Loading...
07 July 17, 2017 Technical advisory committeeTECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA Commission Staff Anne Mayer, Executive Director Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director TIME: 10:30 A.M. DATE: July 17, 2017 LOCATION: Coachella Valley Association of Governments Board Room 73710 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 COMMITTEE MEMBERS Nino Abad, City of Hemet Martin Magana, CVAG Ahmad Ansari, City of Moreno Valley Bob Moehling, City of Murrieta Lori Askew, City of Calimesa Farshid Mohammadi, City of Riverside – VICE CHAIR Armando Baldizzone, City of Blythe Habib Motlagh, Cities of Perris and San Jacinto Chad Blais, City of Norco Nelson Nelson, City of Corona Bo Chen, City of Palm Desert Aaron Palmer, City of Canyon Lake K. George Colangeli, PVVTA Daniel Porras, City of Desert Hot Springs John Corella, City of Cathedral City Patricia Romo, County of Riverside Brad Fagrell, City of Lake Elsinore Mark Sambito, City of Rancho Mirage Marcus Fuller, City of Palm Springs Ken Seumalo, City of Indian Wells – CHAIR Christopher Gray, WRCOG Jonathan Smith, City of Menifee Jonathan Hoy, City of Coachella Patrick Thomas, City of Temecula Joe Indrawan, City of Eastvale Art Vela, City of Banning Amer Jakher, City of Beaumont Timothy T. Wassil, City of Indio Rohan Kuruppu, Riverside Transit Agency Ed Wimmer, City of La Quinta David Lee, Caltrans District 8 Dan York, City of Wildomar Steve Loriso, City of Jurupa Valley COMM-TAC-00056 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. TIME: 10:30 A.M. (PLEASE NOTE TIME CHANGE) DATE: July 17, 2017 LOCATION: Coachella Valley Association of Governments Board Room 73710 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Government Code Section 54954.2, and the Federal Transit Administration Title VI, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787‐7141 if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, including accessibility and translation services. Assistance is provided free of charge. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting time will assist staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide assistance at the meeting. 1. Call to Order 2. Self-Introductions 3. Approval of May 15, 2017 Minutes 4. 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.) 5. Caltrans Local Assistance Update (Verbal Presentation, Handout) 6. Caltrans Local Assistance Contract Oversight Presentation by Chad Yang, P.E. 1 (Verbal Presentation, Handout) 7. SB 1 Overview and Update (Attachment) 8. SB 1 Local Streets and Roads Update (Verbal Presentation, Handout) 9. SB 1 Local Partnership Program Update (Verbal Presentation) 10. SB 1 Active Transportation Program Augmentation Update (Attachment) 11. SB 1 Planning Grants Update (Verbal Presentation, Handout) 12. SB 1 STIP Update (Attachment) Technical Advisory Committee Meeting July 17, 2017 Page 2 13. July Commission Highlights (Verbal Presentation) 14. Other Announcements 15. Other Business 16. Adjournment (The next meeting will be September 18, RCTC’s Conference Room A 10:00 a.m.) ~ AGENCY BANNING BEAUMONT TAC MEMBER TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE JULY 17, 2017 PLEASE SIGN IN ALTERNATE PRINT NAME ART VELA I Holly Stuart SIGNATURE.and EMAIL ~AMER JAKHER Elizabeth M. Gibbs ------T---------Acting Director of Pub~~Work~-. --lPubUo~s ~·:i___ I 1 Public Works Director/City Engineer Transit Director -::::::~~i·: ~• --J -··------• I -. I Director of T. ransportation I . "" [' /. _ , -------BLYTHE CVAG J.n.... 1 ••PIV:'\li-.\ MM.AM~ ~ ~fUJL.,__ -ILORI ASKEW----11[ Michael-Thornton ,-_ ·j Ii ~ -~ ~~ --- ----Public Works Director City Engineer 1.-0r I · tTI:>(Ll tJ v. J ()-• ('1c) o~v.m LEE --+--1-------____ ________ __µ().~Kew ~~o.Pa.h ~esa . ~ ~~ District Local Assistance Planner ! . D , ~ 1 _ ' ~ ~--=--= . : j)Avl L1::i.: I ~ CANYONLAKE -1AARONPALMER ------1---------1-----------_ J _ _kv_1I wf do/.~----~~~ . I CATHEDRAL CITY 1~H~~~~:LLA · -j:n!~~~~inee; -_J----/"' -- -I~~ --~~-~--___ _ Oi-tlJ \.....OA.~l.lA COACHELLA--• . N-AT~AN HOY ---:Maritza Martinez ·11 -:J C.oR..6LlA~\4.lir()f1'lC.