Loading...
03 March 09, 2009 Technical Advisory Committee• TIME: DATE: LOCATION: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMIT SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA* 10:00 A.M. March 9, 2009 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA Conference Room A, 3`d Floor Coachella Valley Association of Governments 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200 Palm Desert, CA Via Teleconference Records 86637 *By request, agenda and minutes may be available in alternative format; i.e. large print, tape. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Duane Burk, City of Banning Ron Carr, City of Perris Kip Field, City of Corona Mike Gow, City of Hemet Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Patrick Nally, Caltrans District 8 Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Jonathan Hoy, City of Desert Hot Springs Bill Hughes, City of Temecula Tim Jonasson, City of La Quinta Michael Kashiwagi, City of Wildomar Eunice Lovi, SunLine Transit Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake & San Jacinto • Les Nelson, PVVTA Juan Perez, County of Riverside Kishen Prathivadi, City of Beaumont Jim Rodkey, City of Blythe Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore Jim Smith, City of Indio Mark Stanley, Riverside Transit Agency Ruthanne Taylor Berger, WRCOG Patrick Thomas, City of Murrieta Bill Thompson, City of Norco Paul Toor, City of Coachella Chris Vogt, City of Moreno Valley Allyn Waggle, CVAG Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells Carlos Zamano, City of Calimesa Commission Staff Anne Mayer, Executive Director Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager 11.36.02 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. TIME: 10:00 A.M. DATE: March 9, 2009 LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA Conference Room A, 3'( Floor Coachella Valley Association of Governments 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200 Palm Desert, CA Via Teleconference In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate In a Committee meeting, please contact Riverside County Transportation Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. SELF -INTRODUCTIONS 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS (This is for comments on items not listed on agenda. Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is before the Committee.) 4. DRAFT RCTC ECONOMIC STIMULUS PROPOSAL FOR AMENDMENT RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT (ARRA) HIGHWAY FUNDS (Attachment) 5. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be March 16, 2009, 10:00 A.M., in Riverside.) • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 9, 2009 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Riverside County STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the TAC approve staffs proposal for ARRA highway funding included in Attachment A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), RCTC is designated as the agency authorized to make programming decisions for state and federal funds, which includes the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) (formerly referenced as "Economic Stimulus") highway funds. It is yet to be determined how the funds will be distributed at the State level. Legislation has been proposed to distribute the ARRA funds through the Surface Transportation Program (STP) formula. if the legislation passes, staff estimates that Riverside County will receive approximately $71 million. If the legislation is not passed, the State would distribute the funds per the existing formula for federal funding and Riverside County would receive approximately $35 million. The TAC Subcommittee met this moming to review staffs ARRA highway funding proposal. Two scenarios were presented that illustrates the funding recommendations under a $71 million ARRA funding level and at a $35 million level. The proposal was supported by the TAC subcommittee although a formal approval was not requested as the item will be an action item at the March 9 Special TAC meeting. Subcommittee attendees were: Patty Romo (County), Russ Napier (Murrieta), Greg Butler (Temecula), Habib Motlagh (Perris, San Jacinto, Canyon Lake), Prem Kumar and Chris Vogt (Moreno Valley), Marcus Fuller (Palm Springs), and Tom Boyd (Riverside). Larry Parrish (CVAG) attended via teleconference. Over the past few months, RCTC staff has reviewed various projects that meet federal requirements for ARRA funds. The attachment lists the criteria and goals that were considered for ARRA funding. To summarize, RCTC is proposing 5 interchange projects for ARRA highway funds. In addition, RCTC is proposing $18 million of local Measure A funds to be distributed to the cities and county per the Measure A Local Streets and Roads subvention formula (also included in attachment). We will discuss the proposal and will request approval from the TAC at the March 9 meeting. The proposal will then be presented to the Commission on March 11 for final approval. • • DRAFT RCTC Economic Stimulus Proposal for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Highway Funds Federal Criteria — • Federalized Projects • 50% of funds