,372 2,990,885 5,921,257 Small UAs Vallejo 155,124 158,327 313,451 Fairfield 121,891 124,408 246,299 Vacaville 52,918 54,011 106,929 Napa 77,528 79,129 156,657 Livermore 38,359 39,151 77,510 Gilroy-Morgan Hill 88,773 90,606 179,379 Petaluma 43,035 43,924 86,959 Subtotal Small UAs 577,628 589,556 1,167,184 Regional Total 3,508,000 3,580,442 7,088,442

26

TFWG Item 12


OPTION B: PILOT TRANSIT OPERATOR-BASED FORMULA: Working directly with transit operators and in coordination with CTAs, the TCP Lifeline Set-Aside (FTA Section 5307) funds would be distributed directly to operators on a weighted factor formula, based on an operator’s share of estimated low-income ridership (MTC/ABAG Bay Area Census) and Community of Concern (CoC) population (MTC Resolution No. 4217, 2012-2016 ACS, 5-year tract level data). Operators would be subject to project review for consistency with LTP goals and policies. Table 3 to this memo shows the distribution of the Lifeline Set-aside funds per operator.

Table 3: Lifeline Transportation Program, Cycle 6, By Transit Operator

Operator Section 5307

FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20 Total

AC Transit 1,074,242 BART 1,216,465 CCCTA 83,785 Fairfield-Suisun Transit 246,299 LAVTA 94,183 Marin Transit 35,102 Napa VINE 156,657 Petaluma Transit 66,777 SamTrans 277,841 SFMTA 1,155,148 Santa Rosa CityBus 203,782 SolTrans 313,451 Sonoma County Transit 170,210 Tri Delta Transit 199,621 Union City 13,540 Vacaville 106,929 WestCat 27,119 VTA 1,647,290 Total $ 7,088,440

Next Steps and Timeline: Feedback received will be incorporated into the development of the LTP Cycle 6 Guidelines (Policy and Procedures). Based on the approved guidelines, MTC staff will proceed accordingly to develop the project and programs for Cycle 6.

Cycle 6 Activity Anticipated Date

Proposed Guidelines – Draft Proposal February 2020

Proposed Guidelines – Draft Funding Guidelines March 2020

Proposed Guidelines – MTC Commission Action April 2020

Program of Projects Development/ MTC Commission Approval Spring – Early Fall 2020

Contact: Questions may be directed to Judis Santos at (415) 778-5216 or [email protected].

27

TFWG Item 12


28

Agenda Item 9.D March 11, 2020

DATE: February 26, 2020 TO: STA Board FROM: Lloyd Nadal, Program Services Division Manager

Brandon Thomson, Transit Mobility Coordinator RE: Solano Community College (SCC) Student Transportation Fee Update

Background: During the Fall 2016 Semester, Solano Community College (SCC) students passed a measure to pay a transportation fee for the purpose of providing reduced transit fares for students for the semesters from Spring 2017 through Fall 2019. The transportation fee is dependent on units each student takes per semester. Full-time students taking 12+ units pay $10.00 per semester, 6.5-11.5 units pay $8.00 per semester, 3.5-6 units pay $4.00/semester and 0.5 to 3 units pay $1.50 per semester. The Solano Community College Student Transportation Fee 2-Year Pilot Program launched in Spring 2017 offering a 50% reduced fee on usage among the individual Transit Operators. Despite the reduced fare cost, the 2017 Spring and Fall Semester had low usage amongst students. Based on these low level of ridership by SCC students, STA staff met with SCC staff and the participating Transit Operators (Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST), Solano County Transit (SolTrans) and Vacaville (City Coach) to explore piloting a free fare, specifically for SCC students by showing their student identification card. After a successful pilot, Solano Community College contacted STA and expressed the desire of transitioning the pilot into a formal 10 year agreement.

Discussion: In April 2019, the SCC student body overwhelming voted to continue supporting a self-imposed transportation fee for the purpose of providing free transit, within Solano County, by showing their student identification card. Moreover, the SCC student body requested that the self-imposed transportation fee be solidified for the next decade.

After conversation with the three participating Solano County Transit Operators, STA staff is proposing to expand SCC student’s transit access by including all SolanoExpress stop locations, including those that are located outside of Solano County. Currently, the students’ transit access is limited to trips within Solano County. Additionally, the three participating operators Vacaville City Coach, FAST, and SolTrans, would continue to provide unlimited access on their local routes. Thus, this proposed change would solely effect SolanoExpress out of County travel. STA Staff proposes to distribute the funds in accordance with the current funding agreements. The distribution formula will remain at:

City of Vacaville (City Coach) 15 % City of Fairfield (FAST) 30 % SolTrans (SolTrans) 30 % Solano Express (split evenly between FAST and SolTrans) 25 %

The recommendation to forward to the STA Board was unanimously recommended for approval by the Intercity Transit Consortium and the Technical Advisory Committee at their February 2020 meetings.

29

Fiscal Impact: The cost for SCC students to ride the three local transit services and all SolanoExpress Routes is covered by a SCC Student Transportation fee estimated at $80,000 per semester or $160,000 for the entire school year. Recommendations: Approve allowing Solano Community College students to continue to ride at no additional cost with a valid Solano Community College student ID on all SolanoExpress routes, including stops outside of Solano County.

30

Agenda Item 9.E March 11, 2020

DATE: March 2, 2020 TO: STA Board FROM: Ron Grassi, Director of Programs RE: Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20

Funding

Background: The Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) is one of several programs that are part of the Transit, Affordable Housing, and Sustainable Communities Program established by the California Legislature in 2014 by Senate Bill 862. The LCTOP was created to provide operating and capital assistance for transit agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emission and improve mobility, with a priority on serving disadvantaged communities. Approved projects in LCTOP will support new or expanded bus or rail services, expand intermodal transit facilities, and may include equipment acquisition, fueling, maintenance and other costs to operate those services or facilities, with each project reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For agencies whose service area includes disadvantaged communities, at least 50 percent of the total moneys received shall be expended on projects that will benefit disadvantaged communities. Senate Bill 862 continuously appropriates five percent of the annual auction proceeds in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (Fund) for LCTOP, beginning in FY 2015-16. This program is administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in coordination with California Air Resource Board (CARB) and the State Controller’s Office (SCO). Caltrans is responsible to ensure that the statutory requirements of the program are met in terms of project eligibility, greenhouse reduction, disadvantaged community benefit, and other requirements of the law.

Discussion: On February 14, 2020 State Controller’s Office released their final funding amounts for LCTOP (Attachment A). The FY 2019-20 LCTOP population base funds for Solano County are $827,564 and revenue based funds are $117,363. The revenue based funds are allocated directly to the transit operators; however, it is the responsibility of the STA Board to recommend the allocation of the population based funds to MTC.

The STA is supporting SolanoExpress towards an all-electric fleet to meet greenhouse reductions, staff is recommending these funds to be used to support the necessary infrastructure for electrification to be provided by Solano County Transit (SolTrans) and Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST). Staff recommends the allocation of $827,564 in LCTOP as follows; $231,718 or 28% to FAST and $595,846 or 72% to SolTrans in order to support the electrification of SolanoExpress. In previous LCTOP cycles, SolTrans had swapped their local TDA funds with the other transit operators for LCTOP. At this time, the cities of Dixon, Rio Vista and Vacaville do not have qualifying projects for population based funds at this time.

FAST intends to use FY 2019-20 LCTOP funds to complete Phase I of the electrical infrastructure upgrade at the City of Fairfield’s Corporation Yard. The City will rollover FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 funds and combine it with future allocations through FY 2020-21 to fund the remainder of the project. The upgrade will provide the electrical infrastructure required to accommodate zero-emission electric buses at the city-owned Corporation Yard.

31

Phase I will result in increased electrical load capacity to the Corporation Yard as well as up to three (3) electric bus chargers that will power up to three Proterra 35' Catalyst E2 Electric Zero-Emission transit buses initially. Each charger is priced at $65,400, therefore $196,200 will be budgeted for three electric bus chargers. The remaining $653,800 of the project cost will be budgeted for electric infrastructure that will support infrastructure upgrades that will eventually allow the Corporation Yard to handle electrical loads that can power up to 48 transit buses, 46 light duty vehicles, and a 4-brush drive-through bus wash. Existing equipment and facilities will continue to be supported at the site with a 10% spare capacity factor. FAST hired Bennett Engineering in May 2018 and has completed a design of the layout of the physical improvements necessary for electrification of its local and SolanoExpress fleet. Another consultant, Willdan will begin work in April 2020 to provide FAST with an electrification model that will meet FAST’s existing and future transit operational and infrastructure demands and incorporate lessons learned from transit agencies who were early implementers of electric bus technology. Matching funds for Phase 1 of the electrification project will come from two competitive federal FTA grants FAST received in 2016 and 2017 totaling $2.4 million dollars and from Transportation Development Act capital funding. FAST will complete Phase 1 of this project including purchase of three electric buses by 2023. SolTrans intends to use FY 2019-20 LCTOP funds towards upgrading the electrical infrastructure at SolTrans' Operations and Maintenance Facility located at 1850 Broadway Street, Vallejo to allow simultaneous charging of approximately ten all-electric Zero-Emission Buses (ZEBs). SolTrans has already begun substantial planning on this project in order to expedite delivery. In addition to four years of research, site visits to other agencies, and actually using 4 ZEBs as part of their local fleet, SolTrans hired the Center for Transportation and Environment (CTE) to develop a design for electrical infrastructure. This design gave SolTrans a starting point to work to develop all possible options. SolTrans has issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for design of the electrical infrastructure plan and is currently reviewing RFQs. SolTrans intends to enter into contract with the engineering firm at their March 2020 Board meeting and begin work April 1, 2020. This project is the top priority of SolTrans’ general services manager Patricia Carr who oversees the agency's facilities. The goal is to have this project completed in 2022 so that SolTrans can charge the buses they plan to purchase in 2023. SolTrans is exploring an innovative approach to improve safety by selecting an overhead gantry charging system over ground-mounted chargers. This decision will save space and help reduce the possibility of vehicle collisions with any of the chargers and the resulting damages. STA staff recommends support for this allocation of LCTOP funds for FY 2019-20 to prioritize and accelerate electrification of the SolanoExpress fleet and service. The Intercity Transit Consortium at their February 25th meeting unanimously approved to forward the recommendation to the STA Board with additional language regarding FY 2020-21 LCTOP distribution. The Technical Advisory Committee at their February 25th meetings unanimously approved to forward the revised recommendation to the STA Board. Fiscal Impact: No impact on STA budget. Recommendation: Allocate Solano County FY 2019-20 LCTOP Population Based Funds for SolTrans $595,846 (72%) and FAST $231,718 (28%) for electrification infrastructure of the SolanoExpress fleet and

32

distribution for FY 2020-21 LCTOP will be discussed through a cooperative process to be recommended by the Consortium to the STA Board.

Attachment:

A. FY 2019-20 LCTOP Allocations

33


34

J:\PROJECT\Funding\Cap and Trade\LCTOP\FY2019-20\FY 2019-20 LCTOP Rev- and Pop-Based Operator Amounts.xlsx Page 1 of 1

OperatorOperator Share per STA Revenue-Based

for FY 2019-20

State Controller's Office - Confirmed

AmountACCMA - Corresponding to ACE 0.156% 60,868$ Caltrain 4.562% 1,781,703$ CCCTA 0.424% 165,597$ City of Dixon 0.004% 1,552$ ECCTA 0.223% 87,027$ City of Fairfield 0.088% 34,298$ GGBHTD 4.586% 1,791,020$ LAVTA 0.188% 73,339$ Marin Transit 0.896% 349,796$ NVTA 0.062% 24,325$ City of Petaluma 0.027% 10,356$ City of Rio Vista 0.004% 1,564$ SamTrans 4.361% 1,703,010$ SMART 0.910% 355,557$ City of Santa Rosa 0.086% 33,596$ Solano County Transit 0.189% 73,807$ Sonoma County Transit 0.121% 47,335$ City of Union City 0.063% 24,419$ Vacaville City Coach 0.016% 6,142$ VTA 12.484% 4,875,368$ VTA - Corresponding to ACE 0.116% 45,428$ WCCTA 0.271% 105,781$ WETA 1.243% 485,449$

SUBTOTAL 31.08% 12,137,337$ AC Transit 13.030% 5,088,407$ BART 21.854% 8,534,543$ SFMTA 34.037% 13,292,188$

SUBTOTAL 68.92% 26,915,138$ GRAND TOTAL 100% 39,052,475$

Statewide LCTOP Revenue-Based Funds $ 73,030,659 MTC Region LCTOP Revenue-Based Funds $ 39,052,475

53.5%

FINALFY 2019-20

Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) Apportionments for Revenue-Based Program

Per State Controller's Office Letter Dated 2/14/20

MTC Region Share of Statewide LCTOP Revenue-Based Funds

ATTACHMENT A

35

J:\PROJECT\Funding\Cap and Trade\LCTOP\FY2019-20\FY 2019-20 LCTOP Rev- and Pop-Based Operator Amounts.xlsx Page 1 of 1

Operator / Entity / Program

MTC Cap and Trade Framework Amount

($ millions)

Percent of Framework Amount

State Controller's Office Confirmed

Amount

CCCTA 20.4 7% 963,733$ ECCTA 12.3 4% 582,076$ LAVTA 8.4 3% 398,439$ NCPTA 5.8 2% 274,736$ City of Union City 3.0 1% 139,526$ WCCTA 2.7 1% 128,498$ Marin County Operators (TBD) 10.8 4% 508,238$ Solano County Operators (TBD) 17.5 6% 827,564$ Sonoma County Operators (TBD) 20.6 7% 972,364$

SUBTOTAL 102 34% 4,795,174$ Clipper and Fare Policy 100 33% 4,720,738$ Invest in key transit corridors (i.e. TPI) 100 33% 4,720,738$ TOTAL 302 100% 14,236,650$

Statewide LCTOP Population-Based Funds $ 73,030,660 $ 14,236,650

19.5%MTC Region Share of Statewide LCTOP Population-Based Funds

FINALFY 2019-20

Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) Apportionments for Population-Based Program

Per State Controller's Office Letter Dated 2/14/20 and MTC Resolution No. 4130, Revised

MTC Region LCTOP Population-Based Funds

36

Agenda Item 9.F March 11, 2020

DATE: February 26, 2020 TO: STA Board FROM: Lloyd Nadal, Program Services Division Manager

Karin Bloesch, Senior Program Coordinator RE: Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) Micro-Grant Program Project Update

Background: In November 2019, the Safe Routes to School (SR2S) staff launched a SR2S Micro-Grant Pilot Program to support small-scale projects or capital purchases that improves bike and pedestrian usage and safety around schools in Solano County. SR2S staff first presented this item at the February 2019 SR2S Advisory Committee meeting, at which the committee provided feedback on the feasibility, policy and procedures, process, timeline and implementation of the program.

In March 2019, the STA Board approved the SR2S pilot micro grant program. The SR2S Pilot Micro Grant Program would be open to Solano County cities, schools, school districts and community-based organizations to apply. These projects could include, but not be limited to, installing bike racks and safety-related signage; creating green bike lanes; and providing safety equipment like helmets, vests, reflectors and/or activities that could help improve a school’s bike/ped infrastructure.

At the SR2S Advisory Committee Meeting in August 2019, SR2S Staff presented a draft of the program’s general terms and application process and received recommendations from the committee for implementation and established a subcommittee (three SR2S Advisory Committee members) to review the materials and potential projects for funding.

Discussion: The SR2S Micro Grant Application period took place from November 19, 2019 to January 17, 2020. A total of $78,000 is available for SR2S Micro Grant projects. The SR2S team marketed the program over a two month period issuing two press releases, 2 electronic communications emails to stakeholders and potential applicants including community groups, city agencies, individual school sites and school districts. Direct emails to school contacts by coordinators, discussions at community task force meetings, discussions at the STA Bicycle Advisory Committee and Pedestrian Advisory Committee meetings, and seven Social Media posts with a reach of over 700 people were also used to encourage grant applications, and to provide ideas for equipment and program purchases along with potential projects.

The applications were reviewed and scored by the Micro-Grant subcommittee with a list of project award and funding recommendations. 16 SR2S Micro-Grant Applications were received totaling $211,466.10. Of that total, $9,270 consisted of equipment, supplies and incentives which were all recommended for funding. Based on feedback from the subcommittee, staff plans to recommend the next round of this grant program have separate scoring for infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects as the current rubric did not favor non-infrastruture requests.

37

The rest of the infrastructure projects were discussed and recommended based on scoring, support and implementation of each project. The subcommittee recommended projects in five of the seven Solano County cities and within six school districts. If a project was not recommended for funding in this cycle, STA will work with the applicant to strengthen their application next year and/or seek other potential sources such as air district funds, Transportation Development Act (TDA) and/or Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds. At the SR2S Advisory Committee meeting on February 19, 2020, the subcommittee funding recommendations were unanimously approved as shown in Attachment A. STA staff is currently planning joint meetings with applicant cities and school districts to facilitate project implementation pending approval. At their meeting of February 26, 2020, the STA TAC unanimously approved to forward the recommendation to the STA Board for approval at their meeting of March 11, 2020. Fiscal Impact: The SR2S Micro-Grant Pilot Program is funded from a combination of funding sources which include High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) fines, TDA Article 3, and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District funds. Recommendation: Approve the following:

1. Safe Routes to School Micro-Grant funding recommendations as shown in Attachment A; and 2. The Executive Director to implement these funding recommendations.

Attachments:

A. Funding Recommendation List

38

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL MICROGRANT PROGRAMMicroGrant Subcommittee/Staff Funding Recommendations - FY2020-2021

Agency School City Project Overview Amount Requested

Incentives/ Equipment

Funding Recommendation

Completion Date

Average Score

Verified Eligible Funding Notes

1 City of VacavilleCallison, Browns Valley, Cambridge Elementary

Vacaville 5 Radar Feedback Signs; cost only of equipment not labor

$30,000.00 $30,000.00 1/31/2021 52 X YSAQMD/HSIP 5 Radar feedback signs at 3 schools

2 City of Vallejo Multiple schools* Vallejo Radar feedback signs for at least 2 schools

$30,000.00 $10,000.00 2/28/2021 49 X HSIP/TFCA2 Solar Panel Radar Feedback signs with request at Dan Mini & Solano Widenmann ($10 000)

3 School Dan Mini Elementary Vallejo Safety signage, equipment and incentives

$17,163.50 $1,100.00 $9,163.50 2/2/2021 56 HSIP/TFCA Funding for Equipment ($8063.50) and Incentives ($1100)

4 School Riverview Middle School Rio Vista Fencing around bike racks, storage containers

$5,100.00 $5,100.00 3/30/2020 47 X YSAQMD Recommended to fund using YSAQMD Microgrant funds

5 School Joe Henderson Elementary Benicia Solar Ped Crosswalk system $20,000.00 $6,063.90 3/31/2020 46 X HSIP/TFCA Fund Rapid Flashing Beacon or Crosswalk system as part of ATP-2 Project

6 School Vaca Pena Middle School Vacaville Scooter/skateboard racks, outdoor air pump with guage


7 School John Knight Middle School Dixon Bike racks for new school that starts in Fall 2020


8 School Kairos Public Schools VacavilleSupport 4 crosswalks, radar feedback signs, safety equipment and incentives

$29,530.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 5/31/2021 41 X YSAQMD Recommended to fund three paddle signs and incentives ($2500) using YSAQMD

9 School Browns Valley Elementary Vacaville 4 bike/scooter racks $2,300.00 $2,300.00 9/1/2020 38 X YSAQMD Recommended to fund using YSAQMD Microgrant funds

10 School Solano-Widenmann K-8 VallejoLighted crosswalk, traffic lights, restriping crosswalk, incentives

$30,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 12/31/2020 38 HSIP/TFCAFund incentives ($2000) and approach City about applying for HSIP funding in May 2020

11 School Dixon Montessori Dixon Safety equipment, signage and bike rack

$1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 3/14/2020 33 X YSAQMD Recommended to fund using YSAQMD Microgrant funds

12 School Mary Farmar Elementary Benicia Improved signage and drop off/pick up procedures

$1,270.00 $1,270.00 $1,270.00 3/15/2020 55 X SR2SM Recommended to fund

13 School Everest Academy Vallejo School Safety signage $600.00 $600.00 $600.00 6/11/2020 39 X SR2SM Will work with them to purchase safety equipment = $600

14 School Sierra Vista K-8 Vacaville Incentives to promote physical activity events

$300.00 $300.00 $300.00 5/30/2020 32 X YSAQMD Recommended to fund using YSAQMD Microgrant funds

15 Vacaville PDRocky Hills Trail (REACH Coalition)

VacavilleSolar powered lighting, sitting area and art projects along trail

$21,500.00 3/15/2021 49 YSAQMD/TDA Recommended for Potential BAC/PAC funded project or Next Cycle

16 City of Benicia Benicia High School Benicia Scramble Crossing project on Military and 11th Street

$15,000.00 6/30/2020 26 HSIP/TFCAWill share feedback with City of Benicia on ways to enhance the project for future funding