\T(•~ i City Engineer Interim Public Works Director CORONA INEL~ONNELSON ---ILindaBazmi ----1·----------h-~ -------.. -Pu~~ Works-Director/City Engineer I Senior Engineer I -.,) Cf! 5fr2.N> :I.. ! J,,.,;A ~ DESERTHOT IDANIELPORRAS !Richard Kopecky -1· _µ:,,.IPA. /3(i7dtl~~ SPRINGS I Public Works Manager 1 Contract City Engineer . I CALIMESA CAL TRANS ~ TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE JULY 17, 2017 PLEASE SIGN IN AGENCY TAC MEMBER ALTERNATE PRINT NAME Jct /Nl)~ TJOE INDRAWAN [city Engineer/!(~ ,___ ______ --1------------- -------r------------HEMET NINO ABAD Alexander Meyerhoff 1----Acting Director of~ngineering City Man~-_____ , ___ _ ____ _ INDIAN WELLS IKEN SEUMALO ·CHAIR [Bondie Baker 11 Public Works Director Assistant Engineer II C------·----1---------·-----L_ ___ . -------1 INDIO TIMOTHY T. WASSIL I Eric Weck JURUPA VALLEY-k:~:~::_ u i:::~~-1 Engine:__ -------{-EASTVALE Craig Bradshaw SIGNATURE --·-.-......-~----(__,-/ ~ 1c~y Engineer ]Special Project Engineer I -IEDWIMMER -------r-i----~I--------1 Principal Engineer 1 I .Gt) W \ MM.~ ; r > LA QUINTA City Engineer Assistant City Manager , -----. --I I' MENIFEE-JONATHAN SMlfH Steve Glynn ____ -1 ----------------------. -Y l~~blic Works Director/City Engineer I i f.-------------------·--------------t-------------------MORENO VALLEY AHMAD ANSARI I Eric Lewis i Public Works Director/City Engineer Transporta. tion Division __ ,____ j 1 MURRIETA I-----··----NORCO . BOB MOEHLING City Engineer CHAD BLAIS Public Works Director . Manager/CityTraffic_E~ ______________ l_ ~H~ ~ Public Works Construction I Manag~ ____ __ __ 1_ ·-Bill Thompson Water and Sewer Utilities ------------. -----·----------I TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE JULY 17, 2017 PLEASE SIGN IN AGENCY TAC MEMBER ALTERNATE PRINT NAME SIGNATURE and EMAIL PALM DESERT BO CHEN City Engineer Ron Moreno Senior Engineer PALM SPRINGS PVVTA l<f r£:1~ I Savat Khamphou -loaie-R-ey-no-lds ___ _ i--------~ ~Qr61\ 1~-(_ ~-.,."'-pZf_)~~·f-' .___ -+ G;_/L£~1""-eer : K. GEORGE COLANGELI -tsit General Manager t------------------------PERRIS IB MOTLAGH 1 City Engineer RTA ROHAN KURUPPU i . RANCHO MIRAGE I MARK SAMBITO Director of Public Works Kristin Warsinski Planning and Programming i Specialist William Enos City Engineer RIVERSIDE FARSHID MOHAMMAD! -VICE CHAIR !Kris Martinez Engineering Manager • Public Works Director RIVERSIDE COUNTY I PATRICIA ROMO Director of Transportation I 1---SAN JACINTO 1 HABIB MOTLAGH City Engineer Mojahed Salama Deputy Director of Transportation -I-,., :1""i \./,J"'TYVl.2 /lD+------I iTransitPlanningManager I ~\..l..~V~ . _____-SUNLINE !Anita M. Pelke I I a TEMECULA IPATRICKTHOMAS -1AmeiAttar . I-~:::;;) Director of Public Works ~ -l i TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE JULY 17, 2017 PLEASE SIGN IN AGENCY TAC MEMBER ALTERNATE PRINT NAME WILDOMAR I DAN YORK i Matt Bennett Assistant City. Ma .. nager/Director of Pub. l.ic 1· ~· ~ Works/City Engineer ; I WRCOG I CHRISTOPHER GRAY ------1Chris Tzeng-----1-Director ofTransportation . I Program Manager . .. ·-----r------- ------1-1< cre-~ ~ I ! +-----~ ----~-------C~H:> 1 \:Z.e,~·· Mac~~ws1 _ . RE1L-1 ~lf.c~ c L) fj&-1 k~ \Ma r I i : I SIGNATURE and EMAIL -I --, I cfloJ,(/-o.fl'fj? J o7;' CI], ff o V t------\.~~cOQ> +-1 ~\t\ ~\(t1. C:ooo'> 1 }ti J!y; ~ i icoA.t\JQ.lo Olw~o1:r,co6; C1A.us ~~-w--------1 ---r~~M~ • ;,!;~~~~~J~ : I 1-------t---------r---~---r-------t -w ! I I -~:-tt ! ! I i ! , ++ + I -+--+ + ----+-- ' i ' MINUTES TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, May 15, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order by Chair Ken Seumalo at 10:30 a.m. at the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501. 