allocated to States must be obligated in 120 days State Allocation of ARRA funds — • Under existing State formula for distribution of federal funds - Riverside County would receive approximately $35 million • Proposal to allocate ARRA funds through federal STP formula - Legislation needed (currently in draft form, need author) - Riverside County would receive approximately $71 million RCTC Goals — • Obligate Construction/Maximize Job Creation within 120 days • Regional, Federal Projects (approved NEPA) • Maintain existing commitments including: - STIP/Prop 1B Funded Projects - Measure A Highway/Regional Projects • Reprogram STIP capacity to other regional projects • Minimize impact on Caltrans • Minimize amount of projects to report to FHWA/Caltrans • If $71M ARRA level, Provide Local Stimulus ($18 million local funds, distribute to cities/county) Proposed Proiects for ARRA Highway Funding (NEPA cleared): Description *ARRA $71 M $(000's) **ARRA $35 M $(000's) Obligation Submittal Comments I-215/Clinton Keith IC $ 10,000 $ 10,000 March 30 Replacing Meas A Regional 1-10/Palm Dr IC $ 5,080 --- April 15 Replacing delayed STIP SR 60Nalley Way IC $ 4,982 $ 4,982 April 15 Replacing Prop 1 B SR 91Nan Buren IC $ 16,101 --- April 15 • Replacing delayed STIP I-10/Bob Hope IC $ 34,912 $ 20,000 Ma 1 Re.lacin• dela ed STIP Total $ 71,075 $ 34,982 Assumes State legislation is passed allowing ARRA funds to be distributed directly to regions. **Assumes ARRA funds are distributed per existing formula (proposed legislation is not passed). • • • Back Up Plan — If 50% obligation requirement is in jeopardy, a review of reprogramming options would include: 1) Reallocate ARRA funding on the selected interchanges and obligate additional funds on the interchange(s) that are ready for obligation 2) Review all federalized projects that are ready to go or may need additional funds due to change orders or higher bids 3) Trade with neighboring counties (within SCAG region) TE ARRA Funds — We currently do not know if the TE funds will be handled through the State or suballocated to the regions. • If State selects TE projects: CTC/Caltrans may propose to allocate TE ARRA funds to projects on the state highway system and/or deferred TE projects on or off/system. • If Regions (RCTC) select TE projects: RCTC estimates the TE ARRA amount will be approximately $2.5 million. RCTC will select projects that have been approved for STIP TE funds. Highest priority will be to TE projects deferred by the CTC. $18 Million. Local Stimulus if $71 million ARRA funding level — • $18 million Measure A funds would come from 74/215 IC. • $18 million of STIP funds or other funds would replace $18 million of Measure A on 74/215 IC. • Local Stimulus Funds must be used on projects in Measure A CIP. • Local Stimulus Funds must be used for construction activities that can be awarded within one year. DRAFT • • FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Measure A Distribution related to Economic Stimulus Trades MEASURE A PROJECTION $18,000,000 LESS: ADMINISTRATION 0 TOTAL PROJECTION $18,000,000 Local Streets & Roads 100.00% WESTERN COUNTY PORTION $13,549,000 $13,549,000 BANNING $219,000 BEAUMONT 243,000 CAUMESA 56,000 CANYON LAKE 72,000 CORONA 1,532,000 HEMET 632,000 LAKE ELSINORE 437,000 MENIFEE 488,000 MORENO VALLEY 1,376,000 MURRIETA 823,000 NORCO 260,000 PERRIS 437,000 RIVERSIDE 2,684,000 SAN JACINTO 255,000 TEMECULA 1,077,000 WILDOMAR 210,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY " "''2,748,000 AREA TOTAL $13,549,000 Local Streets & Roads 100.00% COACHELLA VALLEY PORTION $4,314,000 $4,314,000 CATHEDRAL CITY 5492,000 COACHELLA 201,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 137,000 INDIAN WELLS 81,000 INDIO 550,000 LA QUINTA 0 PALM SPRINGS 599,000 PALM DESERT 881,000 RANCHO MIRAGE 312,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 581,000 CVAG 480,000 AREA TOTAL $4,314,000 PALO VERDE VALLEY PORTION Local Streets 100.00% $137,000 $137,000 BLYTHE 3126,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AREA TOTAL $137,000 Yotal COuniy:'�l," ;$3'239;000; NOTE (1): Allocations are based on Measure A allocation formula for local streets and roads program NOTE (2): Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences CADOCUME—thwrebXLLOCALS—IllempUWIPP Ase Meawne A PIM& DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONL Y RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Measure A Distribution related to Economic Stimulus Trades MEASURE A PROJECTION LESS: ADMINISTRATION TOTAL PROJECTION $18,000,000 0 $18,000,000 Local Streets & Roads 100.00% WESTERN COUNTY PORTION $13,549,000 $13,549,000 BANNING $219,000 BEAUMONT 243,000 CALIMESA 56,000 CANYON LAKE 72,000 CORONA 1,532,000 HEMET 632,000 LAKE ELSINORE 437,000 MENIFEE 488,000 MORENO VALLEY 1,376,000 MURRIETA 823,000 NORCO 260,000 PERRIS 437,000 RIVERSIDE 2,684,000 SAN JACINTO 255,000 TEMECULA 1,077,000 WILDOMAR 210,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY v44000 AREA TOTAL $13,549,000 Local Streets & Roads 100.00% COACHELLA VALLEY PORTION $4,314,000 $4,314,000 CATHEDRAL CITY $492,000 COACHELLA 201,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 