211,466.10$ 9,270.00$ $78,000.00 Total Recommended

Recommended Funding TOTAL REQUESTED SR2SM ($45K) YSAQMD ($30K)

1 Everest Academy 600.00$ 600.00$ 2 Dan Mini (Eq & Inc only) 17,163.00$ 9,163.50$ 3 Mary Farmar 1,270.00$ 1,270.00$ 4 Solano Widenmann (Inc only) 30,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 5 City of Vallejo 30,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 6 Henderson 20,000.00$ 6,063.90$ 7 Knight School $ 2,752.82 2,752.82$ 8 Sierra Vista 300.00$ 300.00$ 9 Dixon Montessori 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$

10 Kairos Incentives/Misc 29,530.00$ 2,500.00$ 11 Browns Valley 2,300.00$ 2,300.00$ 12 Vaca Pena 4,449.78$ 4,449.78$ 13 Riverview Middle 5,100.00$ 5,100.00$ 14 City of Vacaville (Callison, BV, C 30,000.00$ $15,000.00 15,000.00$ 15 Vacaville PD (Rocky Hill Trail) 21,500.00$ 16 City of Benicia 15,000.00$

44,097.40$ Total 210,865.60$ $44,097.40 33,902.60$ $78,000.00

39

2019-2020 Solano SR2S Micro-Grant Applications Received

AgencySchool Applicant or Project

LocationCity

Grant Amount

Requested

Sierra Vista K8 Vacaville $300.00

Everest Academy Vallejo $600.00

Mary Farmar Elementary Benicia $1,270.00

Dixon Montessori Dixon $1,500.00

Browns Valley Elementary Vacaville $2,300.00

John Knight Middle School Dixon $2,752.82

Vaca Pena Middle School Vacaville $4,449.78

Riverview Middle School Rio Vista $5,100.00

City of Benicia Benicia High School Benicia $15,000.00

Dan Mini Elementary Vallejo $17,163.50

Joe Henderson Elementary Benicia $20,000.00

Vacaville PD Rocky Hill Trail (REACH Coalition) Vacaville $21,500.00

Kairos Public Schools Vacaville $29,530.00

City of Vacaville

Callison, Browns Valley, Cambridge

Elem. Vacaville $30,000.00

City of Vallejo Multiple schools* Vallejo $30,000.00

Solano-Widenmann K8 Vallejo $30,000.00

$211,466.10Total Amount Requested

40

Agenda Item 9.G March 11, 2020

DATE: February 28, 2020 TO: STA Board FROM: Janet Adams, Deputy Executive Director/Director of Projects RE: I-80/I-680/State Route (SR) 12 Interchange Project Allocation

Background: STA has been working cooperatively with State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to deliver the I-80/I-680/SR 12 Interchange Project – Eastbound SR 12W to Eastbound I-80 Connector (Construction Package 2A). Caltrans is the California Environmental Quality Act/National Environmental Policy Act (CEQA/NEPA) lead for the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (FEIR/EIS) for the Project. STA is the project sponsor and will be providing funding for right of way acquisition of the Project and as such, is a Responsible Agency under CEQA for the Project. Caltrans approved the environmental document, FEIR/EIS for the Project, in December 2012. The STA Board approved the Final EIR, which included the I-80/I-680/SR 12 Interchange Project – Eastbound SR 12W to Eastbound I-80 Connector (Construction Package 2A), with Resolution No. 2012-18, in December 2012.

Discussion: The I-80/I-680/SR 12 Interchange Project – Eastbound SR 12W to Eastbound I-80 Connector (Construction Package 2A) will include a new two-lane highway alignment and bridge structure for eastbound SR 12 to eastbound I-80 connector ramp, an off-ramp from eastbound SR 12 to Green Valley Road and a braided ramp connection for eastbound I-80 to Green Valley Road and southbound I-680, among other improvements. Through a combination of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds, State SB1 Trade Corridors Enhancement Program (TCEP) funds and bridge toll funds, this Project is funded and is expected to be ready to start construction in the summer of 2020. Staff is working on the need for additional construction funds and will return to the Board next month on this issue.

One critical ongoing activity for the Project is the acquisition of right-of-way required to accommodate the new facility. STA is currently in the process of acquiring right-of-way for the Project. There will be a need for additional right of way funding for the overall I-80/I-680/SR 12 Interchange over the near term and several previous bridge toll allocations have remaining funds that can be transferred to the I/80/I-680/SR12 Interchange – Right of Way Phase. As such, staff is recommending $1,059,820 be transferred from various existing bridge toll allocations to the I-80/I-680/SR 12 Interchange – Right of Way Phase as depicted on Exhibit A.

As part of the standard process, in order to process an allocation transfer request from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), STA is required to approve the attached resolution, the Initial Project Report (IPR) for RM2 Project 7 and cash flow plan (attachments to resolution).

41

Fiscal Impact: With this approach, $1,059,820 will be transferred from various existing bridge toll funds to the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange – Right of Way Phase as depicted on Exhibit A.


1. STA Resolution 2020-01 as shown in Attachment A; and2. Funding Allocation Transfer Request from Metropolitan Transportation Commission

(MTC) to transfer $1,059,820 in bridge toll funds to the I-80/I-680/SR 12 Interchange– Right of Way Phase.

Attachment: A. STA Resolution 2020-01

42

SOLANO TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY RESOLUTION No. 2020-01

A RESOLUTION OF THE SOLANO TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE AB1171 ALLOCATION TRANSFER REQUEST FOR

REGIONAL MEASURE 2 FUNDS FROM THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO THE I-80/I-680/SR12 INTERCHANGE

PROJECT – RIGHT OF WAY PHASE

WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (“MTC”) is the regional transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay Area pursuant to Government Code Sections 66500 et seq; and

WHEREAS, Streets and Highway Code Sections 30950 et seq. created the Bay Area Toll Authority (“BATA”), which is a public instrumentality governed by the same board as that governing MTC; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code (“SHC”) Section 31010 (b), funds (generally referred to as “AB1171 funds”) generated in excess of those needed to meet the toll commitments as specified in paragraph (4) or subdivision (b) of section 188.5 of the SHC shall be available to BATA for funding projects consistent with SHC Code Sections 30913 and 30914; and

WHEREAS, SB 916 (Chapter 715; Statutes 2004), commonly referred to as Regional Measure 2 (“RM2”) identified projects eligible to receive funding under the Regional Traffic Relief Plan; and

WHEREAS, MTC is responsible for funding projects eligible for RM2 funds pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 30914 (c) and (d); and

WHEREAS, MTC has established a process whereby eligible transportation project sponsors may submit allocation requests for RM2 and AB1171 bridge toll funding; and

WHEREAS, allocations to MTC must be submitted consistent with procedures and conditions; and

WHEREAS, Solano Transportation Authority is the sponsor of the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange Project, which is eligible for RM2 and AB 1171 funding; and

WHEREAS, the AB1171 allocation transfer request, attached hereto in the Initial Project Report and incorporated herein as though set forth at length, lists the project, purpose, schedule, budget, expenditure and cash flow plan for which Solano Transportation Authority is requesting that MTC allocate funds; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that Solano Transportation Authority certifies the PROJECT is consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (“RTP”); and be it further

ATTACHMENT A

43

RESOLVED, that the year of funding for any design, right-of-way and/or construction phases has taken into consideration the time necessary to obtain environmental clearance and permitting approval for the project; and be it further RESOLVED, that Solano Transportation Authority approves the updated Initial Project Report, attached to this resolution; and be it further RESOLVED, that Solano Transportation Authority approves the cash flow plan, attached to this resolution; and be it further RESOLVED, that Solano Transportation Authority has reviewed the project needs and has adequate staffing resources to deliver and complete the project within the schedule set forth in the updated Initial Project Report, attached to this resolution; and be it further RESOLVED, Solano Transportation Authority is an eligible sponsor of projects in the RM2 Regional Traffic Relief Plan, Capital Program, in accordance with California Streets and Highways Code 30914 (c); and be it further RESOLVED, the PROJECT is eligible for receipt of AB1171 funds consistent with California Streets and Highway Code section 31010 (b); and be it further RESOLVED, that Solano Transportation Authority is authorized to submit an application for RM2 and AB1171 funds for PROJECT in accordance with California Streets and Highways Code sections 30913 and 30914(c) as applicable; and be it further RESOLVED, that there is no legal impediment to Solano Transportation Authority making allocation requests for RM2 and AB1171 funds; and be it further RESOLVED, that there is no pending or threatened litigation which might in any way adversely affect the proposed project, or the ability of Solano Transportation Authority to deliver such project; and be it further RESOLVED that Solano Transportation Authority indemnifies and holds harmless MTC, its Commissioners, representatives, agents, and employees from and against all claims, injury, suits, demands, liability, losses, damages, and expenses, whether direct or indirect (including any and all costs and expenses in connection therewith), incurred by reason of any act or failure to act of Solano Transportation Authority, its officers, employees or agents, or subcontractors or any of them in connection with its performance of services under this allocation of RM2 and AB1171 funds. In addition to any other remedy authorized by law, so much of the funding due under this allocation of RM2 and AB1171 funds as shall reasonably be considered necessary by MTC may be retained until disposition has been made of any claim for damages; and be it further RESOLVED, that Solano Transportation Authority shall, if any revenues or profits from any non-governmental use of property (or project) that those revenues or profits shall be used exclusively for the public transportation services for which the project was initially approved, either for capital improvements or maintenance and operational costs, otherwise the Metropolitan Transportation Commission is entitled to a proportionate share equal to MTC’s percentage participation in the projects(s); and be it further

44

RESOLVED, that assets purchased with RM2 and AB1171 funds including facilities and equipment shall be used for the public transportation uses intended, and should said facilities and equipment cease to be operated or maintained for their intended public transportation purposes for its useful life, that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) shall be entitled to a present day value refund or credit (at MTC’s option) based on MTC’s share of the Fair Market Value of the said facilities and equipment at the time the public transportation uses ceased, which shall be paid back to MTC in the same proportion that RM2 and AB1171 funds were originally used; and be it further

RESOLVED, that Solano Transportation Authority shall post on both ends of the construction site(s) at least two signs visible to the public stating that the PROJECT is funded with AB1171 Toll Revenues; and be it further

RESOLVED, that Solano Transportation Authority authorizes its Executive Director, or his/her designee, to execute and submit an allocation transfer request to MTC to transfer $1,059,820 in Regional Measure 2 or AB1171 funds to the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange – Right of Way Phase, purposes and amounts included in the project application attached to this resolution. The $1,059,820 will be transferred from the previous allocations as follows:

and be it further RESOLVED, that Solano Transportation Authority authorizes its Executive Director, or his designee, has been delegated the authority to make non-substantive changes or minor amendments to the IPR as he deems appropriate; and be it further

RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to MTC in conjunction with the filing of the Solano Transportation Authority application referenced herein.

__________________________________ Ron Rowlett, Chair Solano Transportation Authority

Passed by the Solano Transportation Authority (STA) Board on this 11th day of March, 2020 by the following vote:

Ayes: ________ Nos: ________ Absent: ________ Abstain: ________

STA Project Allocation No. PhaseAmount to be Transferred

to I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange - ROW Phase

North Connector 08373911 ROW 118,187$

North Connector 09373913 CON 8,408$

I-80/680/12 Interchange - ICP 13391425 ROW 184,779$

I-80/680/12 Interchange - ICP 14391431 ROW 3,668$

I-80/680/12 Interchange - ICP 14391430 CON 166,803$

I-80/680/12 Interchange - CP2 16391439 PS&E 549,925$

I-80/680/12 Interchange - CP2 17391441 PS&E 28,050$

TOTAL 1,059,820$

45

Attest: ______________________ Johanna Masiclat Clerk of the Board

I, Daryl K. Halls, the Solano Transportation Authority Executive Director, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution was introduced, passed and adopted by said Authority at the regular meeting thereof held this day of March 11, 2020.

__________________________________ Daryl K. Halls, Executive Director Solano Transportation Authority

46

Regional Measure 2 Initial Project Report (IPR)

March 2020

Project Title: RM2 Project No.

Allocation History:

MTC Approval Date Amount Phase

#4 October 2007 $8,300,000 PA/ED for I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange (Original allocation was $13.2M and $5.2M was transferred to I-80 EB Truck Scales per Allocation #6)

#11 September 2009 $5,200,000 PA/ED for I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange

#12 February 2010 $2,309,000 Utility Relocation for I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange; $591,096 transferred to Allocation #28

#15 December 2010 $ 7,000,000 PA/ED for the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange

#18 July 2011 $7,000,000 PA/ED for the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange

#19 February 2012 $13,138,000

R/W Phase for the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange – Initial Construction Package; Reduced by $1,142,000 that was transferred as part of Allocation #31

#20 June 2012 $1,500,000 PA/ED for the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange

#21 October 2012 $5,980,000 R/W Phase for the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange – Initial Construction Package

#22 December 2012 $5,796,000 R/W Phase for the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange – Initial Construction Package

#23 March 2013 $882,008

Final Design (PS&E) Phase for the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange – Initial Construction Package

#24 May 2013 $10,400,000 R/W Phase for the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange – Initial Construction Package

Solano County Corridor Improvements near Interstate 80/Interstate 680 Interchange

7

47

Regional Measure 2 – INITIAL PROJECT REPORT

- 2 -

#25 June 2013 $1,597,000 Final Design (PS&E) Phase for the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange –Construction Package 2

#26 June 2013 $3,916,000 Final Design (PS&E) Phase for the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange –Construction Package 3

#27 August 2013 $27,259,000

Construction Phase for the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange – Initial Construction Package (ICP) – Reduced by $2,189,000 that was transferred as part of Allocation #30

#28 August 2013 $2,469,096

Right of Way Phase for the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange – Initial Construction Package (ICP) – new allocation of $77,992; transfer of $591,096 from Gordon Waterline allocation; transfer of $600,000 from I-80 HOV Lanes PS&E allocation; transfer of $1,200,000 from I-80 Express Lanes PA/ED allocation. TRANSFERRED $1,142,000 to CP3 for Final Design.

#29 February 2014 < $1,000,000>

Transfer from Construction Phase of the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange – Initial Construction Package (ICP) to the Construction Phase of the I-80 FPI Project

#30 December 2015 $2,189,000

Right of Way Phase for the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange – Construction Package 2 (CP2) – transfer of $2,189,000 from ICP Construction Phase allocation to the CP2 Right of Way Phase.

#31 April 2016 $1,142,000

Final Design (PS&E) Phase for the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange – Construction Package 3 (CP3) – transfer of $1,142,000 from ICP Right-of-Way Phase allocation to the CP3 Final Design (PS&E) Phase.

#32 September 2016 $376,813

Right of Way Phase for the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange – Construction Package 2 (CP2) – transfer of $125,206 from the Right of Way Phase from the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange - ICP and $251,607 from Final Design (PS&E) Phase for the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange – Construction Package 3 (CP3).

#33 July 2017 $585,000

Transfer $185,000 in Regional Measure 2 or AB1171 funds to the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange – ICP Final Design Phase and $400,000 to the CP2 Right-of-Way Phase. The total of $585,000 will be transferred from the previous allocation of $870,000 for the Construction Phase of the I-80 Eastbound Truck Scales Project

48


- 3 -

#34 April 2018 $291,838

Transfer $291,838 in Regional Measure 2 or AB1171 funds to the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange – ICP Final Design Phase from the I-80 Eastbound Truck Scales Project. The transfer from the I-80 Eastbound Truck Scales Project will consist of $73,186 from the PS&E Phase, $69,932 from the R/W Phase, and $148,720 from the Construction Phase.

Total: $106,330,755

Current Allocation Request:

IPR Revision Date Amount Being Requested

Phase Requested

March 2020 $1,059,820

Transfer $1,059,820 in Regional Measure 2 or AB1171 funds to the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange – Right of Way Phase from existing Allocations as follows: 1) $118,187 from N. Connector R/W (Alloc # 08373911); 2) $8,408 from N. Connector Construction (Alloc # 09373913); 3) $184,779 from ICP R/W (Alloc # 13391425); 4) $3,668 from ICP R/W (Alloc # 14391431); $166,803 from ICP Construction (Alloc # 14391430); 5) $549,925 from CP2 PS&E (Alloc # 16391439); and 6) $28,050 from CP2 PS&E (Alloc # 17391441).

I. OVERALL PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Sponsor / Co-sponsor(s) / Implementing Agency

Project Purpose

Project Description (please provide details, expand box as necessary)

Solano Transportation Authority is the project sponsor and implementing agency.

The I-80/I-680/SR-12 Interchange experiences traffic congestion due to San Francisco Bay Area commuter traffic, regional traffic using the interstate system, and recreational traffic traveling between the San Francisco Bay Area and Lake Tahoe. The objectives of the proposed project are to alleviate congestion, improve safety, and provide for existing and proposed traffic demand by upgrading the capacity of the freeway and completing a local roadway system that will provide local travelers alternatives to using the freeways for local trips.

The I-80/I-680/State Route (SR) 12 Interchange Project proposes improvements to address traffic operations and congestion in the existing interchange complex, which is located in Solano County. Improvements being considered or cleared in the Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) and other environmental documents include the following components: modification of existing interchanges, adding freeway lanes, constructing new interchanges, auxiliary lanes, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and frontage roads within and adjacent to existing freeway rights of way, relocation of the existing westbound truck scales within the interchange area to improve ingress and egress of the truck traffic.

49


- 4 -

Project Graphics to be sent electronically with This Application Impediments to Project Completion

Operability II. PROJECT PHASE DESCRIPTION and STATUS

Environmental – Does NEPA Apply: X Yes No

Design –

Right-of-Way Activities / Acquisition –

Construction / Vehicle Acquisition -

I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange Project -The environmental document (EIR/EIS) for the I-80/I-680/SR12 I/C Project was approved in December 2012. The document covers the entire project and as such, a Notice of Determination (NOD) has been approved for the entire project. However, a Record of Decision (ROD) has been issued for the fundable first phase.

Final Design for the first construction package (Initial Construction Package (ICP) was completed in May 2013. Final Design for I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange - Construction Packages 2A is underway. Final Design for I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange - Construction Packages 2B is underway. Preliminary Design for Construction Package 3 has been completed, but sufficient funding is not available for Construction Package 3 to proceed with Final Design.

Right-of-way acquisition for ICP started in spring 2012 and was completed. Activities required to transfer the right-of-way to Caltrans is underway. Closeout of utility relocations are underway. Although right-of-way acquisition for Construction Package 2 and 3 has not started, the developer of the Goldhill Village Development has dedicated easements for the relocation of the Benicia NBA water pipeline and the Fairfield-Suisun Sanitation District sewer pipeline.

It is currently envisioned that the fundable phase of the I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange will be implemented with 7 construction packages. The first construction package (Initial Construction Package (ICP)) started construction in spring/summer 2014 and was completed in fall 2017. It is now in the closeout phase. Construction of Construction Packages 2 and 3 has not been scheduled at this time.

Caltrans will be responsible for owning and operating the mainline I/C and I-80 WB Truck Scale improvements.

The major impediment to accomplish the project completion will be securing necessary funds to complete the interchange improvements. However, there are deliverable phases of this project that are serviceable, provide independent utility and have logical termini. Some of these phases (as discussed below) can be and are being delivered by currently identified fund sources. The STA is currently delivering the I-80/I-680/SR12 I/C improvements, with the expectation that the I/C improvements will need to be constructed with multiple construction packages.