137,000 INDIAN WELLS 81,000 INDIO 550,000 LA QUINTA 480,000 PALM SPRINGS 599,000 PALM DESERT 881,000 RANCHO MIRAGE 312,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 8140r00 AREA TOTAL $4,314,000 CVAG 0 PALO VERDE VALLEY PORTION Local Streets 100.00% $137,000 $137,000 BLYTHE $126,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY ,11,000 AREA TOTAL $137,000 NOTE (1): Allocations are based on Measure A allocation formula for local streets and roads program NOTE (2): Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences 03/6 V c3 9 CADOCUME-11medinallOCALS-1\Temp1XPgrpwiselMeasure A Dlsnels Funds for Highway Infrastructure Investment Pursuant to the Amedcan Recover and Reinvestment Act of 2009 2,569,568 Apportionment to CaMomla (thousands) STP 3096 770,870 TE 3% 77,087 SHOPPISTIP 87% 1,721,611 SHOPP/STP 1,721,611 1,721,611 1,721,611 less SHOPP S00,000 700,000 900,000 STIP (non TE) 1221,611 1,021,811 821,611 Regions 918,208 766,269 616,208 Caltrans 305,403 255,403 205,403 Regions RSTP 770,870 770;870 770,870 STIP 916,208 766,208 616,208 TS(STIP) 57,815 57,815 57,815 Total, Regions 1,744,894 1,594,894 1,444,894 Percent, Regions 67.9% 62.1% 58.2% Caltrans Total, Calbans Percent, Caltrans SHOPP 500,090 700,000 900,000 STIP 305,403 255,403 205,403 TE (STIP) 19,272 10,272 19,272 824,674 974,674 1,124,674 32.1% 37.9% 43,8% Possible ARRA STIP targets __ Alameda ' Possible Non-TE ARRA Targets (STIP) _ TE_ SHO_PP SOOM SHOP? 700M SH_OP_P BOOM _ 2,099 ' 33,264E `---- 27,818 22,372 Alpine 59 9411 7871 633 Amador 138 2,156, 1,8033 1,450 Butte 402 _8681 5,326; 4 283 Calaveras 159 2,5221 2,109E 1,696 Colusa 106 1A6731 1,3991 1,125 Contra Costa 1,380 21,5511 18023 14495 Del Nate 102 1,61�-1347t 10084 El Dorado LTC 257 4,0701 3 403f 2,737� Fresno 1,455 23054E 19,2791 15,505 Glenn 113 1,7861 1,4951 1,202 Humboldt _ 408 6i439' %.3851 4,331 Kings _ 2544J506� 3,768! - 3036 Lake 175 2,773. 2,319 1,865 Lassen 258 40821 3;4141 2745 Madera 258 4083t 34141 72 46 Mann 398 8,299d 5,26g 4,237 Mariposa _ _ 105 1 663: 1 3913, 1 118 Mendocino � 383r 6.082� 5,07D 4077 Merced 463 7i 7 8,135_ 9934 Modoc _ _ 137 ' 2,187 1,812 _4 1458 Monterey 745 11,7981_�_._ 1.8671. 7.935 Napa ___ 247 3,9081 3208: 2,628 Nevada 217 3 4451 243..81, 2,317 Placer LTC 408 6 4731 5 413 _ 4 354 �1A6.57 Plumas 155 2�4641 20601 Sacramento -- _ 1803 '-- 2856_7r 23890: J _ 19213 _f ._....___A.._.. San Benito _ _.. 1352,137: ts7e7f . _4F 1 8 'Is437 San Francisco 7,074 17,018E 14,232 _ 11J446 San Joa uin 9 _--� -'"14,953. 12505i 10,057 San Mateo _944.1_.__._._.._...�_- 1,114 17661, 14770! ____. 11,878 Banta Clara 2,458 389581 32,5601 26,202 Santa Cruz ' _ ..,._..4------- 67 _ 428 _ ._ 6i768` 5,677!-_�'�' 4,588 }r._...._.__.___._. Shasta 440 6_969f 5628' 4,687 Sierra 73 _-...-_1,1561_ 967! 777 Sisy',,,ou 304 4,814?�W_.__4i0261_��3,237 .....___ ____.._r q_._....�.._____. SolaSolana.10,200{ 644 __a_ Sonoma 784 T______ 1Q389{ 0,A Slaiuslaus�--�----- .___.__-_i-i,ti 737 11,5867 9689T- - -��--�7792 Sutter-��-'"� 165 �---'� 26181----� 21881 760 1,760 Tahoe RPA .- 108 1y709T 1,429, 1,150 Tehama 3507 2,933• 2,359 _ Tri ' ___^!t.K__.___T._ ^221 158 2,5021___.______ 2,092: ______.__. __..__._ Tudumne t79 2,833i 2,3691 _______1_683 1,905 Yolo _ 353 5,589: 4,674e3,759 _ Yuba 128 2,002; 1,674E 1,346 __.__._..____ ________.__5_ Im eclat in-ip.riai_ __ B80 __ 10 771f 9007E I o ____ 960 8722+ 7294r Kent _ _____ 1.905 30,196: 25,253[ 20309 Los ngeles A______, 12,851�_-� P03,641._170,305i 135,965 Mono 40B 6464,- ; 5,406; 4_347 Oran_rie _,_____._� 3,876 61 425E 51.3691___�__ 41,312 Riverside .._________._-______ __,___ 2,777 - �"' 44,0071 38,802` 29,597 ...._._.______.__._• ___._.1.-_.__._.__.i- �' SanBemardino c. _ 3609 57,789T 47,628' 38,463 ._._.4,24..._______.___{..---______.__.{.__.__.___.._.__ San Die o a,248 87,319: 56,298r 45,276 San Luis Obis o 758 110,O601 '"� 8,082 Somam Baara 883 1i3,-674i674{ 11,4369,197 Tulare 894 14,172{ 11,852, 953E Ventura 1,270 20,1231 16 828 13,534 Statewide Regional 57,815 916,208E 766,208 516,205 Inlenegional 19,272 305,403t.______ 255,403t _ 205,403 Total 77,087 1,221,6115 1,021,611; 821,611 Attachment2. Tab 18 Item 4.10 California Transportation Commission March 11-12, 2009 Memorandum To: Chair and Commissioners Date: March 11-12, 2009 From: Andre Boutros, Interim Executive Director File No: Tab 16, Item 4.10 ACTION Ref: Implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Workshop Issue On February 17, 2009 President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Act or ARRA). Among its many provision the Act provides for the apportionment of $2.57 billion in federal stimulus funds to California for "Highway Infrastructure Investment" (eligible projects also include transit, rail, and port infrastructure). The Act specifies suballocation of 30% of these funds through the Surface Transportation Program (STP), but does not require suballocation of the remaining 70%. States have 120 days to obligate half of the 70% of the stimulus funds that are not suballocated, with any unobligated funds being redistributed to other states. In California's case, this equates to approximately $900 million subject to the 120 day requirement. Under existing