50


- 5 -

III. PROJECT BUDGET

Project Budget (Escalated to year of expenditure)

Phase: I-80/I-680/SR12 I/C Improvements – CP 1-7 Total Amount - Escalated

(Thousands) Environmental Studies & Preliminary Eng (ENV / PE / PA&ED) $18,600 Design - Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) 76,983 Right-of-Way Activities /Acquisition (R/W) 146,796 Construction / Rolling Stock Acquisition (CON) 612,433

Total Project Budget (in thousands) $854,812

Project Budget (Escalated to year of expenditure) Phase: I-80/I-680/SR12 I/C Improvements – Initial Const Package, aka, ICP or CP1

Total Amount - Escalated (Thousands)

Design - Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) 10,922 Right-of-Way Activities /Acquisition (R/W) 41,234 Construction / Rolling Stock Acquisition (CON) 60,676



Phase: I-80/I-680/SR12 I/C Improvements – Const Package 2 (CP2) Total Amount - Escalated

(Thousands) Design - Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) 11,700 Right-of-Way Activities /Acquisition (R/W) 9,600 Construction / Rolling Stock Acquisition (CON) 60,300



Phase: I-80/I-680/SR12 I/C Improvements – Const Package 3 (CP3) Total Amount - Escalated

(Thousands) Design - Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E)54 11,118 Right-of-Way Activities /Acquisition (R/W) 54,069 Construction / Rolling Stock Acquisition (CON) 103,843


51


- 6 -

IV. OVERALL PROJECT SCHEDULE

Phase: I-80/I-680/SR12 I/C Improvements – Initial Const Package, aka, ICP or CP1 Phase-Milestone

Planned (Update as Needed)

Start Date Completion Date

Environmental Document 06/02 (A) 12/12 (A)

Final Design - Plans, Specs. & Estimates (PS&E) 08/12 (A) 05/13 (A)

Right-of-Way Activities /Acquisition and Transfer (R/W) 04/12 (A) 04/14 (A)

Construction (Begin – Open for Use) / Acquisition / Operating Service (CON) – ICP 05/14 (A) 10/17 (A)

Project Closeout 11/17 (A) 12/20

Phase: I-80/I-680/SR12 I/C Improvements – Const Package 2 (CP2) Phase-Milestone




Final Design - Plans, Specs. & Estimates (PS&E) 06/18 (A) 04/20

Right-of-Way Activities /Acquisition (R/W) 03/19 12/20

Construction (Begin – Open for Use) / Acquisition / Operating Service (CON) – CP2 06/20 12/21

Phase: I-80/I-680/SR12 I/C Improvements – Const Package 3 (CP3) Phase-Milestone




Detailed Preliminary Eng. (PE) 06/02 (A) 06/13 (A)

Final Design - Plans, Specs. & Estimates (PS&E) TBD TBD

Right-of-Way Activities /Acquisition (R/W) TBD TBD

Construction (Begin – Open for Use) / Acquisition / Operating Service (CON) – CP3 TBD TBD

52


- 7 -

V. ALLOCATION REQUEST INFORMATION Detailed Description of Allocation Request

Amount being requested (in escalated dollars) $ 1,059,820

Project Phase being requested Right of Way

Are there other fund sources involved in this phase? Yes X No

Date of anticipated Implementing Agency Board approval the RM2 IPR Resolution for the allocation being requested March 2020

Month/year being requested for MTC Commission approval of allocation April 2020

Status of Previous Allocations (if any) Workplan Workplan in Alternate Format Enclosed

TASK NO Description Deliverables

Completion Date

1 I-80/I-680/SR12 I/C – ICP or CP1 Draft ED 08/10 (A) 2 I-80/I-680/SR12 I/C – ICP or CP1 Final ED 12/12 (A) 3 I-80/I-680/SR12 I/C – ICP or CP1 Final Design 05/13 (A)

4 I-80/I-680/SR12 I/C – ICP or CP1 Right of Way Acquisition and Transfer 12/18

5 I-80/I-680/SR12 I/C – CP2 Draft ED 08/10 (A) 6 I-80/I-680/SR12 I/C – CP2 Final ED 12/12 (A) 7 I-80/I-680/SR12 I/C – CP2 Final Design 06/18 8 I-80/I-680/SR12 I/C – CP2 Right of Way Acquisition TBD

9 I-80/I-680/SR12 I/C – CP3 Draft ED 08/10 (A) 10 I-80/I-680/SR12 I/C – CP3 Final ED 12/12 (A) 11 I-80/I-680/SR12 I/C – CP3 Final Design TBD 12 I-80/I-680/SR12 I/C – CP3 Right of Way Acquisition TBD

(A) = Actual Date

Impediments to Allocation Implementation

Work is progressing well with the previous allocations.

FY 2019-20: Right of Way Phase for I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange Project.

No impediments. The STA, in cooperation with Caltrans, is prepared to move expeditiously to complete the construction and closeout of ICP and Right of Way Acquisition for Construction Package 2A (CP2A) project.

53


- 8 -

. RM-2 FUNDING INFORMATION

RM-2 Funding Expenditures for funds being allocated X The companion Microsoft Excel Project Funding Spreadsheet to this IPR is included. Next Anticipated RM-2 Funding Allocation Request

VII. GOVERNING BOARD ACTION

Check the box that applies: X Governing Board Resolution attached

Governing Board Resolution to be provided on or before:

VIII. CONTACT / PREPARATION INFORMATION

Contact for Applicant’s Agency Name: Janet Adams Phone: (707) 424-6010 Title: Director of Projects E-mail: [email protected] Information on Person Preparing IPR Name: Dale Dennis Phone: (925) 595-4587 Title: STA Project Management Consultant E-mail: [email protected] Applicant Agency’s Accounting Contact Name: Susan Furtado Phone: (707) 424-6075 Title: Accounting Manager E-mail: [email protected] Revised IPR 09.28.07.doc

N/A

54


- 1 -

Instruction Sheet Cover Page

Project Title and Number - Project name familiar with project sponsor, as displayed in the federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) or other funding/planning documents. Provide RM2 project number for the individual project(s).

Allocation History and Current Allocation Request- Include information on past allocations and current allocation request. Add additional entries as necessary.

I. Overall Project Information

Project Title- Project name familiar with project sponsor, as displayed in the federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) or other funding documents. If this project is subset of a larger RM2 project, please state and summarize overall project but fill out this report for the individual project(s). Project Sponsor/ Co-sponsor(s)/Implementing Agency- Identify Project Sponsor and any co-sponsor(s) as specified in statute. Identify a Lead Sponsor responsible for ensuring the delivery of the RM-2 project and responsible for addressing any funding shortfalls. If different from the sponsor, identify the Implementing Agency responsible for delivering the project. If multiple agencies identify agency responsibilities for delivering the project or project elements, and if necessary, specify the agency responsible for seeking and processing the RM2 allocation(s). Project Purpose- Describe the project purpose, including the problem being addressed and specific accomplishment to be achieved and resulting benefits, as well as the value of the project to the region or corridor, and an explanation of the project as a worthy transportation investment. Project Description- Highlight any differences or variations from the RM-2 legislated project description, or changes in project scope since the previous IPR. If the RM-2 funding is for a deliverable phase or useable segment of the larger project, the RM-2 segment should be described separately as a subset of the overall project description. It must be demonstrated that the RM-2 funded component or phase will result in an operable or useable segment. Include a summary of any prior completed phases and/or future phases or segments associated with the RM-2 segment. Check off whether project graphics information is included in the application.

Impediments to Project Completion - Discussion should include, but not be limited to, the following potential issues that may adversely affect the proposed project or the ability of the sponsor or implementing agency to carry out such projects:

- Any uncommitted future funding needs - Significant foreseeable environmental impacts/issues - Community or political opposition - Relevant prior project funding and implementation experience of sponsor/implementing agency - Required public or private partnerships - Right of way constraints - Timeliness of delivery of related transportation projects - Availability and timeliness of other required funding - Ability to use/access other funding within required deadlines - Legal impediments and any pending or threatened litigation.

55


- 2 -

Operability- Discuss ability to operate and maintain the transportation investment once completed, including timeframe and expected fund source and amount needed to support the continued operations and maintenance of the delivered project.

II. Project Phase and Status

Describe the status of each phase of the RM-2 funded phase or operable/useable segment.

• Environmental – Discuss status and type of environmental document (indicate if NEPA applies by checking the correct box), scheduled date of circulation of draft document and expected final document date. Explanation of environmental issues requiring special attention. Identification of Lead Agency under CEQA.

• Design – Discuss status of project design, including identification of special design considerations,

such as design-build or design sequencing, and any special circumstances for the design of the RM-2 funded operable/useable segment.

• Right-of-Way Activities / Acquisition – Discuss status of right of way acquisition including any

right of way constraints for the RM-2 funded operable/useable segment.

• Construction / Vehicle Acquisition / Operating Service - Discuss status or special circumstances for project construction, equipment / vehicle acquisition or service operations for the RM-2 funded operable/useable segment.

III. Total Project Budget Information

Provide the total cost estimates for the four phases (ENV, PS&E, R/W and CON / Operating). The estimate shall be in both escalated (to the year of expenditure including prior expenditures) and current (at time of the preparation of the IPR) dollars. If the project is for planning activities, include the amount in environmental phase.

IV. Project Schedule

Provide planned start and end dates for key milestones of project phases (as applicable). The RM-2 funded phase or component must result in a useable or operable segment. Information shall be provided by month and year.

V. Allocation Request Information

Provide a description of the phase; include an expanded description outlining the detailed scope of work, status of work, work products. Include any prior completed phases and/or future phases or segments associated with the RM-2 segment. Indicate whether there are non-RM2 funds in the phase by checking the correct box. It must be demonstrated that the RM-2 funded component or phase will be fully funded and result in an operable or useable segment. Include details such as when the board of the Implementing Agency will approve the allocation request and the month/year being requested for the MTC to approve the request noting that this will normally take sixty days from the submission of the request.

Status of Previous Allocations - Please provide an update of the previous allocations for this project or subproject, referencing the outcome, approval dates of important actions, and pertinent completed documents.

56


- 3 -

Workplan - Either populate the table below or attach a workplan in a comparable format. If a consultant is being hired to complete the workplan, please indicate such and enclose a copy of that plan to MTC. If the workplan is to be detailed out by the Regional Measure 2 allocation, please fill out the work plan to the best of your knowledge and indicate when a more detailed workplan will be submitted.

Impediments to Allocation Implementation - Include a summary of any impediments to complete the phase. Summary should include, but not be limited to, discussion of any potential cost increases, significant environmental impacts/issues, community or political opposition, viability of the project sponsor or implementing agency, relevant prior project funding and implementation experience, required public or private partnerships, potential project implementation issues including right of way constraints, timeliness of delivery of related transportation projects, availability and timeliness of other required funding, ability to use/access other funding within required deadlines, legal impediments, and any pending or threatened litigation which might in any way adversely affect the proposed project or the ability of the sponsor or implementing agency to carry out such projects.

VI. RM-2 FUNDING INFORMATION

RM-2 Funding Spreadsheet - To capture the funding data for your project, you will need to refer to the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that is part of this IPR. The spreadsheet comprises of five tabs that needs to be completed or updated. Instructions are included on the accompanying Excel file to the IPR. Confirm that the required fundingspreadsheet (Microsoft Excel) is completed and enclosed by checking the box.

Next Anticipated RM-2 Funding Allocation Request - Summarize the approximate timing of the RM-2 funding need. If previously allocated RM-2 funds were not fully expended in the year for which an allocation was made, or there is a balance of unexpended RM-2 allocations, provide a status of the non-expenditure of RM-2 allocations, and the expected expenditure date(s). Explain any impacts to RM-2 funding needs as a result of any project delays or advances.

VII. GOVERNING BOARD ACTION

The IPR must be approved by the board or governing body of the agency responsible for preparing and submitting the IPR prior to MTC approval of the IPR and allocation of funds. Check the box on whether verification of the governing board action is attached. If not, indicate when the verification will be available

VIII. CONTACT / PREPARATION INFORMATION

Provide applicable contact information including agency, contact/project manager names, phone numbers, e-mail, and mailing addresses. Also provide the date the report was prepared, agency and name of person preparing this report.

57


58

RM-2 Initial Project ReportCommitted Funding Plan Page 1 of 10

RM-ver 02

Project Title: Solano County Corridor Improvements near Interstate 80/Interstate 680 Interchange Project ID: 7Agency: Plan Date: 28-Feb-20

Fund Source Phase Prior 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2019-20 TOTAL

TCRP - I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange - Overall ENV 8,400 8,400STIP - I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange - Overall ENV 400 400TCRP - N. Conn ENV 3,000 3,000Local - N. Conn PS&E 2,300 2,300Local - N. Conn R/W 1,000 1,000Local - N. Conn CON 18,900 18,900RM2 - N. Conn ENV 2,500 2,500RM2 - N. Conn PS&E 1,000 1,000RM2 - N. Conn R/W 7,000 (118) 6,882RM2 - N. Conn CON 2,300 15,200 (4,000) (8) 13,492RM2 - HOV Lanes ENV 3,475 1,000 4,475RM2 - HOV Lanes PS&E 4,525 (600) 3,925RM2 - HOV Lanes CON 2,000 (78) 1,922CMIA - HOV Lanes CON 24,324 8,226 32,550Federal - HOV Lanes CON 15,377 15,377RM2 - I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange - Overall ENV 8,300 5,200 13,500AB1171 - Interchange (ICP, CP2, CP3) ENV 7,000 7,000 1,500 15,500RM2 - I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange - Overall ROW 745 745RM2 - I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange - Overall ROW 315 315AB1171 - Interchange (ICP, CP2, CP3) PS&E 78 185 292 555AB1171 - Interchange (ICP, CP2, CP3) PS&E 822 5,513 1,142 (252) (578) 6,647RM2 - Interchange (ICP) R/W 2,900 (591) (185) 2,124RM2 - Interchange (ICP) R/W 12,791 (4) 12,787AB1171 - Interchange (ICP) R/W 14,280 11,854 (1,142) (125) 24,867AB1171 - Interchange (CP2) R/W 400 400AB1171 - Interchange (CP2) R/W 2,189 377 2,566AB1171 - Interchange (ICP) CON 29,448 (167) 29,281AB1171 - Interchange (ICP) CON (1,000) (1,000)CMAQ CON 1,000 1,000STIP (ICP) CON 10,570 10,570TCIF (ICP) CON 22,847 22,847TCRP - EB Truck Scales ENV 600 600RM2 - I-80 EB Truck Scales ENV 5,200 1,000 6,200RM2 - I-80 EB Truck Scales PS&E 16,700 (4,500) (870) (2,100) (360) (73) 8,797RM2 - I-80 EB Truck Scales R/W 7,500 (2,000) (775) (70) 4,655RM2 - I-80 EB Truck Scales CON 360 775 1,135RM2 - I-80 EB Truck Scales CON 870 (585) (149) 136AB1171 - I-80 EB Truck Scales CON 22,583 22,583TCIF/SHOPP CON 37,292 37,292RM2 - FF-Vac Express Lanes ENV 1,100 15,300 (1,200) 15,200CMAQ - I-80 FPI Project ENV 1,493 1,493CMAQ - I-80 FPI Project PS&E 2,478 2,478CMAQ - I-80 FPI Project R/W 118 118CMIA, SHOPP - I-80 FPI Project CON 18,371 18,371AB1171 - I-80 FPI Project CON 1,000 1,000

Br Tolls/Fed/STIP/Local ( CP 2) R/W 7,688 7,688Br Tolls/Fed/STIP/Local ( CP 3) R/W 48,728 48,728Br Tolls/Fed/STIP/Local ( CP 2) CON 40,403 40,403Br Tolls/Fed/STIP/Local ( CP 3) CON 92,378 92,378

Local, Federal or STIP ENV 14,168 14,168Local, Federal or STIP PS&E 122,085 122,085Local, Federal or STIP R/W 79,485 79,485Local, Federal or STIP CON 1,416,806 1,416,806

Prior 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2016-17 2017-18Future

Committed TOTAL

21,075 7,525 83,001 16,615 45,104 17,800 81,273 12,671 91,632 2,189 1,821,741 2,200,626Comments:

(Amounts Escalated in Thousands)TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING PLAN

Eligible Phases: ENV (or PA&ED), PS&E, R/W or CON. For planning activites use ENV. For Vehicles, Equipment or Operating use CON. OK to use CT R/W SUP or CT CON SUP for Caltrans support, but not necessary (optional).

Solano Transportation AgencyTOTAL PROJECT: COMMITTED + UNCOMMITTED

TOTAL PROJECT: COMMITTED + UNCOMMITTED

RM2 - Initial Project Report

FUNDING SOURCE STILL TO BE DETERMINED (LIST POTENTIAL SOURCES THAT WILL LIKELY BE PURSUED)

Enter all funding for the project - both Committed and Uncommitted. Enter amounts in thousands and escalated to the year of funding

UNCOMMITTED FUNDING PLAN (NON-PROGRAMMED/ALLOCATED, BUT PLANNED FUNDING)

COMMITTED FUNDING PLAN

59


RM-ver 01Date Printed: 3/5/2020

Project Title: Project ID:

Agency: Plan Date: 28-Feb-20

RM-2 Expenditures Prior 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2019-20 TOTALENV/PA&ED 5,975 1,000 13,500 7,300 15,300 (1,200) 41,875

ENV/PA&ED 7,000 7,000 1,500 15,500

PS&E 4,525 1,000 16,700 (4,500) (870) (2,022) (960) 185 14,058

PS&E 822 5,513 1,142 (252) 7,225

R/W 7,000 10,400 (2,000) 12,200 (775) 400 27,225

R/W 14,280 11,854 2,189 377 28,700

CON 2,000 2,300 15,122 (4,000) 360 775 16,557

CON 22,583 30,448 53,031

CON (1,000) (1,000)

Prior 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2019-20 TOTAL

5,975 7,525 23,800 15,122 34,400 17,800 42,993 (5,700) 57,215 3,331 710 203,171Comments:

RM-2 Initial Project Report

(Amounts Escalated in Thousands)(RM-2 Allocation Funding Only)

RM-2 FUNDING CASH FLOW PLAN For Allocation

Solano County Corridor Improvements near Interstate 80/Interstate 680 Interchange

Solano Transportation Authority

Enter RM-2 amounts in thousands and escalated to the year of funding. The total amount cannot exceed the amount identified in the RM-2 legislation.

BRIDGE TOLLS - CASH FLOW PLAN

BRIDGE TOLLS - CASH FLOW PLAN

Provide the expected RM-2 expenditures – by phase and year. (This is the amount of the allocation needed for that fiscal year to cover expenditures through June 30th of that fiscal year).


60



Project Title: I-80 FPI Project Project ID: 7Agency: Plan Date: 28-Feb-20

Fund Source Phase Prior 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Future

Committed TOTALCMAQ - I-80 FPI Project ENV 1,493 1,493CMAQ - I-80 FPI Project PS&E 2,478 2,478CMAQ - I-80 FPI Project R/W 118 118CMIA, SHOPP - I-80 FPI Project CON 18,371 18,371AB1171 - I-80 FPI Project CON 1,000 1,000

Prior 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Future

Committed TOTAL

1,493 2,478 118 18,371 1,000 23,460Comments:


RM-2 DELIVERABLE SEGMENT - Fully Funded Phase or Segment of Total Project

RM-2 SEGMENT FUNDING TOTAL

(Complete this spreadsheet only if RM-2 funds are dedicated to deliver a specific phase or deliverable segment of the overall total project)Enter funds on the RM-2 Deliverable Phase or Segment, ONLY if the RM-2 Phase or Segment is different from the overall total project. The RM-2 Segment must be Fully Funded and result in a operable or useable segment.Enter only funds Committed to the RM-2 Funded Segment and only if different from Total Project. Enter amounts in thousands and escalated to the year of funding. DO NOT enter uncommitted funding - The RM-2 Phase or Segment must be fully funded.

Solano Transportation Agency


DELIVERABLE SEGMENT FUNDING PLAN AND CASH FLOWI-80_I-680_SR12 Interchange

(Amounts Escalated in Thousands)

61



Project Title: I-80/I-680 Interchange Complex - North Connector Project (Abernathy to Green Valley Road) Project ID: 7


Fund Source Phase Prior 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2019-20 TOTALTCRP ENV 3,000 3,000Local PS&E 2,300 2,300Local R/W 1,000 1,000Local CON 18,900 18,900Br Tolls - N. Conn ENV 2,500 2,500Br Tolls - N. Conn PS&E 1,000 1,000Br Tolls - N. Conn R/W 7,000 (118) 6,882Br Tolls - N. Conn CON 2,300 15,200 (4,000) (8) 13,492

Prior 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Future

Committed TOTAL

8,800 29,200 15,200 (4,000) (127) 49,073Comments:



(Amounts Escalated in Thousands)NORTH CONNECTOR (Abernathy to Green Valley Road)

DELIVERABLE SEGMENT FUNDING PLAN AND CASH FLOW


Enter only funds Committed to the RM-2 Funded Segment and only if different from Total Project. Enter amounts in thousands and escalated to the year of funding. DO NOT enter uncommitted funding - The RM-2 Phase or Segment must be fully funded.Enter funds on the RM-2 Deliverable Phase or Segment, ONLY if the RM-2 Phase or Segment is different from the overall total project. The RM-2 Segment must be Fully Funded and result in a operable or useable segment.



(Complete this spreadsheet only if RM-2 funds are dedicated to deliver a specific phase or deliverable segment of the overall total project)

62



Project Title: I-80 HOV Lanes (from Red Top Interchange to Airbase Parkway) Project ID: 7Agency: Plan Date: 28-Feb-20

Fund Source Phase Prior 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Future

Committed TOTALBr Tolls - HOV Lanes ENV 3,475 1,000 4,475Br Tolls - HOV Lanes PS&E 4,525 (600) 3,925Br Tolls - HOV Lanes CON 2,000 (78) 1,922CMIA - HOV Lanes CON 24,324 8,226 32,550Federal - HOV Lanes CON 15,377 15,377

Prior 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Future

Committed TOTAL

3,475 7,525 39,701 (78) 8,226 (600) 58,249Comments:


(Amounts Escalated in Thousands)I-80 HOV Lanes (Red Top Road to Airbase Parkway)



The Ramp Metering component of the I-80 HOV Lanes project will be implemented as a separate construction package in FY 2009-10.

Enter only funds Committed to the RM-2 Funded Segment and only if different from Total Project. Enter amounts in thousands and escalated to the year of funding. DO NOT enter uncommitted funding - The RM-2 Phase or Segment must be fully funded

Enter funds on the RM-2 Deliverable Phase or Segment, ONLY if the RM-2 Phase or Segment is different from the overall total project. The RM-2 Segment must be Fully Funded and result in a operable or useable segment.





63



Project Title: I-80 Eastbound Truck Scales Project ID: 7Agency: Plan Date: 28-Feb-20

Fund Source Phase Prior 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 TOTALTCRP ENV 600 600RM2 - I-80 EB Truck Scales ENV 5,200 1,000 6,200RM2 - I-80 EB Truck Scales PS&E 16,700 (4,500) (870) (2,100) (360) (73) 8,797RM2 - I-80 EB Truck Scales R/W 7,500 (2,000) (775) (70) 4,655RM2 - I-80 EB Truck Scales CON 360 775 1,135RM2 - I-80 EB Truck Scales CON 870 (585) (149) 136AB1171 - I-80 EB Truck Scales CON 22,583 22,583TCIF/SHOPP CON 37,292 37,292

Prior 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Future

Committed TOTAL

5,800 25,200 (4,500) 59,875 (4,100) (585) (292) 81,398Comments:



(Amounts Escalated in Thousands)I-80_I-680_SR12 Interchange







64



Project Title: I-80/I-680 Interchange Complex - I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange Initial Construction Packages (ICP, CP2, and CP3) Project ID: 7


Fund Source Phase Prior 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2019-2020 TOTAL

TCRP - I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange - Overall ENV 8,400 8,400

STIP - I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange - Overall ENV 400 400

RM2 - I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange - Overall ENV 8,300 5,200 13,500

AB1171 - Interchange (ICP, CP2, CP3) ENV 7,000 7,000 1,500 15,500

RM2 - I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange - Overall ROW

RM2 - I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange - Overall ROW 745

RM2 - Interchange (ICP) PS&E 78 185 292 315 555

AB1171 - Interchange (ICP, CP2, CP3) PS&E 822 5,513 1,142 (252) (578) 7,225

RM2 - Interchange (ICP) R/W 2,900 (591) (185) 2,309

RM2 - Interchange (ICP) R/W 12,791 (4) 12,791

AB1171 - Interchange (ICP) R/W 14,280 11,854 (1,142) (125) 24,867

RM2 - Interchange (ICP) R/W 400 400

AB1171 - Interchange (CP2) R/W 2,189 377 2,566

AB1171 - Interchange (ICP) CON 29,448 (2,189) (167) 27,259

AB1171 - Interchange (ICP) CON (1,000) (1,000)

CMAQ CON 1,000 1,000

STIP (ICP) CON 10,570 10,570

TCIF (ICP) CON 22,847 22,847

Br Tolls/Fed/STIP/Local ( CP 2) R/W 7,688 7,688

Br Tolls/Fed/STIP/Local ( CP 3) R/W 48,728 48,728

Br Tolls/Fed/STIP/Local ( CP 2) CON 40,403 40,403

Br Tolls/Fed/STIP/Local ( CP 3) CON 92,378 92,378

Prior 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Future

Committed TOTAL

8,800 8,300 8,100 7,000 21,280 2,400 92,432 585 189,489 338,386Comments:


(Amounts Escalated in Thousands)

I-80_I-680_SR12 InterchangeDELIVERABLE SEGMENT FUNDING PLAN AND CASH FLOW







UNCOMMITTED FUNDING PLAN (NON-PROGRAMMED/ALLOCATED, BUT PLANNED FUNDING)

65



Project Title: I-80 Express Lanes (from Red Top Interchange to I-505) Project ID: 7Agency: Plan Date: 28-Feb-20

Fund Source Phase Prior 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Future

Committed TOTALRM2 - FF-Vac Express Lanes ENV 1,100 15,300 (1,200) 15,200Other Funding ENVOther Funding PS&E 15,745 15,745Other Funding CON 250,000 250,000

Prior 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Future

Committed TOTAL

1,100 15,300 15,745 250,000 (1,200) 280,945Comments:




(Amounts Escalated in Thousands)I-80 Express Lanes (Red Top Road to I-505)



The PS&E and Construction budgets are just rough estimates at this point and will be adjusted once the PA/ED process is further along.




66

Amount AvailableExpended to date Balance

(Thousands) Remaining(Thousands)

ENV / PA&ED TCRP 4/30/2008 12,000 - STIP 8/31/2005 400 -

RM2 (I-80 HOV Lanes) 12/31/2008 4,475 - RM2 (I-80/I-680 Interchange) 5/31/2017 37,655 - RM2 (I-80 EB Truck Scales) 12/31/2011 6,200 -

RM2 (North Connector) 12/31/2010 2,500 - RM2 (I-80 Express Lanes) 5/31/2017 12,088 735

PS&E RM2 (I-80 HOV Lanes) 12/31/2012 3,925 - Local (North Connector) 12/31/2010 2,300 - RM2 (North Connector) 12/31/2011 1,000 -

RM2 (I-80 EB Truck Scales) 5/31/2017 8,788 - RM2 (I-80/I-680 Interchange) 6/30/2015 6,412 77

RM2 (I-80/I-680 Interchange) - CP2 5/25/2016 890 50 R/W RM2 (North Connector) 6/30/2015 6,852 -

Local (North Connector) 12/31/2010 1,000 - RM2 (I-80 EB Truck Scales) 6/30/2015 4,655 - RM2 (I-80/I-680 Interchange) 6/30/2015 38,813 1,478

RM2 (I-80/I-680 Interchange) - CP2 8/23/2017 400 315 CON / Operating RM2 (I-80 HOV Lanes - GVB) 12/31/2010 1,922

Local (North Connector) 12/31/2010 18,900 - RM2 (North Connector) 6/30/2015 17,457 30

RM2 (I-80 EB Truck Scales) 6/30/2015 23,827 - RM2 (I-80/I-680 Interchange) 6/30/2015 25,294 -

237,753 2,685 Comments:

Project ID: 7Date: 2/28/2020


As required by RM-2 Legislation, provide funds expended to date for the total project. Provide both expenditure by Fund Source and Expenditure by Phase, with the date of the last expenditure, and any available balance remaining to be expended.

Total to date (in thousands)

Phase Fund Source Date of Last Expenditure

EXPENDITURES TO-DATE BY PHASE AND FUND SOURCES

67

Regional Measure 2 ProgramEstimated Budget Plan

Page 10 of 10

TITLE OF PROJECT

Solano County Corridor Improvements near Interstate 80/Interstate 680 Interchange 7

NAME AND ADDRESS OF IMPLEMENTING AGENCY

STAOne Harbor Center, Ste 130Suisun City CA 94585

Phases: Construction

DETAIL DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED HOURS RATE/HOUR TOTAL ESTIMATED COST (Dollars)

0 64.83$ $00 64.83$ $00 64.83$ $00 64.83$ $0

$0$0$0

2. DIRECT BENEFITS (Specify) Benefit Rate X BASESTA Overhead (103% OH Rate) 50% 0

$03. DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS (include construction, right-of-way, or vehicle acquisition)

Unit(if applicable) Cost per Unit ($)

04. CONSULTANTS/CONTRACTORS (Identify - purpose - rate) RATEROW Phase for I-80/I-680/SR12 $1,059,820

$1,059,820

$0$1,059,820

DATE

February 28, 2020

SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF IMPLEMENTING AGENCY

RM2 Legislation ID (and project subelements if any)

1. DIRECT LABOR of Implementing Agency (Specify by task)

TOTAL DIRECT LABOR

TOTAL BENEFIT

TOTAL DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS

TOTAL CONSULTANTS5. OTHER DIRECT COSTS (Specify - explain costs, if any)

TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS6. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST

The labor rates and the overhead costs are current and other estimated costs have been determined by generally accepted accounting principles. Bidder represents:(a) that he__has, __has not, employed or retained any company or person (other than a full-time bona fide employee working solely for the bidder) to solicit or secure his contract, and (b) that he__has, __has not, paid or agreed to pay to any company or person (other than a full-time bona fide employee working solely for the bidder) any fee, commission, percentage or brokerage fee, contingent upon or resulting from the award of this contract, and agrees to furnish information relating to (a) and (b) above, as requested by the Contracting Officer.

For interpretation of the representation including the term "bona fide employee," see Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44, Part 150.

CERTIFICATE

68


DATE: February 28, 2020 TO: STA Board FROM: Janet Adams, Deputy Executive Director/Director of Projects RE: Regional Measure 3 Bridge Toll Competitive Programs Priority Projects

Background: Bridge Tolls On March 2, 2004, Bay Area voters passed Regional Measure 2 (RM 2), raising the toll on the seven state-owned bridges in the Bay Area by $1.00. This extra dollar funded various transportation projects within the region that have been determined to reduce congestion or to make improvements to travel in the toll corridors. The projects are specifically identified in Senate Bill (SB) 916.

Senate Bill 595 (Beall) provided the legislative authority to raise the regional bridge toll not more than $3 with $1 being added every three years. The Bill required a majority vote of the 9 Bay Area Counties and provided an Expenditure Plan.

Past bridge toll funds have been essential in providing Solano County with the opportunity to improve multi-modal mobility along the corridors with a nexus to the state owned Bay Area bridges. The funds have in some cases fully funded the improvements, but they also leveraged other state and federal funds. However, there is still a significant amount of important projects that need to be invested in to reduce congestion in Solano County that have a nexus to the Bay Area bridges. These include investments in highway and transit facilities as well as the continued dedication to SolanoExpress operating.

Discussion: In June 2018, the Bay Area voters approved Regional Measure 3 (RM 3) (Attachment A). RM 3 will raise the bridge toll in three stages: $1 on January 1, 2019; $1 on January 1, 2022; $1 on January 1, 2025. For Solano County, this Plan provides dedicated funding to important capital projects such as, $150 M for the I-80/I-680/State Route (SR) 12 Interchange, $105 M for the I-80 Westbound Cordelia Truck Scales and $100 M for State Route 37 Improvements. It also includes competitive programs that Solano County either specifically participates in or can participate in Bay Area region-wide competitive programs.

In October 2018, the STA Board approved RM 3 Priority Projects for the competitive programs (Attachment B). Since this time, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has taken no action on advancing the programs identified in RM 3 due to the on-going litigation. However, staff is hopeful that the litigation appeal is progressing as the briefs have been filed by both sides and the anticipated hearings will occur this Spring, with a potential ruling in mid-2020. With the passing of time, staff is looking ahead and preparing to position Solano County for these competitive funds and have a better feel for what will compete better. Listed below is the competitive programs with staff recommendation, in priority order, on the priority projects and funding amount to be sought for each project.

69

Bay Area Corridor Express Lanes Fund the environmental review, design, and construction of express lanes to complete the Bay Area Express Lane Network, including supportive operational improvements to connecting transportation facilities. Eligible projects include, but are not limited to, express lanes on Interstate 80, Interstate 580, and Interstate 680 in the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa, Interstate 880 in the County of Alameda, Interstate 280 in the City and County of San Francisco, Highway 101 in the City and County of San Francisco and the County of San Mateo, State Route 84 and State Route 92 in the Counties of Alameda and San Mateo, Interstate 80 from Red Top Road to the intersection with Interstate 505 in the County of Solano, and express lanes in the County of Santa Clara. Eligible project sponsors include the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission shall make funds available based on performance criteria, including benefit-cost and project readiness. Three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000). Staff Recommendation: $85 M for the I-80 Express Lanes between Red Top Road to I-505. Staff has been in on-going discussions with MTC staff as STA is gearing up for a project submittal for SB 1 funds this spring. $8 M for Environmental Document for the I-80 Express Lanes from SR 37 to the Carquinez Bridge. Ferry Enhancement Program Provide funding to purchase new vessels, upgrade and rehabilitate existing vessels, build facilities and landside improvements, and upgrade existing facilities. The project sponsor is the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority(WETA). Three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000). Staff Recommendation: $10 M for the Vallejo Station Phase B. In February 2020, a joint letter was sent to WETA with this request to match $10 million in North Bay Transit funds and local funds committed by the City of Vallejo. San Francisco Bay Trail/Safe Routes to Transit Provide funding for a competitive grant program to fund bicycle and pedestrian access improvements on and in the vicinity of the state-owned toll bridges connecting to rail transit stations and ferry terminals. Eligible applicants include cities, counties, transit operators, school districts, community colleges, and universities. The project sponsor is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. One hundred fifty million dollars ($150,000,000). Staff Recommendation: $1.2 M Bay Trail/Vine Trail through Vallejo $3 M West Texas Safe Routes to Transit $3 M Bluff Trail through Vallejo SR 37 Access Improvements (amount based on results from SR 37 Active Transportation Master Plan) North Bay Transit Access Improvements Provide funding for transit improvements, including, but not limited to, bus capital projects, including vehicles, transit facilities, and access to transit facilities, benefiting the Counties of Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, and Contra Costa. Priority shall be given to projects that are fully

70

funded, ready for construction, and serving rail transit or transit service that operates primarily on existing or fully funded high-occupancy vehicle lanes. The project sponsor is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Eligible applicants are any transit operator providing service in the Counties of Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Solano, or Sonoma. One hundred million dollars ($100,000,000).

Staff Recommendation: $10 M Vallejo Station Phase B $5 M Fairfield/Vacaville Train Depot $3 M FTC Access and Parking Improvements $2 M Suisun-Fairfield Amtrak/Parking Improvements

The STA is seeking projects that will be competitive to secure funding from these programs. Projects that will likely attract RM 3 funding are projects that have, or are highly likely to have full funding plan, projects that provide regional benefit, projects that are ready to begin construction within 3 to 5 years and projects that have high local support, including local funding to demonstrate this local support.

MTC is working on the guidelines for RM 3, including the competitive programs. The draft guidelines for the competitive programs are expected this spring. However, to get ready to compete for the RM 3 funded regional programs, STA staff is seeking input from potential project sponsors for projects that they want to move forward for consideration to obtain RM 3 funding.

On February 26th the STA Technical Advisory Committee unanimously approved the staff recommendation for RM 3 priority projects.

Fiscal Impact: None at this time, however, should the STA receive RM 3 from any competitive program, it would be added to the budget.

Recommendation: Approve the priority capital projects for RM 3 competitive programs as shown in Attachment C.

Attachments: A. Regional Measure 3 Expenditure PlanB. STA Board Approved October 2018 RM 3 Priority ProjectsC. Proposed STA March 2020 RM 3 Priority Projects

71


72

REGIONAL MEASURE 3 EXPENDITURE PLAN ($ in millions)

All- Corridor Annual Operating Program

All CorridorsTransbay Terminal 5

Ferries (Funding ramps up to $35 million over five years) 35

Regional Express Bus 20 Annual Operating Program Total 60$

Regional Programs

BART Expansion Cars 500 Bay Area Corridor Express Lanes 300 Ferry Enhancement Program 300 Goods Movement and Mitigation 160

San Francisco Bay Trail / Safe Routes to Transit 150

Capitol Corridor 90 Next Generation Clipper Transit Fare Payment System 50 Regional Programs Subtotal (35%) 1,550$

Corridor-Specific Capital Projects Central (San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge) Caltrain Downtown Extension 325

Muni Fleet Expansion and Facilities 140 Core Capacity Transit Improvements 140 AC Transit Rapid Bus Corridor Improvements 100 Transbay Rail Crossing 50 Interstate 80 Transit Improvements 25 Central Subtotal (27%) 780$

South (San Mateo-Hayward, Dumbarton)BART to San Jose Phase 2 375 Tri-Valley Transit Access Improvements 100 Eastridge to BART Regional Connector 130 San Jose Diridon Station 100 Dumbarton Corridor Improvements 130 Highway 101/State Route 92 Interchange 50 Interstate 680/SR 84 Interchange Reconstruction 85 Interstate 680/Interstate-880/Route 262 Freeway Connector 15 South Subtotal (34%) 985$

North (Richmond-San Rafael, Benicia-Martinez, Carquinez, Antioch)

Contra Costa 680/State Route 4 Interchange Improvements 210

U.S. 101 Marin-Sonoma Narrows 120

Solano County Interstate 80/Interstate 680/State Route 12 Interchange Project 150

Interstate 80/Westbound Truck Scales 105 State Route 37 Improvements 100

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART) Extension to Windsor & Healdsburg 40

San Rafael Transit Center 30 Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Access Improvements 210 North Bay Transit Access Improvements 100

SR 29 Improvements 20

East Contra Costa County Transit Intermodal Station 15

Byron Highway-Vasco Road Airport Connector 10

Vasco Road Safety Improvements 15

Interstate 680 Transit Improvements 10 North Subtotal (39%) 1,135$

Corridor-Specific Capital Projects Subtotal (65%) 2,900

Capital Projects Grand Total 4,450

OPERATING PROGRAM

CAPITAL PROJECTS

ATTACHMENT A

73

ATTACHMENT B

RM3 Priority Transit Capital Projects (Approved by the STA Board – October 2018)

(Note: The staff recommendation is listed in priority order.)

Bay Area Corridor Express Lanes Staff Recommendation:

1. $100 M for the I-80 Express Lanes between Red Top Road to I-505.2. $8 M for Environmental Document for the I-80 Express Lanes from SR 37 to the

Carquinez Bridge

Ferry Enhancement Program. Staff Recommendation: $10 M for the Vallejo Station Phase B

San Francisco Bay Trail/Safe Routes to Transit Staff Recommendation:

1. $1.2 M Bay Trail/Vine Trail through Vallejo2. $3 M West Texas Safe Routes to Transit3. $5 M West Texas Gateway/Heart of Fairfield4. $3 M Bluff Trail through Vallejo5. SR 37 Access Improvements (amount based on results from SR 37 Active

Transportation Master Plan)6. $5 M Solano County Safe Routes to Transit (Implementation of the STA’s Safe

Route to Transit Plan)

North Bay Transit Access Improvements Staff Recommendation:

1. $12 M Fairfield/Vacaville Train Depot Completion2. $10 M Vallejo Station Phase B3. $12 M SolanoExpress Capital Improvements at Fairfield Transportation Center4. $4 M SolanoExpress Bus Replacement

74

ATTACHMENT C

RM3 Priority Capital Projects (Note: The staff recommendation is listed in priority order.)

Bay Area Corridor Express Lanes Staff Recommendation:

1. $85 M for the I-80 Express Lanes between Red Top Road to I-505.2. $8 M for Environmental Document for the I-80 Express Lanes from SR 37 to the

Carquinez Bridge

Ferry Enhancement Program Staff Recommendation: $10 M for the Vallejo Station Phase B

San Francisco Bay Trail/Safe Routes to Transit Staff Recommendation:

1. $1.2 M Bay Trail/Vine Trail through Vallejo2. $3 M West Texas Safe Routes to Transit3. $3 M Bluff Trail through Vallejo4. SR 37 Access Improvements (amount based on results from SR 37 Active

Transportation Master Plan)

North Bay Transit Access Improvements Staff Recommendation:

1. $10 M Vallejo Station Phase B2. $5 M Fairfield/Vacaville Train Depot3. $3 M FTC Access and Parking Improvements4. $2 M Suisun-Fairfield Amtrak/Parking Improvements

75


76


DATE: February 28, 2020 TO: STA Board FROM: Vincent Ma, Marketing and Legislative Program Manager RE: Legislative Update

Background: Each year, STA staff monitors state and federal legislation that pertains to transportation and related issues. On December 11, 2019, the STA Board approved its 2020 Legislative Platform to provide policy guidance on transportation legislation and the STA’s legislative activities during 2020.

Monthly legislative updates are provided by STA’s State and Federal lobbyists and are attached for your information (Attachments A, and C). An updated Legislative Bill Matrix listing state bills of interest is available at: https://sta.ca.gov/operations/legislative-program/current/

Discussion: The State Legislature had until February 21st to introduce new bills for the 2020 Legislative Session. In addition to Senate Bill 278 (SB 278), the FASTER Bay Area bill authored by Senator Jim Beall, Assembly Member David Chiu introduced Assembly Bill 2057 (AB 2057). The Bay Area Seamless Transit Act would require public transit systems operating in the nine (9) Bay Area Counties to integrate fares and payment systems, standardize wayfinding and mapping, and establish accountability metrics and deadlines to achieve integration AB 2057 is currently a Spot Bill and in the committee review process and staff will report back with additional analysis once the full text of the bill is released.