state law, the 70% of the stimulus funds are available for programming and allocation by the Commission in the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) and the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Amongst the transportation community, there is strong support for enacting state legislation to distribute all the stimulus funds through a modified Surface Transportation Program process (62.5% to regions based upon population; 37.5% to the state). Such legislation would require a 2/3`6 vote in order to take effect immediately. While staff sees the benefit of a statutory change, particularly in regards to the funds subject to the 120 day deadline, staff believes that both the deadlines in the Act and need for immediate economic stimulus compel the Commission to proceed along two tracks. Staff recommends that, pending a change in statute, the Commission proceed to program and allocate the 70% of the stimulus funds through the SHOPP and the STIP. Rather than commence an entire programming cycle, funds from the Act can be used to fund construction and construction support for projects already programmed in the STIP or projects amended into the STIP. When legislation is enacted, the Commission will work with Caltrans to distribute any unallocated SHOPP and or STIP stimulus funds pursuant to the legislation. In order to proceed with the programming and allocation of stimulus funds through the SHOPP and STIP, staff recommends the following Commission actions: • In February, the Commission adopted a SHOPP floor of $500 million. Based on Caltrans' recommendation, staff recommends the Commission adopt a revised initial SHOPP level of $625 million to be used to calculate STIP targets. Attachment 1 shows STIP targets based on a SHOPP level of $625 million. Attachment 2 shows STIP targets based on various other SHOPP levels ($500 million, $700 million, and $900 million). STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Chair and Commissioners March 11-12, 2009 Page 2 • Following a discussion at this workshop, adopt guidance for incorporating stimulus funds into the STIP. Key points include: o Direct all regions and Caltrans to submit, by March 27, 2009, a list of projects nominated for funding in the STIP with stimulus funds, and to proceed with preparing the necessary STIP allocation requests and amendments. o Targets for the Act will not be immediately incorporated into existing share balances. o Use the funds for construction and construction support for projects already programmed in the STIP or projects amended into the STIP. o STIP amendments, if necessary, will be presented to the Commission for approval at the time an allocation is requested. o Commission intent that when funds from the Act are used by a region to supplant Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) funds, that region shall have the opportunity to program a like amount of CMIA funds in the future. If interregional shares are used to supplant non-STIP Proposition 1 B fund, then Caltrans shall have the opportunity to program a like amount of the supplanted funds in the future. Further Provisions of the Act The Act indicates that the Federal government shall manage and expend the funds so as to achieve the following purposes as quickly as possible consistent with prudent management: 1. To preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery. 2. To assist those most impacted by the recession. 3. To provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health. 4. To invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits. 5. To stabilize State and local government budgets, in order to minimize and avoid reductions in essential services and counterproductive state and local tax increases. The Act apportions $26.66 billion to the states, via two formulas, for Highway Infrastructure Investment. This is defined as projects eligible for funding under the Surface Transportation Program, passenger and freight rail, and port infrastructure. Projects eligible for funding under the Surface Transportation Program include construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, restoration and operational improvements on highways and bridges, transit capital, and safety infrastructure improvements. The Act states that in selecting projects for this portion of the funds, priority shall be given to the following: • Projects will be completed within a 3-year time frame (by February 17, 2012). • Projects that are located in economically distressed areas as defined by section 301 or the Public Words and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended (Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt, Imperial, Kern, Kings, Lake, Lassen, Madera, Mariposa, Mendocino, Merced, Modoc, Monterey, Plumas, Riverside, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tulare, Tuolumne, Yolo, and Yuba counties). Chair and Commissioners March 11-12, 2009 Page 3 • Preference shall be given to activities that can be started and completed expeditiously, including a goal of using at least 50% of the funds for activities that can be initiated not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of the