Staff is also monitoring the following “spot” bills that were introduced this session:

• Assembly Bill 1350 (AB 1350), authored by Assembly Member Gonzalez, would requiretransit agencies to offer free youth transit passes (18 years and under). The bill passed theAssembly (75-0) and is currently in the Senate Committee review process

• Assembly Bill 2012 (AB 2012), authored by Assembly Member Chiu, would requiretransit agencies to offer free senior transit passes (over 65 years). This bill is in theAssembly Committee review process

• Assembly Bill 3145 (AB 3145), authored by Assembly Tim Grayson, would cap theamount that cities or counties would be able to change for impact fees at 12 percent of thecity’s or county’s median home price. This bill is in the Assembly Committee reviewprocess

Senator Bill Dodd introduced Senate Bill 1408 (SB 1408) the State Route 37 Toll Bridge Act (Attachment B) would authorize a yet to be determined authority to collect tolls on State Route 37 (SR 37) to leverage state and federal funding to address congestion and sea level rise on this corridor. Specifically, SB 1408 will:

77

• Establish an unspecified Authority – currently intended to be the Bay Area InfrastructureFinancing Authority (BAIFA)

• Improve the resiliency of transportation from sea level rise, flooding, and traffic congestion• Increase opportunities for ecological enhancements, transit, multimodal use, and public

access• Include, but not be limited to, from immediately east of the State Route 37 intersection

with State Route 121 in Sonoma County to immediately west of the State Route 37intersection with Walnut Avenue in Solano County

• Develop and implement an equity program to reduce the impact of the toll on low-incomeusers in consolation with the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, SolanoTransportation Authority, Napa Valley Transportation Authority, and TransportationAuthority of Marin

• Consult with, and consider recommendations from, the Sonoma County TransportationAuthority, Solano Transportation Authority, Napa Valley Transportation Authority, andTransportation Authority of Marin regarding the expenditure plan for revenues derived andleveraged from SB 1408

Staff recommends that the STA Board support SB 1408 in concept as is aligns with STA’s 2020 Legislative Platform Priority Tier 1 Project: “SR 37 Corridor Improvements: Segment B and Mare Island Interchange,” and Legislative Objectives #5: “Support efforts by the SR 37 Policy Committee (County Transportation Authorities of Marin, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma Counties) to develop and expedited funding, financing, and project implementation strategy for the reconstruction of SR 37 and provide flood protection to withstand rising seas and storm surges, while improving mobility and safety along the route.”

State Legislative Update (Shaw/Yoder/Antwih/Schmelzer/Lange): On February 26, the STA testified at Joint Hearing Senate Governance and Finance and Senate Housing and Assembly Local Government and Assembly Housing and Community Development Hearing to share the history of Solano County’s Public Facilities Fee (PFF) and the benefits of the Regional Traffic Impact Fee (RTIF) as it pertains to transportation projects in Solano County.

STA’s state legislative advocate will be presenting at the Board Meeting to share the latest information discussed in their report (Attachment B):

• Legislative Update• SB 50 Fails Passage• FASTER Bay Area/Seamless Bay Area• Bills of Interest

Summary of Funding in Governor’s Budget (all amounts are approximate): • Local Streets and Roads: $3 billion (1.26 billion from SB1); an increase of $120 million

over FY 2019-20• State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP): $591 million; a $38 million increase

over FY 2019-20• State Transit Assistance (STA): $804 million; an increase of $37 million• Intercity and Commuter Rail: $270 million• Low-Carbon Transit Operations: $125 million from Cap and Trade• Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP): $510 million• Trade Corridors Enhancement Program: $323 million

78

Federal Legislative Update (Akin Gump): STA’s federal legislative advocate (Susan Lent of Akin Gump) continues to work with STA staff to craft STA’s strategic objectives to align with those of the current administration. The STA Board is planning to travel to Washington DC, along with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in the Spring of 2019 to advocate for Solano County’s priority projects. Updates on the following are detailed in Attachment C.

• FY 2021 Appropriations• Surface Transportation Reauthorization• Transportation Legislation• Emission Standards• Federal Grants• Chinese Transit Equipment

Fiscal Impact: None.

Recommendation: Support in concept for SB 1408 (Dodd) State Route 37 Toll Bridge Act as shown in Attachment B

Attachments: A. State Legislative UpdateB. Senate Bill 1408 (Dodd) State Route 37 Toll Bridge ActC. Federal Legislative UpdateD. Senate Banking Committee Hearing on Public Transportation

79


80

February 24, 2020

TO: Board of Directors, Solano Transportation Authority

FM: Joshua W. Shaw, Matt Robinson & Michael Pimentel, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange

RE: STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE – March 2020

Legislative Update Legislators whad until February 21st to introduce new bills for the 2020 Legislative Year, with 2296 new measures coming in to print since January 6. We are currently reviewing the bills for impacts to STA. Later this month and bleeding into next month, the Legislature’s budget subcommittees will hold hearings to evaluate the various budget proposals advanced by Governor Newsom in his proposed State Budget for the 2020-21 Fiscal Year.

SB 50 Fails Passage Senate Bill 50 (Wiener) failed to receive the necessary votes to pass out of the Senate before the January 31 “House of Origin” deadline. The bill garnered 18 votes in support, 3 short of the necessary 21, receiving bipartisan support (and opposition). While SB 50 is done for the 2019-20 session, we don’t believe the book is closed on a housing production bill in 2020. In fact, in her closing remarks on the Floor after the bill’s vote, Senate President Pro Tem Atkins stated to her colleagues that there will be a production bill in 2020. Her official statement is below:

“So here's the thing: we need a housing production bill. We need a housing production bill that includes consensus solutions so we can help solve our housing affordability crisis. Despite the work Senator Wiener and SB 50’s advocates have made, the debate and the vote today showed this particular vehicle isn’t it. The opponents of SB 50 have real concerns, but have offered no substantive alternative with the same kind of scope of SB 50. Things have to change. We need to reset the conversation. So I am making the commitment to you today that in the coming weeks I will be meeting with stakeholders on all sides to find a way forward on a housing production bill that can pass both houses and get the Governor’s signature.”

Governor Newsom also expressed his strong desire to see a housing production bill land on his desk in 2020.

ATTACHMENT A

81

FASTER Bay Area / Seamless Bay Area We have reported in the past that efforts are underway in the Bay Area to implement a new funding source for transportation by way of a nine-county sales tax measure that would generate an estimated $100 billion over 40 years. The FASTER measure is proposed to fund primarily large-scale, mass transportation infrastructure projects throughout the Bay Area (e.g. second transbay crossing for at least BART, additional Caltrain improvements, regional express bus/managed lanes, subway improvements, etc.). Lately, the measure’s proponents have been exploring a duel-purpose measure – one that would fund both transportation and housing. Regardless of what is decided locally, the revenue-raising authority and other policy elements of the proposal (for at least the transportation piece) must first be approved by the California Legislature and governor; Senator Jim Beall (D-San Jose) and his staff have been spearheading the FASTER legislative effort and a bill exists that could contain the FASTER elements, SB 278 (Beall). He is likely considering such elements as: funding authorization; voter-approval requirements; local process for ballot placement; specification of the revenue collection, disbursement and oversight agency; connection to housing; and, the specific programs & projects that will receive funding. In addition to the expenditure plan element of the FASTER Bay Area discussions, proponents have also been pushing for several policy changes meant to improve the operation and effectiveness of the region’s transit agencies. Known as Seamless Bay Area, would, through legislation, require transit agencies to establish set region-wide fares and coordinate scheduling, system mapping, and data collected/shared. The legislation would also create regional transit task force to further study and make recommendations on the items above. AB 2057 (Chiu), currently a “spot bill,” will likely be amended in the coming weeks to contain many of these items. Bills of Interest SB 278 (Beall) FASTER Spot Bill This bill represents the legislative vehicle for a potential FASTER Bay Area framework and expenditure plan. SB 757 (Allen) State Highway Relinquishment State law describes the authorized routes on the state highway system and allows routes that have been deleted from the system to be considered for relinquishment by the California Transportation Commission to a local agency. The bill would require Caltrans to report to the Commission on which state highway routes or segments primarily serve regional travel and do not facilitate interregional movement of people and goods. The bill would also authorize the Caltrans to identify in the report which of those routes and segments are the best candidates for relinquishment and to allow for the relinquishment of those segments to local agencies through an administrative process. SB 1408 (Dodd) SR 37 Tolling This bill would require an unspecified authority to operate and maintain tolling infrastructure on State Route 37 between its intersections with Route 121 in the County of Sonoma and Walnut Avenue in the County of Solano. The bill would authorize the authority to issue bonds payable from the revenues derived from those tolls. The bill would authorize those toll and bond revenues to be used for specified

82

purposes, including near-term and long-term improvements to the segment of State Route 37 and the Sonoma Creek Bridge to improve the roadway’s mobility, safety, and long-term resiliency to sea level rise and flooding. The bill would require the authority to update and approve an expenditure plan for those toll and bond revenues on an annual basis beginning on July 1 following implementation of a toll. The bill would require the authority to develop and implement an equity program for the toll bridge to reduce the impact of the toll on low-income drivers. AB 3145 (Grayson) Mitigation Fee Cap This bill would prohibit a city or county from imposing a mitigation fee or exaction if the total dollar amount they would impose on a proposed housing development is greater than 12 percent of the city or county’s median home price, unless approved by the Department of Housing and Community Development. ACA 1 (Aguiar-Curry) Local Government Financing: Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure: Voter Approval. This constitutional amendment would lower the necessary voter threshold from a two-thirds supermajority to 55 percent to approve local general obligation bonds and special taxes for affordable housing and public infrastructure projects.

83


84

SENATE BILL No. 1408

Introduced by Senator Dodd

February 21, 2020

An act to add Chapter 4.1 (commencing with Section 30925) to Division 17 of the Streets and Highways Code, relating to state highways.

legislative counsel’s digest

SB 1408, as introduced, Dodd. State Route 37 Toll Bridge Act. The California Toll Bridge Authority Act makes the California

Transportation Commission, together with the Department of Transportation, responsible for building and acquiring toll facilities and related transportation facilities.

This bill would require an unspecified authority, on behalf of the state, to operate and maintain tolling infrastructure, including by installing toll facilities, and charge and collect tolls for the use of the Sonoma Creek Bridge, and to be responsible for the design and construction of improvements on the bridge and a segment of State Route 37 between its intersections with Route 121 in the County of Sonoma and Walnut Avenue in the County of Solano in accordance with programming and scheduling requirements adopted by the authority. The bill would authorize the authority to issue bonds payable from the revenues derived from those tolls. The bill would authorize those toll and bond revenues to be used for specified purposes, including near-term and long-term improvements to the segment of State Route 37 and the bridge to improve the roadway’s mobility, safety, and long-term resiliency to sea level rise and flooding. The bill would require the authority to update and approve an expenditure plan for those toll and bond revenues on an annual basis beginning on July 1 following implementation of a toll. The bill would require the authority to develop

99

ATTACHMENT B

85

and implement an equity program for the toll bridge to reduce the impact of the toll on low-income drivers.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for State Route 37 and the Sonoma Creek Bridge.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: yes.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

line 1 SECTION 1. Chapter 4.1 (commencing with Section 30925) line 2 is added to Division 17 of the Streets and Highways Code, to read: line 3 line 4 Chapter 4.1. State Route 37 Toll Bridge Act

line 5 line 6 Article 1. General Provisions line 7 line 8 30925. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the line 9 following:

line 10 (1) State Route 37 serves as a vital connection between the line 11 Counties of Marin, Napa, Sonoma, and Solano, providing an line 12 indispensable link between the North Bay and the rest of the state. line 13 State Route 37 is the northernmost nonmountainous east-west link line 14 between United States Highway 101 and Interstate 5 in the state, line 15 and serves as a recovery route for the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge line 16 in the event of an emergency closure. line 17 (2) Traffic congestion on State Route 37 is degrading the quality line 18 of life for those living and commuting along the corridor, and line 19 shows no signs of abating. Average annual daily trips are projected line 20 to increase from 45,000 in 2013 to 58,000 by 2040. line 21 (3) State Route 37 is protected by a complex system of line 22 interconnected levees, which makes the corridor vulnerable to sea line 23 level rise inundation and flooding now and in the future. Flooding line 24 in 2017 forced full or partial closures of a westbound segment of line 25 State Route 37 in the County of Marin for a total of 27 days, and

99

— 2 — SB 1408

86

line 1 recurring inundation in 2019 resulted in closures for another 8 line 2 days. line 3 (4) Adaptive action is needed to ensure State Route 37 remains line 4 a viable transportation artery. According to a University of line 5 California, Davis project entitled, “Adaptive Planning for line 6 Transportation Corridors Threatened by Sea Level Rise,” without line 7 action, all segments of State Route 37 could be exposed to storm line 8 surge flooding from a 5- to 10-year coastal storm event by 2050, line 9 and by 2100 sea level rise is likely to render State Route 37

line 10 completely impassable. line 11 (5) State Route 37 runs through an ecologically rich area that line 12 provides habitat for nine special status species, is a principal stop line 13 for migratory birds on the Pacific Flyway, and includes many acres line 14 of wetlands and baylands. There are numerous environmental line 15 benefits conjunctive to addressing the segment of State Route 37 line 16 between State Route 121 and Mare Island. line 17 (6) The Bay Area Toll Authority, District 4 of the Department line 18 of Transportation, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, line 19 the Solano Transportation Authority, the Transportation Authority line 20 of Marin, and the Napa Valley Transportation Authority entered line 21 into a memorandum of understanding in February 2019 to line 22 cooperatively determine mutual responsibilities in delivering the line 23 State Route 37 Resilient Corridor Program. line 24 (7) This act will improve the resiliency of transportation line 25 infrastructure from sea level rise, flooding, and traffic congestion, line 26 and increase opportunities for ecological enhancements, transit, line 27 multimodal use, and public access along the State Route 37 line 28 corridor. line 29 (8) Tolling a portion of the State Route 37 corridor for a limited line 30 number of years is necessary to provide the resources, including line 31 leveraging state and federal funding, required to help realize the line 32 above-mentioned improvements and enable work to begin in a line 33 timely manner. line 34 (b) It is the intent of the Legislature that this chapter authorize line 35 the imposition of tolls only for so long as is necessary to achieve line 36 the chapter’s goals. line 37 30925.1. This chapter shall be known, and may be cited, as the line 38 State Route 37 Toll Bridge Act. line 39 30925.5. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions line 40 apply:

99

SB 1408 — 3 —

87

line 1 (a) “Act” means the State Route 37 Toll Bridge Act. line 2 (b) “Authority” means ____. line 3 (c) “Bonds” means any bonds, notes, variable rate and variable line 4 maturity securities, and any other evidence of indebtedness issued line 5 pursuant to this chapter. line 6 (d) “Corridor” means a segment of State Route 37, including line 7 the toll bridge, from the State Route 37 interchange with Route line 8 121 to Walnut Avenue at Mare Island, and related facilities. line 9 (e) “Department” means the Department of Transportation.

line 10 (f) “Improvements” means those improvements described in line 11 subdivision (a) of Section 30926.1. line 12 (g) “Toll bridge revenue bonds” means bonds issued pursuant line 13 to Article 3 (commencing with Section 30927). line 14 (h) “Toll bridge” means the Sonoma Creek Bridge, together line 15 with necessary approaches. The approaches to the bridge shall line 16 include, but not be limited to, from immediately east of the State line 17 Route 37 intersection with Route 121 in the County of Sonoma to line 18 immediately west of the State Route 37 intersection with Walnut line 19 Avenue in the County of Solano. line 20 line 21 Article 2. Powers and Duties line 22 line 23 30926. The authority, on behalf of the state, shall operate and line 24 maintain tolling infrastructure, including by installing toll facilities, line 25 and charge and collect tolls for the use of the toll bridge, and shall line 26 be responsible for the design and construction of improvements line 27 on the toll bridge and corridor in accordance with programming line 28 and scheduling requirements adopted by the authority. This chapter line 29 does not limit the authority or responsibility of the state, including line 30 the Department of Transportation, to maintain State Route 37. line 31 30926.1. Revenues from the toll bridge, and any related toll line 32 bridge revenue bonds, may be used for any of the following line 33 purposes: line 34 (a) Near-term and long-term improvements to the corridor and line 35 toll bridge to improve the roadway’s mobility, safety, and line 36 long-term resiliency to sea level rise and flooding. line 37 (b) Payments pursuant to bonds and resolutions, indentures, and line 38 other constituent instruments defining the rights of the bondholders line 39 and any repayment or reimbursement obligations of the authority

99

— 4 — SB 1408

88

line 1 to any providers of bond insurance or letters of credit or lines of line 2 credit related to bonds. line 3 (c) Costs incurred by the authority pursuant to this chapter for line 4 its operations, toll collection, and administration. line 5 (d) Reimbursement to federal, state, and local agencies for costs line 6 incurred by those agencies for services provided for purposes of line 7 this chapter that are reimbursable pursuant to a written agreement line 8 between the authority and the respective agency. line 9 (e) Costs for capital improvements to repair or rehabilitate the

line 10 toll bridge, to expand toll bridge or corridor capacity, to improve line 11 toll bridge or corridor operations, to reduce the demand for travel line 12 in the corridor, or to increase public transit and nonmotorized line 13 options on the toll bridge or in the corridor. line 14 (f) Other costs incurred pursuant to this chapter. line 15 30926.2. The authority shall be reimbursed for administrative line 16 costs in an amount that shall not exceed 3 percent of toll bridge line 17 revenues. line 18 30926.3. The authority shall have, and may exercise, all rights line 19 and powers, expressed or implied, that are necessary to carry out line 20 the purposes and intent of this chapter, including the power to do line 21 all of the following: line 22 (a) Consult with counties, cities, towns, and other agencies and line 23 political subdivisions of this state regarding plans and projects line 24 authorized by this chapter. line 25 (b) Acquire by dedication, gift, purchase, or eminent domain, line 26 and hold and dispose of any interests in property whether real or line 27 personal in the exercise of its powers and the performance of its line 28 duties under this chapter. line 29 (c) Establish and enforce policies, rules, and regulations for the line 30 administration, operation, and maintenance of the toll bridge and line 31 corridor. line 32 (d) Do all acts necessary and convenient for the full exercise of line 33 the powers granted pursuant to this chapter. line 34 30926.4. (a) The authority shall update and approve an line 35 expenditure plan for the revenues of the toll bridge, and any related line 36 toll bridge revenue bonds, on an annual basis beginning on July 1 line 37 following implementation of a toll. line 38 (b) The authority shall approve the initial and annual expenditure line 39 plan at a public meeting held by the authority following a notice line 40 of at least 30 days to the public.

99

SB 1408 — 5 —

89

line 1 (c) The authority shall arrange for a postaudit of the revenues line 2 expended pursuant to this chapter to be made at least annually by line 3 a certified public accountant. line 4 30926.5. The authority shall consult with, and consider line 5 recommendations from, the Sonoma County Transportation line 6 Authority, Solano Transportation Authority, Napa Valley line 7 Transportation Authority, and Transportation Authority of Marin line 8 regarding plans and projects authorized by this chapter. line 9

line 10 Article 3. Revenue Bonds line 11 line 12 30927. (a) The authority may issue bonds payable from the line 13 revenues derived from the tolls imposed on the toll bridge. line 14 (b) The authority may pledge all or any part of the revenues of line 15 the toll bridge to secure bonds and any repayment or reimbursement line 16 obligations of the authority to any provider of bond insurance or line 17 letter of credit or line of credit facility determined to be appropriate line 18 by the authority to provide for the payment of debt service on any line 19 authority bonds issued pursuant to this chapter. line 20 (c) The state hereby pledges to, and agrees with, the holders of line 21 the toll bridge revenue bonds that the state will not limit, alter, or line 22 restrict the rights hereby vested in the authority to fulfill each line 23 pledge of revenues and any other terms of any agreement made line 24 with or for the benefit of the bondholders or in any way impair the line 25 rights or remedies of the bondholders or the providers of bond line 26 insurance or letter of credit or line of credit facilities. line 27 (d) Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to pledge the full line 28 faith and credit of the State of California. line 29 (e) Any toll bridge revenue bond shall contain on its face a line 30 statement to the following effect: “Neither the full faith and credit line 31 nor the taxing power of the State of California is pledged to the line 32 payment of principal of, or the interest of this bond.” line 33 (f) The authority shall include the pledges made pursuant to this line 34 section in its revenue bonds. line 35 30927.2. The toll bridge revenue bonds are legal investments line 36 for all trust funds, the funds of all insurance companies, banks, line 37 trust companies, executors, administrators, trustees, and other line 38 fiduciaries. The toll bridge revenue bonds are securities that may line 39 legally be deposited with, and received by, any state or municipal line 40 officer or agency or political subdivision of the state for any

99

— 6 — SB 1408

90

line 1 purpose for which the deposit of bonds or obligation of the state line 2 is now, or may hereafter be, authorized by law, including deposits line 3 to secure public funds. line 4 30927.4. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (d), toll bridge line 5 revenue bonds shall be issued in accordance with the Revenue line 6 Bond Law of 1941 (Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 54300) line 7 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code). line 8 (b) The authority shall constitute a “local agency” within the line 9 meaning of Section 54307 of the Government Code.

line 10 (c) The operation of the toll bridge shall constitute an line 11 “enterprise” within the meaning of Section 54309 of the line 12 Government Code. line 13 (d) Article 3 (commencing with Section 54380) of Chapter 6 line 14 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code shall line 15 not apply to the issuance and sale of toll bridge revenue bonds. line 16 30927.6. (a) The authority may issue toll bridge revenue bonds line 17 pursuant to a resolution it adopts by a majority vote of its governing line 18 board. line 19 (b) A resolution to issue toll bridge revenue bonds shall specify line 20 all of the following: line 21 (1) The purposes for which the bonds are to be issued. line 22 (2) The maximum principal amount of the bonds. line 23 (3) The maximum term for the bonds. line 24 (4) The maximum rate of interest to be payable on the bonds. line 25 That interest rate shall not exceed the maximum rate specified in line 26 Section 53531 of the Government Code. The rate may be either line 27 fixed or variable and shall be payable at the times and in the line 28 manner specified in the resolution. line 29 (c) Before issuing any new or increased toll bridge revenue line 30 bonds, the authority shall conduct at least one public meeting line 31 following at least 30 days’ notice to the public at which public line 32 testimony shall be taken regarding the proposed bond issuance. line 33 30927.8. (a) The revenues from the tolls on the toll bridge line 34 shall be subject to a statutory lien in favor of the bondholders to line 35 secure all amounts due on the bonds and in favor of any provider line 36 of credit enhancement for the bonds to secure all amounts due to line 37 the provider with respect to those bonds. The lien shall immediately line 38 attach to the toll revenues and be effective, binding, and line 39 enforceable against the authority, its successors, creditors, and all line 40 others asserting the rights therein, irrespective of whether those

99

SB 1408 — 7 —

91

line 1 parties have notice of the lien and without the need for any physical line 2 delivery, recordation, filing, or further act. The toll revenues shall line 3 remain subject to the lien until all bonds are paid in full or line 4 provisions are made therefor. Consistent with Section 30928, the line 5 toll bridge shall not become a free public bridge until that time. line 6 (b) The liens on toll revenues created by this chapter shall be line 7 subject to expenditures for operation and maintenance of the toll line 8 bridge, including toll collection, and the corridor, unless those line 9 expenditures are otherwise provided for by statute.

line 10 line 11 Article 4. Toll Rates line 12 line 13 30928. (a) The authority shall establish and maintain the toll line 14 rates at amounts sufficient to generate revenue sufficient to meet line 15 the requirements of this chapter, including any obligations to the line 16 holders of the toll bridge revenue bonds. line 17 (b) At least 30 days before setting the initial toll rates for the line 18 toll bridge, and thereafter when a revision to the toll rates is line 19 proposed, the authority shall do both of the following: line 20 (1) Provide a public comment period regarding the proposed line 21 toll rates. line 22 (2) Take public testimony at one or more public meetings. line 23 (c) Collection of tolls shall cease following repayment of any line 24 toll bridge revenue bonds and other costs in full unless an extension line 25 of the time for toll collection is approved by a two-thirds vote of line 26 the authority at a public meeting following a notice of at least 30 line 27 days to the public. line 28 30928.2. Within two years following the imposition of the line 29 initial toll rates and at least biennially thereafter, the authority shall line 30 review the adequacy of the toll rates to cover costs incurred line 31 pursuant to this chapter, including for improvements. line 32 30929.4. (a) The authority’s toll rates may include discounts line 33 and premiums to reduce congestion and the emissions of line 34 greenhouse gases, including, without limitation, discounts for line 35 high-occupancy vehicles, electronic toll collection, and off-peak line 36 travel, and premiums for on-peak travel. line 37 (b) The authority may vary the toll rate applicable to a vehicle line 38 operated on the bridge for the carriage of passengers by any line 39 municipal or public corporation, transit district, public utility line 40 district, political subdivision, or transportation company operating

99

— 8 — SB 1408

92

line 1 under a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The line 2 authority shall consult with the affected operators before adopting line 3 any toll rate pursuant to this subdivision. line 4 30929.6. The authority’s toll structure may include adjustments line 5 to toll rates to reflect economic factors, including, but not limited line 6 to, the Consumer Price Index or other cost indices. line 7 30929.8. (a) The authority shall develop and implement an line 8 equity program for the toll bridge to reduce the impact of a toll line 9 imposed pursuant to this chapter on low-income drivers.

line 10 (b) The authority shall develop and implement the equity line 11 program in consultation with the Sonoma County Transportation line 12 Authority, Solano Transportation Authority, Napa Valley line 13 Transportation Authority, and Transportation Authority of Marin, line 14 and shall consider comments from those entities. line 15 SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute line 16 is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable line 17 within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California line 18 Constitution because sea level rise and flooding uniquely threaten line 19 State Route 37 and the Sonoma Creek Bridge. line 20 SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to line 21 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because line 22 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service line 23 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or line 24 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section line 25 17556 of the Government Code.

O

99

SB 1408 — 9 —

93


94

M E M O R A N D U M

February 24, 2020

To: Solano Transportation Authority

From: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Re: February Report

During the month of February, we monitored developments in Washington and brought them to the attention of STA.

FY 2021 Appropriations

On February 10, the Trump Administration unveiled its fiscal year (FY) 2021 budget. The Budget proposes to spend $1 trillion on infrastructure over 10 years, including $810 billion over 10 years for surface transportation. The budget does not identify a revenue stream to pay for the spending. The Budget proposes to reauthorize all of the modes included in the FAST Act, but to streamline and consolidate accounts and programs to improve efficiencies and program effectiveness. The Budget also proposes to end the recent practice of appropriating additional discretionary budget authority for the highway and transit formula programs.

The Budget proposes an 8-percent increase for highway and transit formula programs in fiscal year 2021 from 2020. We have provided highlights of the DOT budget keeping in mind that it is not likely to get traction with Congress.

• $50.7 billion for Federal Highway Administration programs (versus $50 billion in FY2020)

• $1 billion for BUILD (level with FY 2020)

• $1 billion for INFRA (level with FY 2020)

• $1.89 billion for the Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grant program(FY 2020 enacted: $1.99 billion)

• $11.05 billion for Federal Transit Administration transit formula grants (FY 2020enacted: $10.15 billion)

• The budget does not include funding for supplemental transit infrastructure grants (FY2020 enacted: $510 million)

ATTACHMENT C

95

Solano Transportation Authority February 24, 2020 Page 2

• $330 million for the Federal Railroad Administration Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) grants (FY 2020 enacted: $325 million)

• No new funding for Federal Railroad Administration Federal-State Partnership for State of Good Repair grants (FY 2020 enacted: $200 million)

Although House Democrats initially said they would consider reinstating earmarks for the FY 2021 appropriations process to allow members to secure funding for local projects, Democratic leadership ultimately decided not to allow a return of earmarks. House Democrats have said they will attempt to revive earmarks in the FY 2022 appropriations process.

The next step is for Congress to draft and mark up appropriations bills. It is too early to tell whether Congress will be able to pass and reconcile funding bills before the start of the new fiscal year on October 1, but we will continue to report on developments.

Surface Transportation Reauthorization

Democratic Proposal

On January 29, House Democrats unveiled their five-year $760 billion infrastructure proposal that would fund highways, ports, harbors, transit, airports, drinking water, and broadband. It would provide $434 billion in surface transportation funding over five years, of which $319 billion would be for highways and $105 billion would be for transit.

The proposal prioritizes bringing existing infrastructure into a state of good repair and enabling the completion of critical projects. The proposal calls for funding transportation projects of regional and national significance with focused eligibility criteria and reduced discretion from the Department of Transportation over project selection. The proposal would continue to fund the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program while streamlining the application process and increasing transparency in the vetting process. It would also create a new program to protect fragile or at-risk transportation assets.

The proposal would provide technical assistance to cities and counties to improve capacity to receive and administer federal funds and facilitate project delivery. The proposal would expand decision-making over federal funds to local governments and provide additional authority to metropolitan planning organizations that demonstrate the capacity to administer federal funds. The proposal would amend the sub-allocation process to ensure mid-sized communities receive an allocation of program funds. It also calls for “tighter standards” for tolling and congestion pricing but does not provide details of what this would entail.

96

Solano Transportation Authority February 24, 2020 Page 3 The proposal calls for large investments in transit and zero emissions buses to reduce greenhouse gasses and ease congestion. It proposes reforming the Capital Investment Grant program to ensure that projects are approved quickly and that the federal government prioritizes new transit capacity that reduces congestion and mitigates greenhouse gas pollution. The proposal also suggests increasing bus funding, enacting bus procurement reforms, and investing in bus facilities. The proposal would ensure federal funding formulas prioritize frequency of service and promote the use of bus lanes, signal priority, route optimization, and on-time performance measures. It would also create a new grant program to help connect veterans, substance abuse patients, and the elderly to healthcare.

The proposal places particular emphasis on climate change, clean energy, and resilience. It also tightens Davis-Bacon and Buy America requirements. The proposal does not specify a revenue stream to pay for the spending.

House Transportation Committee Democrats are drafting their surface transportation bill. Chairman DeFazio previously said he would release a draft in February, but no text has been introduced as of yet. The House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing regarding funding and financing infrastructure projects on January 29. Transportation Chairman DeFazio has expressed frustration that the Ways and Means Committee has not reached a conclusion regarding a final infrastructure “pay-for” for the surface transportation bill.

House Republican Infrastructure Principles

House Republicans unveiled a set of principles for reauthorizing surface transportation programs on January 28. The principles include addressing the long-term sustainability of the Highway Trust Fund, incorporating innovative developments in technology to improve infrastructure, and streamlining the project delivery process to maximize available funding. House Republicans also called for addressing the needs of rural communities, prioritizing core programs and functions of existing federal surface transportation programs, and ensuring state flexibility.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Ranking Member Sam Graves (R-MO) separately urged for the adoption of a Vehicle Miles Traveled fee as a solution for the Highway Trust Fund insolvency. Transportation Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) has spoken in favor of raising and indexing the gas and diesel tax and issuing 30-year bonds to pay for transportation spending.

President’s Infrastructure Proposal

97

Solano Transportation Authority February 24, 2020 Page 4 President Trump has proposed a 10-year reauthorization of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act that would authorize $810 billion for surface transportation programs, including $602 billion for highways and $155 billion for transit. The proposal would provide an additional $60 billion for the construction of “mega-projects” and $35 billion for repairing bridges. It would also provide $20 billion for a Transit State of Good Repair Sprint program to reduce the state-of-good-repair transit backlog. The program would focus exclusively on rehabilitating existing assets and would not cover new capacity projects. The Administration’s reauthorization proposal does not include a funding source.

During his State of the Union on February 4, President Trump called on both parties to work together on infrastructure legislation. He praised the surface transportation bill that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee marked up last year and expressed a willingness to work with Congress on infrastructure legislation, arguing that infrastructure investment is “not an option” but a “necessity.” While President Trump appeared to endorse the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee highway title, the Trump Administration is separately drafting its own surface transportation bill, which it will present to Congress.

Senate Surface Transportation Bill Status

While the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee advanced its version of the bill in July 2019, the Senate Banking, Finance, and Commerce Committees have yet to unveil the sections of the bill over which they have jurisdiction. However, the Senate Banking Committee will hold a hearing on February 25 to solicit public transportation stakeholders’ perspective on the surface transportation reauthorization. Additionally, Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said the Committee is having difficulty finding a funding solution for the EPW Committee’s reauthorization bill, but is reportedly considering the potential of indexing the gas tax to inflation.

Transportation Legislation

On February 13, Representative Matt Cartwright (D-PA) introduced the Transit Bus Procurement Act, which would direct the General Services Administration to provide a source of supply for small and medium-sized transit agencies to procure buses. Cartwright argued that his bill would reduce regulatory burdens on small- and medium-sized and rural transit agencies, thereby allowing for a more efficient and cost-effective way to procure transit buses while complying with federal procurement regulations.

On February 13, Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) introduced the Promoting Service in Transportation Act, which would promote transportation career opportunities and improve diversity in the

98

Solano Transportation Authority February 24, 2020 Page 5 transportation workforce. The bill would direct DOT to establish and administer a transportation workforce outreach program to conduct public service announcement campaigns to increase awareness of career opportunities in the transportation sector, including safety inspectors, mechanics and technicians, truck drivers, engineers, transit workers, and railroad workers. The outreach program would also be tasked with conducting public awareness campaigns to increase diversity in the transportation sector, including with respect to race, gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

On February 13, Representative Adam Smith (D-WA) introduced the Freight Infrastructure Reinvestment Act (FIRA), which would create a national freight discretionary grant program that would provide funds for infrastructure projects across the national freight mobility network. FIRA would create a new National Freight Mobility Infrastructure Fund supported by a one percent fee on the shipment of freight cargo. The program will invest in freight projects that improve the efficiency, capacity, and safety of the freight mobility system, including construction projects that make roads and bridges safer and more resilient and expand rail and highway tunnels to accommodate increased cargo.

Emissions Standards

On February 4, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request from the Trump Administration to expedite litigation challenging the revocation of California’s waiver under the Clean Air Act. Oral arguments in the case are expected in fall 2020. The Circuit Court also rejected a request from California to put the case on hold until a decision on jurisdiction can be reached in the lower U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The District Court will hold a hearing on April 16 to determine the appropriate jurisdiction for the litigation.

In early February, the Department of Justice ended its antitrust investigation into automakers who formed a voluntary agreement with California to follow the state’s more stringent fuel economy standards despite the revocation of California’s waiver. The automakers originally began coordinating with California in response to the Trump Administration’s One National Program rulemaking.

Federal Grants

On February 7, the FTA announced the availability of $454.6 million for the Buses and Bus Facilities grant program. The competitive grants will fund projects that would replace, rehabilitate, lease, or purchase buses and related equipment. Other eligible projects involve purchasing, rehabilitating, constructing, or leasing bus-related facilities, such as buildings for bus

99

Solano Transportation Authority February 24, 2020 Page 6 storage and maintenance. The grant notice encourages applicants to demonstrate how their proposed projects are consistent with the Rural Opportunities to Use Transportation for Economic Success (R.O.U.T.E.S.) and the Accelerating Innovative Mobility (AIM) initiatives. Eligible applicants include fixed route bus operators, states and local governmental entities that operate fixed route bus service, and Indian tribes. FTA will allocate a minimum of 10 percent of funds to rural bus needs. FTA expects to make 300 awards. Applications are due by March 30.

On February 13, FTA announced the availability of $9.3 million in research funding for innovative projects that will improve rail transit and bus operator safety. This includes $7.3 million for the Safety Research and Demonstration (SRD) Program, which funds projects that demonstrate and evaluate new technologies, safer designs, and practices to improve rail transit safety. FTA will fund projects that mitigate trespassing hazards on rail transit systems and improve the operational safety of shared corridor fixed guideway systems, including highway-rail grade crossing safety. It will also support innovative projects that demonstrate advanced technologies to improve rail transit safety. FTA expects to make four awards.

The announcement also include $2 million for the Redesign of Transit Bus Operator Compartment to Improve Safety, Operational Efficiency, and Passenger Accessibility Program, which funds projects that redesign transit bus operator compartments to improve safety for bus operators and passengers. The funds will support research projects to develop new transit bus operator compartment designs that protect operators from assault and improve their view of the road while still allowing them to interact with passengers, including people with disabilities and those in need of special assistance. FTA expects to make four awards between $250,000 and $1 million. Applications for both the SRD and the Redesign of Transit Bus Operator Compartment to Improve Safety, Operational Efficiency, and Passenger Accessibility programs are due by March 24. Eligible applicants include public transportation providers, state and local government entities, nonprofit organizations, and colleges.

On February 14, the Department of Homeland Security announced the availability of $1.8 billion in preparedness grants, including $88 million in Transit Security Grant Program to assist owners and operators of transit systems with protecting critical surface transportation and the traveling public from acts of terrorism and to increase the resilience of transit infrastructure. The Department expects to make 40 awards. Applications are due by April 15.

Chinese Transit Equipment

On February 13, Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) sent a letter to FTA asking the agency to send a letter to FTA grant recipients explaining recent statutory changes preventing federal transit funds from being used to purchase passenger railcars and transit buses

100

Solano Transportation Authority February 24, 2020 Page 7 from Chinese state-owned, controlled, or subsidized enterprises. President Trump signed the prohibition into law in December 2019. While the prohibition will not go into effect for two years, the Senators expressed concern that the transit industry does not have adequate information about the procurement changes. The letter specifically criticizes the award of any federal funds to BYD.

101


102

M E M O R A N D U M

February 26, 2020

From: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Re: Senate Banking Committee Hearing on Public Transportation

On February 25, the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee held a hearing entitled “Surface Transportation Reauthorization: Public Transportation Stakeholders’ Perspectives.” The Committee heard from:

- Paul Skoutelas: President and Chief Executive Officer, American Public TransportationAssociation,

- Patrick McKenna: President, American Association of State Highway TransportationOfficials. Director, Missouri Department of Transportation

- Scott Bogren: Executive Director, Community Transportation Association of America

- Ed Mortimer: Vice President for Transportation and Infrastructure, Chamber ofCommerce of the United States of America

- Larry Willis: President of the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO

Chairman Mike Crapo (R-ID) called for a long-term reauthorization of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act to provide certainty and stability for cities and transit agencies to make responsible transportation planning decisions. Crapo and Ranking Member Sherrod Brown (D-OH) pledged to work together on the public transportation title of the reauthorization on a bipartisan basis.

Committee members and witnesses agreed that public transportation bolsters the economy, reduces emissions and congestion, saves money, enhances lives, and expands mobility. They agreed that Congress should pass a timely and long-term reauthorization bill that ensures a strong federal investment in transit. The witnesses agreed that the reauthorization provides Congress with an opportunity to improve and modernize public transportation.

Funding

Chairman Crapo noted that the Banking Committee does not have jurisdiction over the funding portion of the reauthorization, but called for a solution to the Highway Trust Fund shortfall. Patrick McKenna of AASHTO agreed that a solution is needed.

ATTACHMENT D

103

February 26, 2020 Page 2 Paul Skoutelas of the American Public Transportation Association supported increasing the gas tax by five cents a year for five years. He expressed openness to other solutions as well. Ed Mortimer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce also supported increasing the gas tax.

Skoutelas and Ranking Member Brown agreed that the Mass Transit Account should receive at least 20 percent of any new revenue added to the Highway Trust Fund. McKenna similarly supported retaining the Mass Transit Account.

Federal Transit Programs

Paul Skoutelas called for $145 billion in funding over six years to fund critical projects to address the state of good repair backlog and fund the Capital Investment Grant (CIG) projects in the pipeline. He stated that the CIG program benefits both local communities and the country at large. Skoutelas characterized the program as a “bureaucratic maze” and asked Congress to review all statutory, regulatory, and administrative CIG requirements. Skoutelas argued that costs increase, reliability decreases, and ridership suffers when operators use outdated transit equipment. Ranking Member Brown said Congress must ensure that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is processing applications under the CIG program fairly, efficiently, and in accordance with the law. Brown added that Congress should ensure that FTA is not adding extra requirements or delaying projects. Ed Mortimer supported improving the CIG program.

Senator Krysten Sinema (D-AZ) called for leveraging private investment in the CIG program. Skoutelas said the program supports private investment, but suggested more private involvement could occur in the transit oriented development planning process.

Ranking Member Brown said the reauthorization should address the backlog of public transit repairs and bring systems up to a state of good repair. Ed Mortimer and Patrick McKenna supported improving the State of Good Repair program.

Patrick McKenna expressed support for retaining, expanding, and strengthen federal public transportation programs and asked Congress to increase and prioritize formula funding based federal funding to states. He expressed support for increasing the federal share for transit capital projects to 90%. McKenna also expressed support for maintaining and growing the Bus and Bus Facilities formula and discretionary program, including the Low or No Emission Vehicle (Low/No) discretionary grant program. All witnesses supported increasing funding for the Low/No Program. Ranking Member Brown called for record investment in the Bus and Bus Facilities program and the Low/No Program. .

Emerging Technologies

104

February 26, 2020 Page 3 Chairman Crapo said the reauthorization should address emerging technologies such as on-demand service, autonomous vehicles, and electric vehicles. He suggested that transit agencies should incorporate these technologies to complement fixed-route service outside of service hours, provide non-emergency medical transportation, bring riders to or from fixed-route service to their final destinations, and modernize fare payment collection.

Paul Skoutelas said Congress should create a new mobility innovation and technology initiative to integrate cutting-edge technologies, new service delivery approaches, and mobility options in the transit marketplace. He repeatedly called for special funding categories to support micro-transit pilot programs and first/last mile transportation, arguing that the federal government has a role in accelerating these programs. Patrick McKenna suggested that greater flexibility between operating and capital accounts would help operators develop first/last mile transportation. McKenna called on Congress to support and ensure state departments of transportation’s ability to harness innovation and technology.

Scott Bogren of the Community Transportation Association of America called for uniting all transit providers across a community into a network that includes traditional fixed route services and new on-demand mobility. He supported new investment programs that take into account new ways of serving passengers, utilize new metrics of success, and provide regulatory reform for smaller providers.

Larry Willis of the AFL-CIO noted that the spread of new mobility options, such as ridehailing, scooters, and autonomous vehicles, is changing the public transportation landscape. He called for Congress to consider the workforce impacts of new transportation options and to balance mobility affordability with worker protections and rights. Willis said strong unions and worker engagement are necessary to mitigate against harms caused by rapid changes in the industry.

Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) suggested Congress consider how smart communities and technologies, such as smart traffic lights, can work alongside public transportation. Skoutelas agreed that the transit industry must be more responsive to new technologies and innovations. McKenna suggested operators replace aging rolling stock with smarter and safer technologies, such as automatic braking.

Housing and Workforce

Ranking Member Brown stated that transit investments should support good-paying domestic jobs and called for stronger Buy America requirements. Larry Willis cautioned Congress against undercutting collective bargaining in the reauthorization bill. He agreed that Congress must strengthen Buy America rules for public transportation investments.