Act (June 17, 2009). • Recipients shall also use grant funds in a manner that maximizes job creation and economic benefit. On March 2, 2009 the Federal Highway. Administration apportioned $2,569,568,320 to California. Under existing state law, the estimated $2.57 billion in federal stimulus funds will be distributed as follows: • 30% ($771 million) through the Surface Transportation Program. Surface Transportation Program funds are suballocated to regions based upon population with nearly 80%going to urbanized areas with populations greater than 200,000 based upon their relative populations. • 67% ($1,722 million) to the state without specified federal suballocation. Under state law, these funds will be available for the SHOPP and the STIP. SHOPP and STIP programming levels are determined based upon the statutory restrictions of the various funds and through the Commission's adoption of the Fund Estimate. STIP funds are distributed 75%• to regions subject to a north/south split (40%/60%) and distributed based upon population (75%) and state highway miles (25%), and 25% to Caltrans for the interregional program. • 3% ($77 million) for Transportation Enhancement (TE) activities. Under state law these fund will flow through the SHOPP and STIP. The federal stimulus bill includes use -it -or -lose -it provisions. States have 120 days to obligate half of the funds that are not suballocated, with any unobligated funds being redistributed to other states. In California's case, this equates to approximately $900 million subject to the 120 day requirement. One year from the date of apportionment, any unobligated balances will be redistributed. All funds are to remain available through September 30, 2010. The Act contains extensive reporting requirements. Recipients of funds from the Act are required to submit periodic reports on the use of the funds for the covered programs. By March 17, 2009 states are required to submit data on projects to be funded completely or partially with ARRA funds. The Act also contains various certification requirements. The Governor must certify by March 19, 2009 that the State will maintain its effort with regard to State funding for the types of projects that are funded by the Act. Additionally, the Governor must certify by April 3, 2009 that the funds provided by the Act will be used to create jobs and promote economic health. For funds for infrastructure investments, the Governor, mayor, or other chief executive, as appropriate, must certify that the infrastructure investment has received the full review and vetting required by law and that the chief executive accepts responsibility that the infrastructure investment is an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. Chair and Commissioners March 11-12, 2009 Page 4 Guidance on Incorporating Stimulus Funds into the STIP The below guidance address the particular circumstances related to the funding of stimulus projects in the STIP. Notwithstanding this guidance, project sponsors must comply with all provisions of the Act. The Commission intends to use funds from the Act to allocate construction and construction support for projects already programmed in the STIP or projects that are amended into the STIP. Targets The targets provided are the formula distribution of 70% of the funds made available under the Act for Highway Infrastructure Investment, less the funding level approved for the SHOPP. The STIP targets for the Act will not be immediately incorporated into existing share balances due to the need for prompt programming, allocation, obligation, and, most importantly, contract award. The Commission will incorporate this programming into existing share balances during the 2010 STIP Fund Estimate scheduled for adoption in August 2009. The targets are not a minimum, guarantee, or limit on project nominations or on project selection in any county or region. The Commission may program over the target in some regions and under the targets in others, however, the sum of the total programmed may not exceed the funding available. The Commission does not intend to program above the target in a region that is already overprogrammed except as a last resort to prevent the loss of stimulus funds due to non -obligation. Project Selection Consistent with Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) ARRA Implementation Guidance, the Commission intends to follow the below priorities in programming and allocating ARRA funds. • Priority will be given to projects that can be delivered expeditiously. Specifically, priority will be given to projects that can obligated by June 17, 2009. • Priority will be given to projects that will be completed by February 17, 2012. • Priority will be given to projects located in economically distressed areas as defined by section 301 or the Public Words and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended (42 U.S.C. 3161). These are identified by FHWA (http://hepgis.fhwa.dot.gov/hepgis_v2/generalinfo/Map.aspx) as the following counties: Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt, Imperial, Kern, Kings, Lake, Lassen, Madera, Mariposa, Mendocino, Merced, Modoc, Monterey, Plumas, Riverside, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tulare, Tuolumne, Yolo, and