105

February 26, 2020 Page 4 Willis called for ending violence against transit operators. He said both the Obama and Trump Administrations have failed to implement a FAST Act mandate to help stop assaults on front line workers. Willis supported Senator Chris Van Hollen’s (D-MD) Transit Worker Protection Act, which would require the development of public transportation operations safety risk reduction programs. Senator Van Hollen said he will work to get his legislation folded into the larger reauthorization bill. Willis said existing transit safety plans need more strength. He also said FTA needs better data on safety incidents.

Willis said that federal policy has failed to support needs of non-management transit workforce, thereby risking a shortage of skilled transit workers. He said the industry must recruit, train, and retrain the next generation of technicians and high skilled workers. Willis proposed creating and funding a transit training center that focuses on front line workers. Ranking Member Brown agreed transit workers should have proper training and a safe workplace. He cautioned against outsourcing safety functions and essential services.

Ranking Member Brown said housing is a critical part of infrastructure that the reauthorization should address both transit-oriented development (TOD) and housing infrastructure investment. Senator Cortez Masto similarly said Congress should consider affordable housing and economic job centers within transportation planning. She suggested Congress incentivize local zoning for affordable housing and transit connections. Patrick McKenna noted that transit providers are already working to with local transportation planning organizations to consider where people live, work, shop, and receive medical care. Paul Skoutelas added that transit agencies are receptive to TOD and suggested that Congress incentivize TOD through the federal grant process.

Additional Topics

Chairman Crapo said that federal policies should provide more certainty to transit agencies by addressing statutory and regulatory burdens in order to invite more innovation into the transit industry. He said federal policies should encourage business-like operations of transit systems and should include streamlining efficiencies, assessing current service with needs, maintaining assets in a state of good repair, leveraging resources for procurements, and seeking out partnerships with the private sector where appropriate. Scott Bogren supported “common sense” regulatory reform. Patrick McKenna called on Congress to increase flexibility, reduce program burdens, and improve project delivery. However, he cautioned that the industry cannot “streamline its way” into delivering a safer transportation system. McKenna supported the goals of Safety Management Systems and the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan.

106

February 26, 2020 Page 5 Chairman Crapo said the surface transportation reauthorization should balance investment in bus and rail as well as urban and rural systems. Bogren noted that rural transit systems are often unable to meet federal match requirements. He suggested having lower match requirements for areas of high poverty and low access to healthcare. Bogren said operating flexibility will help rural transit systems. Paul Skoutelas suggested doubling rural transit funding. All witnesses agreed that rural transit is important.

McKenna asked Congress to maintain the current maximum federal funding match ratios for public transit programs to support rural and urban communities, individuals with disabilities, and seniors. McKenna asked Congress to ensure that these programs are flexible enough to work together.

Skoutelas said the public transportation industry needs a wide variety of tools to implement projects. He argued that Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) and Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan programs should count toward projects’ local shares and should not be considered as part of the federal contribution.

107


108


DATE: March 2, 2020 TO: STA Board FROM: Robert Guerrero, STA Planning Director RE: Plan Bay Area 2050 – County Discretionary Revenues and Project Submittal

Background: The Solano Transportation Authority is responsible for coordinating with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Caltrans to develop the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for the Bay Area every four years. The RTP is a long range transportation plan that forecasts future transportation needs. As required by California Senate Bill 375, the RTP also includes a component that promotes sustainable communities and provides policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Another important aspect of the RTP is that it is the required regional planning document for programming federal funds.

During the 1st phase of the RTP development process, MTC requested the STA select RTP projects based on a large forecasted transportation funding budget estimate. At the time, Solano County was provided a funding budget of $2.4 billion. The STA Board approved the initial RTP Project submittals on April 10, 2019. It was mutually understood by MTC and STA that the 1st phase budget provided was an initial estimate for MTC/ABAG to begin assessing Air Quality Conformity Analysis, a required federal process for all transportation projects over $1 billion. It was understood that a lower budget estimate would be provided at a later date as part of the 2nd phase of the RTP development process.

Discussion: In January 2020, MTC begun the 2nd Phase of the RTP development process. STA reported that MTC estimated Solano County’s share of forecasted discretionary revenue went down to $344 million at the January 29, 2020 TAC meeting. The estimate included forecasted revenue from federal cycle funding (i.e. OBAG funds), Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) and a portion of the new Regional Measure 3 (RM3) toll funds. Since then, STA staff has met with MTC and concluded that the estimate did not take into account Transportation Development Act Funds, Yolo Solano Air Quality Management Funds and Regional Transportation Impact Fee funds. These sources of funds increased Solano County’s budget to $460M. This is still far shorter than MTC’s original budget of $2.4 billion and is subject to further revisions based on MTC’s review.

At the January TAC meeting, STA staff informed the members that the original RTP project submittals would have to be revised to be consistent with the new RTP county budget. Attachment A includes the recommended revised project submittal list. It was revised to include updated project description and reduced regional funds where needed. Other revisions include updates to capacity increasing projects or locally funded projects. Attachment A includes additional information on project budget recommendation update from the original STA Board approved April 2019 RTP project submittal.

109

The STA Technical Advisory Committee reviewed and approved STA staff’s recommendation at their February 25, 2020 meeting. Fiscal Impact. None at this time. It is necessary for capacity increasing transportation projects and/or transportation projects in need of federal funds to be included Regional Transportation Plan’s Projects list. The RTP is updated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission every four years and is amended as needed before then. Recommendation: Approve the Solano County Regional Transportation Plan Project List as specified in Attachment A. Attachment:

A. Solano County Regional Transportation Plan Project List B. Regional Transportation Plan Project Narrative Related to Recommended Changes

110

Jurisdiction Project Type Project Title Project Description Solano County Shares Requested Regional

Funds (MTC Calculated Year of Expenditure)

Committed Funds Local Funds Total CostYear of

ExpenditurePlan

Benicia Road Resurfacing Park Road Improvements Resurface Park Road between I‐780 and Bayshore Road and construct Class II/IV bicycle lane facilities and storm drain improvements

2,731,000$ 3,127,000$ 5,858,000$ 2021 RTP 2040

Dixon Overcrossing Parkway Blvd Overcrossing

Parkway Blvd from Valley Glen Dr. to Pitt School Rd: Construct new 4 lane roadway and overcrossing of UPRR & Porter Rd; Pitt School Rd from south of Hillview Drive to Porter Rd: widen shoulders and reconstruct roadway

1,000,000$ 3,800,000$ 11,000,000$ 15,800,000$ 2024 RTP 2040

Fairfield ParkingFairfield‐Vacaville Train Station Building, Access, and Parking

Construction of a station building to provide shelter and seating for transit passengers. Construction of an access road into the station to improve route efficiency, and safe ingress and egress for buses, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Parking lot expansion and enhancements including safety features, lighting, parking lot solar array, and additional amenities.

5,000,000$ 5,000,000$ 80,000,000$ ‐$ 90,000,000$ 2022 RTP 2040

Fairfield Road Diet West Texas Rd Diet

Reconfigure West Texas Street from Beck Ave to Pennsylvania Ave from 5‐lanes to 2‐lanes with raised center median, Class‐II bike lanes, upgraded signals and enhanced pedestrian crossings.

4,000,000$ 1,394,000$ 5,606,000$ 11,000,000$ 2022 RTP 2040

Solano Transportation

AuthorityInterchange

I‐80/I‐680/SR 12 Interchange Packages 3 ‐ 7

Features include a realignment of I‐680, an improved direct connector route between I‐80 and Highway 12, construction of new interchange overcrossings, new entrance/exit ramps, bike and pedestrian safety improvements, and the extension of some local streets leading to I‐80 and Highway 12.

271,000,000$ 220,000,000$ 150,000,000$ 20,000,000$ 661,000,000$ 2040 RTP 2040

Vacaville Interchange Lagoon Valley Interchange

Widen Lagoon Valley Bridge for additional left turn capacity. Sidewalk, intersection signal improvements at ramp intersections, approach roadway work. TIF funded.

10,000,000$ $ 10,000,000 2020 RTP 2040

Vallejo Interchange Fairgrounds Dr Phase 1Improve interchanges and widen roadways serving Solano County Fairground

1,000,000$ 15,000,000$ 7,000,000$ 23,000,000$ 2021 RTP 2040

Vallejo InterchangeRedwood Pkwy Interchange Phase 2

Improve interchange at Redwood Pkwy 1,000,000$ 65,000,000$ 66,000,000$ 2035

Vallejo Overcrossing American Canyon Overcrossing 1,000,000$ 9,000,000$ 10,000,000$ 2022 RTP 2040

N/A Road Widening Construct 4‐lane Jepson Parkway f

Constructs phase B in Vacaville and Phase 1B and 1C in Fairfield. Also includes Walters Rd Extension. Road costs only ‐ bike and other special enhancements assumed from other programs (i.e. Regional Bicycle Program).

3,000,000$ 9,000,000$ 33,000,000$ 45,000,000$ 2026 RTP 2040

Overall RTP Project List by Subcategory

111

N/A Truck Scales I‐80 WB Truck Scales

Project upgrades existing truck scales on WB I‐80 in Solano County. Existing westbound truck scales are located on the most congested freeway segment of I‐80 in Solano County. Scales are outdated and cannot process the current and future truck volumes on WB I‐80. Trucks are slow to enter and leave the scales because of short ramps, adding to existing traffic congestion and safety issues on I‐80.

145,000,000$ 105,000,000$ 250,000,000$ 2024 RTP 2040

N/A ParkingVallejo Station Parking Structure Phase B

Vallejo: Baylink Ferry Terminal; Construct two phased parking structure to consolidate surface parking for ferry patrons; create a pedestrian link between bus transit facility and existing ferry terminal building adjacent to ferry parking structure.

20,000,000$ 10,000,000$ 30,000,000$ 2024 RTP 2040

Benicia Interchange Benicia Industrial InterchangeImprove the interchange of Industrial Way and I‐680

50,000,000$ 50,000,000$ 2040 None

Benicia Road WideningColumbus Parkway Widening Project

Complete the widening of Columbus Parkway between Rose Drive and Benicia Road which shall include two through lanes of traffic in each direction plus a left‐turn pockets, acceleration/deceleration lanes, curb, gutter, storm drain, sidewalk, and bike lanes or paths

‐$ 4,000,000$ 4,000,000$ 2030 RTIF

Benicia Road DietMilitary West Road Diet and Streetscape

Road diet on Military West from Derolette Way to West 2nd Street including traffic calming, pedestrian walkways, and bike lanes/path

2,000,000$ 13,000,000$ 15,000,000$ 2030 ?

Dixon Road DietHwy 113 from East Chestnut St to Valley Glen Dr Green Street and Road Diet Design

Upgrade Hwy 113 by relocating storm drain underground, installing traffic lights at Hwy 113 and Chestnut St or Cherry St intersections, installing new street lights, imporve walkability by updating sidewalk and improving landscaping, upgrade bicycle lane, and create parking on the west side of Hwy 113.

2,000,000$ 23,000,000$ 25,000,000$ 2024 SR 113 MIS

Fairfield ParkingFairfield Transportation Center ‐ Phase 2

Construct additional parking spaces, access improvements, and transit improvements in and around FTC

3,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 4,000,000$ 2024

Solano County Road Diet Benicia Rd. Road Diet

Reduce Benicia Rd from 4‐lanes to 2‐lanes from Beach Street (Vallejo C/L) to I‐80, add bike lanes and street parking, widen sidewalks. (Funded with FAS Funds)

2,000,000$ 5,000,000$ 7,000,000$ 2022 ?

Solano County Roundabout SR113/Midway Road RoundaboutIntersection operational improvement with roundabout (Funded with FAS Funds)

4,000,000$ 500,000$ 4,500,000$ 2025 ?

Solano County Road Widening Peabody Road ExpansionWiden Peabody Road between Vacaville CL & Fairfield CL (Funded with FAS Funds)

1,000,000$ 5,000,000$ 6,000,000$ 2023 ?

112

Solano County Grade SeparationPorter Road/Midway Road Improvements

Porter Road realignment/roundabout at Midway to accommodate additional I‐80 by‐pass traffic; Midway Road Railroad Grade Separation (Funded with FAS Funds)

2,000,000$ 23,000,000$ 25,000,000$ 2030 ?


AuthorityHighway I‐80 Express Lanes through Vallejo

Construct Express Lane on I‐80 from Carquinez Bridge to SR37 in both directions.

100,000,000$ 100,000,000$ 2026 RTP 2040


AuthorityHighway SR37 Improvements

Interim congestion relief and Sea‐level rise ultimate project for segment B, including Mare Island Interchange

47,080,000$ 4,057,080,000$ 10,000,000$ 4,000,000,000$ 2040


AuthorityBRT

Solano Express Bus to BRT‐lite Transition: Capital Improvements and Implementation

Transition from Express Bus and build out a functioning BRT‐lite system in Solano County. Implement improvements including TSP, adaptive signal timing, and ramp metering

18,000,000$ 6,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 26,000,000$ 2030

Coordinated Short‐Range Transit Plans (Future)

Suisun City Road Extension Railroad Ave Extension Extend Railroad Ave from Marina Blvd to Main St ‐$ 8,000,000$ 8,000,000$ 2024 ?

Vacaville Interchange Midway/I‐505 Interchange

Construction of new interchange at Midway Road and 505, bike/ped facilities/ intersection control evaluation, aproach roadway improvements

$ ‐ 35,000,000$ $ 35,000,000 2030 ?

Vacaville Road Widening East Monte Vista Widening Widen to 4 lanes ‐$ 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ 2028 ?

Vallejo Road Diet SR 29 ‐ Sonoma Blvd Road Diet

Implement road diet‐reduce travel lanes from 4 to 2, add a two‐way left turn lane or median, and add bike lanes on Sonoma Blvd. between York St. and Kentucky St.

2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 4,000,000$ 2024 ?

Vallejo Parking Fairgrounds Dr Park & Ride LotConstruct a park & ride lot at Fairgrounds Dr to coordinate with SolanoExpress Service and carpool/vanpool needs.

3,500,000$ 3,500,000$ 8,000,000$ 2022

Parking Demand &

Mode Transition

Plan (Future)

Benicia Road Widening Widen Benicia Port EntryWiden port entry from Bayshore Dr to Benicia Port Terminal near the Industrial Off‐Ramp

36,000,000$ 36,000,000$ 2035

Dixon InterchangeWest A St and I‐80 Interchange Upgrade

Upgrade in phases the existing I‐80 on‐ramp and reconstruct the existing roadway overcrossing.

25,000,000$ 25,000,000$ 2030

Dixon InterchangePitt School Rd and I‐80 Interchange Upgrade

Improvements include widening the overcrossing structures to four lanes and on‐ and off‐ ramp improvements particulary on the eastside of Pitt School Road. Project may be implemented in phases over the next 10 years. Improvements to the areas roadways.

25,000,000$ 25,000,000$ 2025 ?

113

Dixon InterchangePedrick Rd Undercrossing at UPRR Railroad Tracks and Vaughn Rd Realignment

Construction of realigned portion of Vaughn Road north along UPRR to connect to Pedrick Rd. Existing road alignment is part of the Dixon to Davis Bike Route. Consideration will be given to maintain this route in the new alignment. New alignment will improve vehicle safety by eliminating the at‐grade railroad crossing.

50,000,000$ 50,000,000$ ?

Dixon ParkingSolanoExpress Blue Line Park and Ride Facility

Relocate existing Park and Ride on Hwy 113 from dowtown Dixon to the north side of I‐80 in the vicinity of the on and off ramps.

6,000,000$ 6,000,000$ 2022

Parking Demand &

Mode Transition

Plan (Future)

Dixon Grade Separation West A Street Grade SeparationConstruct an undercrossing for traffic/pedestrians to safely pass UPRR railroad

40,000,000$ 40,000,000$ 2035 ?

Dixon Grade SeparationMidway Rd and UPRR Railroad Grade Separation (in Solano County)

Encompass Midway Rd to be included in City of Dixon jurisdiction limits.

25,000,000$ 25,000,000$ 2024 ?

Dixon InterchangePedrick Rd and I‐80 Interchange Upgrade

Improvements include realignment of both on‐ramps and relocation of Sparling and Sievers Roads. Project may be implemented in phases depending on the pace of development.

25,000,000$ 25,000,000$ 2035

Dixon InterchangeHwy 113 and I‐80 Interchange Upgrade

Improvements to the areas roadways required to improve traffic circulation within the area.

25,000,000$ 25,000,000$ 2030 SR 113 MIS

Dixon InterchangeMilk Farm Rd and I‐80 Interchange Upgrade

Interchange improvements consistent with finding of I‐80/I‐680/I‐780 Major Investment and Corridor Study completed by Solano Transportation Authority. May include the relocation of Milk Farm Rd. Project may be implemeneted in phases. Increased traffic due to development (mostly the Northeast Quadrant) will require the need to improve the existing interchange.

25,000,000$ 25,000,000$ 2035

Solano County Road Widening Fry Road Expansion

Expand Fry Road from Leisure Town Road to SR113 to accommodate increased traffic and serve as an I‐80 Reliever Route (extension of Jepson Parkway between Vacaville and Dixon using Fry Road and SR113)

20,000,000$ 20,000,000$ 2040

Solano County Road Widening Hawkins Road ExpansionExpand Hawkins Rd. from Leisure Town Road to SR113 to accommodate increased traffic from the new Jepson Parkway

20,000,000$ 20,000,000$ 2040

Solano County Road WideningSuisun Valley Rd Expansion Study and Implementation

Analysis of by‐pass traffic on Suisun Valley Road from I‐80 to Napa County Line; Implementation of recommended improvements

30,000,000$ 30,000,000$ 2035

Suisun City ParkingTransit and Downtown Parking Structure

Construct an new parking garage to meet parking demand near the Suisun‐Fairfield Amtrak Station and new housing developments

30,000,000$ 30,000,000$ 2040

114

Suisun CityIntersection

ImprovementsHighway 12 Intersection Improvements at Marina Blvd

Construct improvements to facilitate increased Highway 12 capacity through Suisun City.

10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ 2030

Suisun City Grade SeparationHighway 12 Grade Separation @ Sunset Blvd


30,000,000$ 30,000,000$ 2035


ImprovementsHighway 12 Intersection Improvements @ Walters Road


10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ 2040


ImprovementsHighway 12 Intersection Improvements @ Emperor Drive


10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ 2045


ImprovementsHighway 12 Eastbound Flyover into Downtown Suisun

Construct improvements to facilitate increased Highway 12 capacity through Suisun City. This

50,000,000$ 50,000,000$ 2050

Suisun City Road Widening

Sunset Avenue Improvement at Railroad Avenue East and Railroad Avenue West near Railroad Crossing.

Road widening and improved intersections. Grade separation over railroad tracks. Consideration of roundabout(s).

50,000,000$ 50,000,000$ 2040

Vacaville Overcrossing Nut Tree OvercrossingWiden the overcrossing to increase capacity from 4 to 6 lanes

45,000,000$ 45,000,000$ 2035

Vacaville Road WideningVaca Valley Parkway Widening (6 lanes)

Widen to 6 lanes between 505 and 80 5,000,000$ 5,000,000$ 2030

Vacaville Road Widening East Monte Vista Widening Widen to 4 lanes 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ 2028

Vacaville Parking Parking garage at VTCBuild multi‐story parking garage if feasible to create shuttle route to FF/VV Train Station or couple with first/last mile program

18,000,000$ 18,000,000$ 2025

Vacaville Road Widening Widen Orange Drive to EB I‐80Intersection and ramp widening at Orange/Lawrence with 80EB

5,000,000$ 5,000,000$ 2022

Vacaville Highway I‐505/I‐80 connectorRemove/Reconstruct/Realign 80/505/EMV/Orange connections and bridges.