Yuba. • Priority will be given to projects that maximize job creation and economic benefit. If the stimulus funds allocated to a project are not obligated in a timely manner and the inability to obligate the funds may jeopardize the state's ability to meet the deadlines in the Act, then the allocation will be rescinded and those funds will be reallocated. This first priority for reallocating the funds will be the SHOPP. The Commission may allocate more than $625 million in stimulus funds to the SHOPP to ensure that SHOPP projects are ready to obligate any reallocated funds. Chair and Commissioners March 11-12, 2009 Page 5 To the extent practicable, the Commission intends to give priority to TE projects that associated with a highway or transit project and are not stand alone projects. List of Nominated Projects All regions and Caltrans shall submit a list of projects nominated for funding in the STIP with stimulus funds by March 27, 2009. A template for the list will be posted on the Commission website no later than March 13, 2009. The list shall be submitted to the Commission electronically in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Califomia Transportation_Commission@dot.ca.gov) and in hard copy addressed to: Andre Boutros, Interim Executive Director Califomia Transportation Commission Mail Station 52 1120 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814 For each project, the list should include the following: a. The name of the agency responsible for project implementation. b. The project title, which should include a brief nontechnical description of the project location and limits (community name, street name, etc.), and a phrase describing the type and scope of the project. By definition, the Commission will regard the limits for a rehabilitation project on local streets and roads as including adjacent or nearby streets and roads, thus providing greater flexibility in project scope. c. A unique project identification number provided by Caltrans (PPNO). d. For projects on the State highway system, the route. e. The funding amount requested by component (construction and construction support) and fiscal -year. f. The expected date (month) of allocation, contract award, and projects completion. g. The relative priority of each project on the list. The list should indicate which projects are already programmed for allocation this year, which are being nominated for advancement, which nominations are a change to a currently programmed project (other than an advancement), and which are being nominated for amendment into the STIP. The list should also indicate which projects are eligible for TE funding. The Commission understands that, due the unique nature of the stimulus funding, the projects submitted for programming and allocation by may differ from those on the nomination lists, but the Commission expects such differences will not be significant. STIP Amendments On December 29, 2008 the Commission provided notice that it may amend the STIP on or after January 28, 2009 to add projects nominated by Caltrans and regional transportation planning agencies for anticipated federal transportation economic stimulus funding. This notice did not include specific project information. This notice will be updated based on the aforementioned list projects nominated. Chair and Commissioners March l 1-12, 2009 Page 6 All regional requests for STIP amendments shall be submitted directly to the appropriate Caltrans district. Caltrans will, in an expedition manner, review proposed amendments and forward them to the Commission for action. The Commission encourages. Caltrans, in cooperation with regions and Commission staff, to develop and implement a set of procedures to standardize and streamline the amendment process. To help ensure that projects amended into the STIP meet the obligation deadlines in the Act, the Commission intends that action on a proposed STIP amendment occur at the same meeting as the allocation of funds for the project. A STIP amendment is not required to advance into the current -year for allocation a project that is programmed in a future year. Such action may occur at the time of allocation. Supplanting Proposition 1B Funds Because of the state's current inability to meet its Proposition 1B funding commitments, the Commission anticipates that some funding from the Act will be used to supplant the state's commitment of Proposition 1B funds. In such instances, the Commission expects the primary source of funding be funds from the Act that are available to a region. The Commission expects interregional shares to be used to supplant a commitment of Proposition 1B funds only in conjunction with the use of regional funds and in cases where the regional funding is insufficient to supplant the Proposition 1B funds. It is the intent of the Commission that when funds from the Act are used by a region to supplant CMIA funds, that region shall have the opportunity to program a like amount of CMIA funds for an eligible project or projects in the future. If interregional shares are used to supplant non-STIP