85,000,000$ 85,000,000$ 2040

Vacaville Highway Replace Vaca Valley/I‐505 45,000,000$ 45,000,000$ 2040

Programatic Category

Minor Highway ImprovementsMinor highway extension or new lane (less than ¼ mile); Interchange modification (no additional capacity)

5,000,000$ 5,000,000$ N/A


Minor Roadway ImprovementsMinor local road extension or new lane (less than ¼ mile)

5,000,000$ 5,000,000$ N/A


Minor Transit Improvements

Minor/routine expansions to fleet and service;Purchase of ferry vessels (that can be accommodated by existing facilities or new CE facilities); Construction of small passenger shelters and information kiosks; Small‐scale/CE bus terminals and transfer points; Public transit‐human services projects and programs; ADA compliance; Noise mitigation; Landscaping; Associated transit improvements (including bike/pedestrian access improvements); Alternative fuel vehicles and facilities

5,000,000$ 15,000,000$ 20,000,000$ N/A


Minor Freight Improvements

Construction of new, or improvements to existing, rest areas and truck weigh stations; Improvements to existing freight terminals (not expansion)

5,000,000$ 5,000,000$ 10,000,000$ N/A

115


Bicycle & PedestrianFacilities

New and extended bike and pedestrian facilities 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ 20,000,000$ N/A


Preserva on/Rehabilita on

Pavement resurfacing and/or rehabilitation; Bike/pedestrian facilities rehabilitation; Non‐pavement rehabilitation; Preventive maintenance; Emergency repair; Bridge rehabilitation, replacement or retrofit with no new capacity; Transit vehicle rehabilitation or replacement; Reconstruction or renovation of transit buildings and structures; Rehabilitation or reconstruction of track structures, track, and trackbed in existing rights‐of‐way; Construction of new bus or rail storage/maintenance facilities (in industrial locations with adequate transportation capacity); Modernization or minor expansions of transit structures and facilities outside existing right‐of‐way, such as bridges, stations, or rail yards; Purchase of office and shop and operating equipment for existing facilities; Purchase of operating equipment for vehicles, such as farebox, lifts, radios; Purchase of support vehicles; Toll bridge rehabilitation, replacement, or retrofit with no new capacity; Freight track and terminal rehabilitation

1,000,000$ 9,000,000$ 10,000,000$ N/A


Routine Operations & Maintenance

Routine patching and pothole repair; Litter control, sweeping and cleaning; Signal operations; Communications; Lighting; Transit operations and fare collection; Transit preventive maintenance; Toll operations & fare collection

5,000,000$ 5,000,000$ 10,000,000$ N/A


Management SystemsIncident management; Signal coordination; ITS; TOS/CMS;

1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ N/A


Safety & SecurityRailroad/highway crossings and warning devices;

5,000,000$ 5,000,000$ N/A


Travel Demand Management

Car and bike share; Alternative fuel vehicles and facilities; Parking programs; Carpool/vanpool, ridesharing activities; Information, marketing and outreach; Traveler information

5,000,000$ 5,000,000$ N/A


Intersec on ImprovementsIntersection channelization; Intersection signalization at individual intersections

2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ N/A


Multimodal Streetscape Improvements

Minor bicycle and/or pedestrian facility gap closure; ADA compliance; Landscaping; Lighting; Streetscape improvements; Minor road diet (less than ¼ mile)

5,000,000$ 5,000,000$ N/A

116


Land UseLand conservation projects; TOD housing projects

10,000,000$ 5,000,000$ 15,000,000$ N/A


PlanningPlanning and research that does not lead directly to construction

30,000,000$ 30,000,000$ N/A


Emission Reduction Technologies 5,000,000$ 5,000,000$ N/A


Corridor StudiesStudy and implement adaptive signal timing on various corridors within Solano County

5,000,000$ 5,000,000$ N/A

Total 459,580,000$ 557,000,000$ 6,457,158,000$ Included in Previous RTP After SR37 459,580,000$ 4,614,080,000$ New Project Total Amount Available in RTP County Shares 459,580,000$ More Information RequiredTier II ProjectNot Recommended

117

This page intentionally left blank.

118

Regional Transportation Plan Project Narrative Related to Recommended Changes

County Budget Assumption Reduced to $460 Million

Projects Included in Previous RTP 1. Dixon Parkway Blvd Overcrossing- Reduced County budget share to $1M2. Fairfield Vacaville Train – Split requested budget share at $5M Solano County Share and

$5M from new Regional Funding Budget3. Fairfield West Texas Road Diet- Reduced County budget share to $4M4. STA I-80/680/12 Interchange- Split requested budget share $271M Solano County Share

and $220M from new Regional Funding Budget5. Vallejo Fairgrounds Drive- Reduced County budget share to $1M6. Redwood Parkway- Reduced County budget share to $1M7. American Canyon Overcrossing- Reduced County budget share to $1M8. Multi-Jurisdiction Jepson Parkway- Updated cost and reduced County budget share to

$3M9. STA Truck Westbound Truck Scales- Added $145M to Regional Funding Budget10. Vallejo Station B- Added $20M to Regional Funding Budget

New RTP Submittals 11. Benicia Industrial Interchange at I-680- recommended moving the priority of the project

from Tier 2 to new project status with no committed county share at this time.12. Benicia Columbus Parkway Widening- Reduced County budget share and increased local

share given the difficulty of applying State and Federal funds (STIP and OBAG) to awidening project.

13. Benicia Road Diet- Reduced County budget share to $2M14. Dixon Hwy 113 from E. Chestnut to Valley Glen Dr.- Reduced County budget share to

$2M15. Fairfield Transportation Center- Reduced County budget share to $3M with updated cost

assumptions16. Suisun Railroad Ave Extension- Added more local commitment to the project given the

local benefits17. Suisun Hwy 12 Intersection Improvements at Marina Blvd-

119


120


DATE: March 2, 2020 TO: STA Board FROM: Triana Crighton, Assistant Planner RE: Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Equity Chapter Adoption

Background: The purpose of the Equity Chapter of STA’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) is to be proactive in engaging the public on their mobility needs, exploring existing transportation inequities within the county, and creating equity strategies and/or principles to guide future transportation project and program development.

Previously, the STA has addressed equity informally or specifically through past projects and programs. Examples include work completed as part of the Solano Lifeline Program for low income residents, Community-Based Transportation Plans, Climate Action Plans, various Mobility programs for older adults and persons with disabilities, Safe Routes to School programs and projects for students. Formally addressing transportation equity will be important for the STA moving forward as Solano County continuous to diversify and age, and the regional and State emphasis on the issue.

At the January STA Board Meeting, the STA Board recommended members for the Equity Working Group. The Equity Chapter Working Group has been established to include a diverse group of participants -- their primary purpose is to discuss issues of equity within the county, how they relate to transportation, and how STA can be more proactive in addressing inequities. Part of the process in the development of the Equity Chapter for the CTP has been the creation of the Transportation Equity Guiding Principles – developed and championed by the individuals serving as part of STA’s Equity Working Group.

Discussion: The Equity Working Group developed the Comprehensive Transportation Plan’s (CTP) Equity Guiding Principles which was approved by the STA Board at their October 9th meeting. These guiding principles were the basis for the CTP’s Equity Chapter which was reviewed by the Equity Working Group in October (Attachment A).

The Equity Chapter is the STA’s first attempt to define equity and environmental justice in the context of transportation. It includes maps that identify where Solano County’s most vulnerable populations are located as defined by the State and the Region. It also provides an inventory of regional equity initiatives and potential performance measures to consider for future planning documents.

The Equity Working Group recommended the Equity Chapter for public comment followed by the SolanoExpress Consortium and STA Technical Advisory Committee at their November 19th and 20th meeting, respectively. Following approval from the STA Board at their December meeting, the Equity Chapter was formally opened for a public comment window ending on

121

February 8th. 2020. The Equity Chapter was circulated through a variety of Citizen Based Advisory Committees and external equity-focused groups within the county during the comment period. Positive comments were received – no recommendation changes to the Equity Chapter were provided. The TAC approved the Equity Chapter as presented at their February 26th, 2020 meeting. Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Adopt the CTP Equity Chapter as shown in Attachment A. Attachment:

A. CTP Equity Chapter can be access via this link here.

122

https://sta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/STA_Equity_Chapter-2.pdf


DATE: February 26, 2020 TO: STA Board FROM: Erika McLitus, Project Assistant RE: Project Delivery Update

Background: As the County Transportation Authority for Solano County, the Solano Transportation Authority (STA) works with its eight member agencies to allocate and program federal, state and regional transportation funds and to coordinate the programming and delivery of federal and state funded transportation projects. To aid in the delivery of locally sponsored projects, a Solano Project Delivery Working Group (PDWG) was formed, which assists in updating the STA’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) on changes to State and Federal project delivery policies and updates the TAC about project delivery deadlines.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)’s Resolution 3606 describes delivery policies for the San Francisco Bay Area. MTC monitors projects that do not meet stated deadlines and reprograms funds to other project in the region; Caltrans further enforces the deadline by not supplying an E-76 authorization for construction past stated deadlines. Projects programmed in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 should have provided their Request for Authorization (RFA) to proceed with obligation from Caltrans by MTC’s November 1, 2019 deadline. Projects that fail to meet this deadline are subject to funds being reprogrammed to later years or loss of funds.

Discussion: Solano Countywide has three OBAG Cycle 1 projects scheduled for obligation in FY 2016-17 and seven OBAG 2 Projects scheduled for obligation in FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20. Those projects and their statuses are included below:

FY 2016-17 OBAG Projects Project Sponsor Project Name Update Vacaville Allison Dr Bike/Ped Project Complete. Vallejo Downtown Streetscape Phase IV Project Complete. Dixon SR2S Project Project Complete.

FY 2018-19 OBAG2 Projects Project Sponsor

Project Name Update

STA Mobility Call Center E-76 received in July 2019.STA Safe Routes to School Program E-76 request revised January 28th.Vacaville Vacaville- Pavement Preservation Construction is complete. Project will

close out this Spring.

Project on Schedule Project Behind Schedule or Funding Shortfall Under MTC Review In Danger of Losing Funds

123

FY 2019-20 OBAG2 Projects Project Sponsor Project Name Update Fairfield Grange Middle School Submitted Preliminary ENV Study and

Field Review documents to Caltrans on February 6th. Currently working on the 35% design drawings. CON anticipated Summer 2021.

Solano County Solano Farm 2 Market Phase 2 Project Complete Solano County Solano Farm 2 Market Phase 3 Working to revise the TIP listing for

Rockville Road. RFA for Design to be resubmitted in August; awaiting Caltrans approval.

Solano County Solano County Road Preservation N/A Solano County and its cities also have a total of 14 Local Safety Program (HSIP) projects in Cycle 5, 6, and 7; totaling $5.8M. HSIP Cycle 7 projects must request CON RFA by Oct 1st.

HSIP Projects Project Sponsor Project Name Update

Cycle 5 Solano County Midway/Sievers Rd Project Complete Solano County Solano Guardrail Project 2013 Project Complete Solano County Pleasants Valley Rd Project Complete. Vallejo Sonoma Blvd Improvements Project Complete.

Cycle 6 Fairfield Travis Blvd Striping Project Complete Fairfield North Texas at Acacia St Left Turn

Phase Project Complete

Solano County Cordelia-Lake Herman Rd Project Complete Solano County Hartley-Rockville Rd Safety

Improvements Project Complete

Solano County Dixon Ave-Putah Creek Rd Project Complete.

Suisun City Walters Rd/Pintail Dr Project Complete Cycle 7

Suisun City EB State Rt. 12 between Pennsylvania Ave and Marina Blvd

Project is expected to begin CON in the Spring.

Suisun City 1) Sunset Ave between Hwy 12 and approx. 300 ft north of Railroad Ave. 2) Walters Rd between Hwy 12 & E. Tabor

Project Complete.

Benicia

The intersection of East 5th St and Vecino St, and along East 5th St between I-780 and Vecino St

Contract awarded. CON beginning mid-March.

124

Benicia The intersection of Military West, West 7th St, Carolina Dr, and Buena Vista

Construction underway.

Cycle 8

Solano County

Various Locations: Upgrade existing painted edge lines and centerlines to thermoplastic with raised pavement markers (RPMs) and thermoplastic markings for stop signs

CON is 98% complete but has been suspended until September. Project will close out after the final portion of chip seal is complete.

Solano County Various Locations: Install new guardrail and upgrade existing guardrail.

Out to bid. CON anticipated August 2019.

Cycle 9 Benicia At 28 guardrail locations: Upgrade

existing guardrails and the end treatments.

E-76 Submitted for Design. Currently working on a technical memo for Caltrans. CON 2021

Benicia Enhance pedestrian crossings at 1)West 5th St. at Military West 2) Hasting Dr. at London Dr.

E-76 Submitted for Design. Currently working on a technical memo for Caltrans. CON 2021

Fairfield At 14 signalized intersections: Install Adaptive Signal Timing and advanced dilemma-zone detection

PE 2019; CON 2021

Fairfield Construct pedestrian crossing enhancements at: 1) N Texas St at Oak St 2) Pennsylvania Ave at Empire 3) N Texas St at Wisconsin St 4) Travis Blvd at Phoenix Dr 5)Travis Blvd at Clay St.

PE 2019; CON 2021

Fairfield At 25 locations: Upgrade existing guardrails and their end treatments.

PE 2019; CON 2021

Rio Vista Enhance pedestrian crossings at: 1) S 2nd and Marina Dr 2) DH White Elementary School and Thereza Way 3) DH White Elementary School and Laurel Way 4) S 7th St and Main St.

RFA submitted for Design. CON 2021

Suisun City Enhance pedestrian crossings at: 1) Merganser Dr between Sunset Ave and Wigeon Way 2) Pintail Dr. at Scoter Way 3) Lawler Ranch Pkwy between Fennie Way and Hillborn Way

RFA submitted for Design. CON 2021.

Vacaville Construct pedestrian crossing enhancements at:

Field reviews held on July 16th. E-76 request submitted. CON 2021.

125

1) Browns Valley Rd at Waterford/Clarecastle Way 2) Marshall Rd. at Southside Bikeway

Vacaville At 21 intersections: Improve signal hardware and timing and Install Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection


Vallejo Construct pedestrian crossing enhancements at: 1) Foothill Dr at Redwood Pkwy 2) Valle Vista Ave at Redwood St 3) Fairview Ave at Redwood St 4) Howard Ave at Redwood St 5) Solano Ave at Tuolumne St


Vallejo Install HAWK beacons at: 1) Broadway at Hogan 2) Springs at Tregaskis 3) Broadway at Illinois 4) Springs at Heartwood 5) Springs at Lassen/Hilton 6) Broadway at Hampshire


ATP Cycle 2 Project

Project Sponsor Project Name Update STA, Vallejo, Benicia

Improvements at 7 schools

Bids came back high. An extension to award contract was granted by the CTC. Project currently out to bid.

ATP Cycle 3 Project

Project Sponsor Project Name Update Vallejo Bay Trail/Vine

Trail 35 % Design. CON shortfall estimated between $2-$3M. Applied for Green Infrastructure Grant and was recommended for $700K in Pilot Trip Reduction funds. Project Leadership Team meeting monthly.

Suisun City McCoy Creek Phase 2

Environmental consultant completed report. RFA and allocation for PE received. E-76 resubmitted.

Fairfield E. Tabor/Tolenas Elementary SR2S

State approved allocation for PS&E and ROW. Staff working on preparing RFQ to complete bid documents. CON Summer 2021.

Federal Earmark

Project Sponsor Project Name Update Solano County Redwood Pkwy-

Fairgrounds Dr RFA resubmitted. Received E-76 from Caltrans. 35% Design.

126

Highway Bridge Program Project Sponsor Project Name Update Solano County Pleasants Valley Road

Bridge Replacement This project is environmentally sensitive and has ROW issues. Staff met with Caltrans multiple times to discuss strategy moving forward and is now beginning the process of returning federal funds.

TIRCP Projects

Project Sponsor Project Name Update STA York St Bus Stop

Extension Groundbreaking February 24th. Anticipated completion Summer 2020.

STA Fairgrounds Dr/SR37 Bus & Bike/Ped Improvements

CON is complete and bus stop is fully operational.

Fairfield FTC Slip-Ramp & Bike/Ped Improvements

Design is nearly complete. Anticipate CON beginning Summer 2020.

INACTIVE OBLIGATIONS UPDATE To adhere to FHWA project delivery guidelines and MTC’s Resolution 3606, project sponsors must invoice for obligated projects every 6 months. If a project has not been invoiced during the previous 6 months, it is placed on the Caltrans Inactive List. More information regarding Inactive Obligations and its repercussions can be found on Caltrans Local Assistance website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/Inactiveprojects.htm Fiscal Impact: None Recommendation: Informational.

127

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/Inactiveprojects.htm


128


DATE: February 27, 2020 TO: STA Board FROM: Brent Rosenwald, Assistant Planner RE: Summary of Funding Opportunities

Discussion: Below is a list of funding opportunities that will be available to STA member agencies during the next few months, broken up by Federal, State, and Local. Attachment A provides further details for each program.

FUND SOURCE AMOUNT AVAILABLE

APPLICATION DEADLINE

Federal

1. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) – Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects (NSFLTP)

Up to $300 million; projects of at least $25 million

First deadline is December 18, 2018, applications accepted on a Quarterly Rolling Basis.

2. Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) – Infill Infrastructure Grant Program (IIG) Up to $410 million Applications due Early

Winter 2019-2020

3. Federal Transit Administration- Buses and Bus Facilities Program Up to $454 million Due on March 30, 2020

Regional1. Carl Moyer Off-Road Equipment Replacement Program (for

Sacramento Metropolitan Area) Approximately $10 million

Due On First-Come, First-Served Basis

2. Air Resources Board (ARB) Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP)

Up to $7,000 rebate per light-duty vehicle

Due On First-Come, First-Served Basis (Waitlist)

3. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Hybrid Electric Vehicle Purchase Vouchers (HVIP) (for fleets)

Approximately $5,000 to $45,000 per qualified request


4. PG&E Charge Program Pays to install 7,500 chargers in PG&E area


5. Volkswagen Mitigation Trust Fund for Zero Emission Transit and Shuttle Buses Up to $65 Million Due On First-Come,

First-Served Basis

6. Solano County Community Investment Fund Up to $50,000 per grant with a total pool of $250,000

Proposals due March 6, 2020

7. Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA-3) $483,000 available Open Now

State


Recommendation: Informational.

129


130


DATE: March 5, 2020 TO: STA Board FROM: Johanna Masiclat, Clerk of the Board RE: 2020 STA Board and Advisory Committees Meeting Schedule

Discussion: Attached is the 2020 STA Board and Advisory Committees Meeting Schedule that may be of interest to the STA Board.


Recommendation: Informational.

Attachment: A. STA Board and Advisory Committees Meeting Schedule for Calendar Year 2020

131

STA BOARD AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE CALENDAR YEAR 2020

DATE TIME DESCRIPTION LOCATION STATUS

Wed., January 8 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Thurs., January 9 6:00 p.m. Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Thurs., January 16 1:00 p.m. Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC) Joseph Nelson Community Center Confirmed Thurs, January 23 9:30 a.m. Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA-AC) Suisun City Hall Confirmed Tues., January 28 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., January 29 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed

Thurs., February 6 6:00 p.m. Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., February 12 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Wed., February 19 1:30 p.m. Safe Routes to School Advisory (SR2S-AC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Tues., February 25 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., February 26 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed

Thurs., March 5 6:00 p.m. Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., March 11 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Thurs., March 19 1:00 p.m. Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC) Ulatis Community Center Confirmed Tues., March 24 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., March 25 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Thurs., April 2 6:00 p.m. Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., April 8 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Thurs., April 23 9:30 a.m. Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA-AC) TBD Tentative Tues., April 28 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., April 29 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Thurs., May 7 6:00 p.m. Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., May 13 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Wed., May 20 1:30 p.m. Safe Routes to School Advisory (SR2S-AC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Thurs., May 21 1:00 p.m. Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC) SolTrans O&M Facility Confirmed Tues., May 26 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., May 27 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Thurs., June 4 6:00 p.m. Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC) STA Conference Room Tentative Wed., June 10 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Tues., June 23 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., June 24 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Thurs., July 2 6:00 p.m. Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., July 8 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Thurs., July 16 1:00 p.m. Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC) Benicia City Hall Confirmed Thurs., July 23 9:30 a.m. Consolidated Transportation Svcs. Agency (CTSA-AC) TBD Tentative July 24 (No Meeting) SUMMER

RECESS Intercity Transit Consortium N/A N/A

July 25 (No Meeting) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) N/A N/A Thurs., August 6 6:00 p.m. Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed August 8 (No Meeting) SUMMER

RECESS STA Board Meeting N/A N/A

Wed., August 19 1:30 p.m. Safe Routes to School Advisory (SR2S-AC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Tues., August 25 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., August 26 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Thurs., September 3 6:00 p.m. Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., September 9 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Thurs., September 17 1:00 p.m. Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC) SolTrans O&M Facility Confirmed Tues., September 29 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., September 30 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Thurs., October 1 6:00 p.m. Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., October 14 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Thurs., October 22 9:30 a.m. Consolidated Transportation Svcs. Agency (CTSA-AC) TBD Tentative No meeting due to STA’s Annual Awards in November (No STA Board Meeting)

Intercity Transit Consortium N/A N/A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) N/A N/A

Wed., November 4 6:00 p.m. STA’s 23rd Annual Awards Ulatis Community Center Confirmed Thurs., November 5 6:00 p.m. Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., November 18 1:30 a.m. Safe Routes to School Advisory (SR2S-AC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Thurs., November 19 1:00 p.m. Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC) Suisun Senior Center Confirmed Tues., November 24 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., November 25 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Thurs., December 3 6:00 p.m. Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., December 9 6:00 p.m. STA Board Meeting Suisun City Hall Confirmed Tues., December 15 1:30 p.m. Intercity Transit Consortium STA Conference Room Confirmed Wed., December 16 1:30 p.m. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) STA Conference Room Confirmed

STA Board: Meets 2nd Wednesday of Every Month Consortium: Meets Last Tuesday of Every Month TAC: Meets Last Wednesday of Every Month BAC: Meets 1st Thursday of every Odd Month PAC: Meets 1st Thursday of every Even Month PCC: Meets 3rd Thursday of every Odd Month SR2S-AC: Meets Quarterly (Begins Feb.) on the 3rd Wed.

132

Documents

MEETING AGENDA 6:00 p.m., STA Board Regular Wednesday ...€¦ · The complete STA Board Meeting Packet is available on STA’s Website at (Note: STA Board Meetings are held at Suisun