Proposition 1B fund, then Caltrans shall have the opportunity to program a like amount of the supplanted funds for an eligible project or projects in the future. Such requests for Proposition 1B programming shall be submitted to the Commission no later than three months after the Commission resumes the allocation of Proposition 1B funds. Timely Use of Funds Approximately $900 million of the stimulus funds (50% of the apportioned funds excluding federally suballocated funds) must be obligated by June 30, 2009 (120 days after the apportionment of funds, which occurred on March 2). Obligation is the Federal government's promise to pay a State for the Federal share of a project's eligible cost. This commitment occurs when the Federal government approves the project and the project agreement is executed, and typically occurs within two weeks of Commission allocation. Within one year after the apportionment of funds to California, all funds must be obligated. Obligated balances are available for expenses incurred until September 30, 2015, at which point any remaining balances will be cancelled. The Commission expects that the stimulus funds for a project will be obligated within three weeks of allocation. Caltrans shall report, at the Commission meeting following allocation, on the projects that were not obligated within three weeks of allocation. Details of this report my not be available prior to the Commission meeting because of the limited time Caltrans will have to prepare the report. Chair and Commissioners March 11-12, 2009 Page 7 Funds that are not obligated within one month of allocation may be rescinded and reallocated through the SHOPP or STIP in order ensure that all federal funds are obligated by the dates required in the Act. Completion of Environmental Process Allocations will be made only after a project has achieved environmental clearance. If the Commission has previously approved the final environmental document, the applicant shall include with the request for allocation the date of Commission approval and the Commission resolution number. Otherwise, documentation of the required environmental clearance for the project (Environmental Impact Report, Negative Declaration, or Notice of Exemption) shall be submitted with the request for allocation. Performance Measures. At the time of allocation, the project sponsor shall provide a brief quantitative and/or qualitative explanation how the project will further the purposes of the Act: 1. To preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery. 2. To assist those most impacted by the recession. 3. To provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health. 4. To invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits. 5. To stabilize State and local government budgets, in order to minimize and avoid reductions in essential services and counterproductive state and local tax increases. STIP Funds for Highway Infrastructure Investment American Recover and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Recommended STIP tamets County TE Non -TE (SHOPP of 625M) Alameda 2,099 29,860 Alpine 59 845 Amador 136 1,936 Butte 402 5.717 Calaveras 159 2,264 Colusa 106 1,502 Contra Costa 1,360 19,346 Del Norte 102 1446 El Dorado LTC 257 3,653 Fresno ____._.-,_„___. �' _ 1,455 20,695 Glenn _ 113 _� _......... 1,604 Humboldt 406 _5,780 519.254,045 2,489 Lassen _._.. 3 664 Made7a _�' _258 _-�___258 _W _ 3,665 Marin __398 .�______ __ 5,655. Mariposa 105_ Mendocino ..�-M Merced.-_.:.... ___-.-.-_________..__ 463_ .». _ ____-._.._.. 6:586.. M6� �__W Mont_. ___. .....__...____ 137 _.___.__._ 1,946 _._._.._._.____._.._ _._ ». Monterey 745» 10,591... Napa--^� 247 3,508 Nevada 217 3,093 Placer LTC __.»__._..__.__.____. Plumas 408 ____-� __.. 5,811 _... Sacramento1�803 _..- .._ _..._ _..-.__._._.________ San Benito _______ _ ._ 135 - 25,644 .._.___._.____-. _ ___- SanFranclsw 1,074 ---1,918 15,277 San Joa uin _._---_. �_- _ _ 944 -� W_ _._._.___ 15423 San Mateo _ I. _11114 15,854_. Santa Clara ^-----_-_ Santa Cruz Shasta 440 6,256 Sierra 73 1,038 Siskin._..._..__ 304 Solano 644 _.._4,321 9,156_ Sonoma 784 11,152 Stanislaus Sutter ._.__..__._._165 ,___.._.._.._._.__..1348 Tahoe RPA 108 1,534 Tehama 'NI Tuolumne 179 2,543 Yolo Yuba Imperial__,..-_._..__._.._.._.._.._ 680 9,668 In o_.. Kem 1,905 27,106 Los Angeles .._.._..._._.._..._.._.._.._ 12,851 182,808 Mono 408 5,803 Oran.ge 3,876 55,140 Riverside 2,777 39,504 San Bemardino.___.._.._.._..._.._.._.._ _.._.._..___31609....__ San Diego,-..-._.._.. 4,248 _.51,337 60,431 San Luis Obispo.___...._.._..._..._._._ ._..__.._.__.._758 10,788 Santa Barbara 863 12,275 Tulare_.._..._._._.._.»_»_._.._..._._._._.__._.._._ .___._..__._._.894..._......_..._.._.._.._..._..12,722.. Ventura 1,270 18,064 Statewide Regional 57,815 822,458 Interregional 19,272 274,153 Total 77,087 1,096,611 Califomia Transportation Commission Attachment 1 Stem 16 Tab 4.10 March 11-12, 2009 CITY OF PERR]IS Office ofthe City Manager March 6, 2009 Ms. Ann Mayer Executive Director RCTC 4080 Lemon, 3`d Floor Riverside; CA 92502 Dear Ms. Mayer: 101 NORTH "D" STREET PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570 TEL: (951) 943-5100 It has recently come to the attention of the City of Perris that RCTC is considering development of a "Local Economic Stimulus" Funding program. This proposal would redirect $18 Million from old Measure "A" funds away from the SR-74/I-215 Interchange project and distribute it to the various agencies in the County according to population formula. The SR- 74/1-215 project would then be made "whole" with an $18 Million influx of STIP funds when and if these funds become available. Although we do not object to funds distributed to all agencies, we are disappointed with the funding source. We have been anxious to see the completion of the SR-74/I-215 Interchange project since the original Measure "A" was passed in 1988. This project is currently funded entirely with local dollars (50% Measure "A", 50% TUMF). The proposed change will introduce a new layer of bureaucratic delay possibly due to the need for State authorization and subsequent reimbursement. Furthermore, you are well aware of the challenges the State is having with their budget and the delays in STIP or other funding availability. The City is unwilling to support a budget modification that may cause any delay in this long awaited project. The Measure "A" Funding for the SR-74/I-215 Interchange project should not be moved elsewhere, and it is irresponsible for such an action to be under consideration by RCTC. Ann Mayer March 6, 2009 Page Two We ask for further consideration on RCTC's part prior to finalizing the local stimulus plan, and we urge the Commission to identify a different source of funds should such a plan be adopted. Sincerely, Richard Belmudez City Manager cc: RCTC Commissioners Shirley Medina John Standiford J SPECIAL TECHNICA,VISORY COMMITTEE • "" Marc , 2009 AGENCY I TAC MEMBER ALTERNATE r PRINT NAME BANNING DUANE BURK Director of Public Works BEAUMONT IKISHEN PRATHIVADI BLYTHE CVAG CALIMESA CAL TRANS Assistant Director of Public Works JIM RODKEY Public Works Director ~ ALLYN WAGGLE CARLOS ZAMANO City Engineer PATRICK HALLY Off CANYON LAKE I HABIB MOTLAGH City Engineer CATHEDRAL CITY BILL BAYNE ~0 COACHELLA I PAUL TOOR Public Works Director CORONA KIP FIELD IKahono Oei I Dee Moorjani Chad Aaby City Engineer Carol Clapper Bob French Public Works Director Pavel Horn Tony Lucero Bob Morin Acting Public Works Director I Principal Civil Engineer DESERT HOT I JONATHAN HOY SPRINGS Public Works Director /City Engineer Carlos -zdlYlq(/io fJATPi I c_fi H/-t l L y \? J LL p.A ... ~ t-1 P('._ 'f3o~ ~--v Jo tJA:-~ r\-o'f SIGNATURE ~ ~~~_, 3/4/2009 I SPECIAL TECHNICA,VISORY COMMITTEE · ., Marc , 2009 • AGENCY I TAC MEMBER ALTERNATE PRINT NAME SIGNATURE HEMET MIKE GOW Victor Monz M'\kGovJ /l{<JITi) Principal Engineer INDIAN WELLS TIM WASSIL Bondie Baker Public Works Director/City Assistant Engineer II Engineer INDIO JIM SMITH Tom Rafferty Director of Public Works Principal Civil Engineer crtiM. J'M n H +c,L--LA QUINTA TIMOTHY JONASSON Nick Nickerson Public Works Director/City ~~ Engineer LAKE KEN SEUMALO Ed Basubas ELSINORE City Engineer City Traffic Engineer KEAi 5tu#LA io tL£~ MORENO CHRIS VOGT Prem Kumar :? ' VALLEY Public Works Director/City Deputy Public Works D \( ....,L !V\j'\ ((._ Engineer Director/Assistant City \~~~ f:C~ Engineer ~: MURRIETA PATRICK THOMAS Russ Napier p.1~~ Director of Public Works/City Capital Improvement "Ytt!-~t itw, Engineer Program Manager "\)"' NORCO BILL THOMPSON Lori Askew " Director of Public Works Associate Engineer PALM DESERT MARK GREENWOOD Alana Townsend Director of Public works -A PALM SPRINGS DAVE BARAKIAN Marcus Fuller JJ4l· Director of Public Works/City -Engineer 7 PVVTA LES NELSON City Manager 31412009 I SPECIAL TECHNICA'.VISORY COMMITTEE • • ' Mar .. 2009 AGENCY I TAC MEMBER ALTERNATE PRINT NAME SIGNATURE PERRIS RTA RANCHO MIRAGE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE COUNTY RON CARR Public Works Director MARK STANLEY Director of Planning BRUCE HARRY Director of Public Works TOM BOYD Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer JUAN PEREZ Director of Transportation SAN JACINTO I HABIB MOTLAGH City Engineer SUN LINE TEMECULA EUNICE LOVI Director of Planning Habib Motlagh City Engineer Scott Richardson Planning and Program Manager Randy Viegas Project Manager Siobhan Foster Patty Romo Deputy Director of Transportation Eric Skaugset Assistant Engineer Alfonso Hernandez Assistant Planner Pc:..~ '-(o<t.1 ·r~ ( \ --~-~::? ~-Director of Public Works Public Works Department (; \ T'-f " "1 Gi ~ \;l.-12.. ~~-0-WILDOMAR I MICHAEL KASHIWAGI I Diane Nguyen Director of Public Works Transportation Programs Manager WR COG i-~(.{15 RUTHANNE TAYLOR· BERGER Deputy Executive Director t:: __,...-._. ~'~ t:.A."::>~'-"~\ D~~ De-... .J \J, -. ' ,-::-... "V·"' '" -r 10.~~l'-J ~ 1-V'\~ V?-\ tC;;..A.A. c,t' ~ ~Le.) ··,J·c:...._;;; • Ju~~ c# P~~~ 15v-4----3/4/2009 .. I SPECIAL TECHNICAL.VISORY COMMITTEE • · Marc~ 2009 AGENCY NAME I TELEPHONE OR E-MAIL I '/<c::--rc_ r:; r-a ce: ilha..rP ~ 9J/-77rf' "/09J---~CA·~ \;\..._,\~ ~\2\)~CU\A~ qs·1 . r t>:t . 1 \ 4 1 I 3/4/2009 • NAME •--- ATTENDANCE ROSTER TAC SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING Thursday, March 5, 2009 REPRESENTING TELEPHONE OR E-MAIL