2. SELF -INTRODUCTIONS Members Present: Amer Attar, City of Temecula Bo Chen, City of Palm Desert John Corella, City of Cathedral City William Enos, City of Rancho Mirage Brad Fagrell, City of Lake Elsinore Marcus Fuller, City of Palm Springs Joe lndrawan, City of Eastvale Tim Jonasson, City of La Quinta Eric Lewis, City of Moreno Valley Steve Loriso, City ofJurupa Valley Bob Moehling, City of Murrieta Farshid Mohammadi, City of Riverside Nelson Nelson, City of Corona Ken Seumalo, City of Indian Wells Patrick Thomas, City of Temecula Michael Thornton, City of Calimesa Sean Yeung, Caltrans Dan York, City of Wildomar Others Present: Fred Alamolhoda, LAE Associates Grace Alvarez, RCTC Brad Brophy, Tri-Lake Consultants Chigo Dike, Caltrans Ati Eskandari, Sustainable Civil Engineering Solutions Cresencio Garcia, Caltrans Tom Garcia, City of Palm Springs Jillian Guizado, RCTC Aaron Hake, RCTC Chenxia Li, RTA Julia Lippe -Klein, SCAG Martha Masters, RCTC Shirley Medina, RCTC Lorelle Moe -Luna, RCTC Roy Null, Riverside County Paul Rodriguez, Rodriguez Consulting Group Derek Wieske, City of Hemet Technical Advisory Committee Meeting May 15, 2017 Page 2 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/C (Mohammadi/Magana) to approve the January 23 and March 20, 2017 minutes as submitted. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 5. SCAG ATP GO HUMAN ENCOURAGEMENT CAMPAIGN PRESENTATION — SCAG STAFF Julie Lippe -Klein, Assistant Planner, Active Transportation &Special Programs, Southern California Association of Governments, provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Southern California Active Transportation Safety & Encouragement Campaign. 6. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Aaron Hake, RCTC, reviewed several bills that are summarized in his staff report and he responded to various questions. 7. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM UPDATE Lorelle Moe -Luna, RCTC, reported that SB 1 will make $100 Million available annually beginning in FY 17/18. Projects from ATP Cycle 3 were just approved in Dec 2016 for the statewide selection and March 2017 for the MPO selection and are programmed for F Y19/20 and 20/21. Since SB1 funds for ATP will be available beginning 17/18, CTC staff in their report (going to the Commission this week) is recommending that the available funding for SB1 for FY 17/18 and 18/19 be made available for projects that have already been approved in Cycle 3 that can deliver earlier than currently programmed or for projects that applied in Cycle 3 but were not selected for funding. CTC staff is recommending that guidelines for this Call for Projects be approved at the June CTC meeting with an application deadline in August 2017. This call will have a total of $200M available (all state funds); $120M will be selected at the state level and $80M will be selected at the MPO level. RCTC staff is going to be working closely with SCAG over the next couple of months to monitor which projects from our county are likely to be funded. In the coming weeks, we will be contacting the applicants who scored at least 70 points in Cycle 3 to verify their project status and whether the projects that were just awarded can be delivered (allocated) earlier than 2019 using these state funds. Rails -to -Trails Conservancy contacted us to conduct an Active Transportation Technical Assistance workshop on June 1st. They received funding from the CA Endowment to provide this technical assistance that is geared towards providing technical assistance to disadvantaged communities seeking funding for active transportation projects, not necessarily for the ATP Program specifically Technical Advisory Committee Meeting May 15, 2017 Page 3 but also for other grant programs such as Urban Greening. Everyone is welcome to attend the workshop on June 1st (you don't have to be a DAC), however, they envision that follow up assistance will also be available, which would target disadvantaged communities. Basically, the technical assistance is intended to assist project applicants from the initial steps of project development (i.e., how to select a project and prioritize projects) to analyzing the data (e.g. safety, public health data, etc.) and developing an effective project or plan. Attached to the workshop flyer is a quick five question survey that we would like for you to complete and leave with us before you leave today so that we can provide them with feedback on how to best tailor their workshop agenda to the needs of our cities. 8. CALTRANS LOCAL ASSISTANCE UPDATE Sean Yeung, Caltrans Local Assistance, reminded the TAC members that in early April Caltrans reported that all agencies would need a Buy America waiver for vehicle purchases. No agencies requested a waiver. Caltrans also asked agencies to respond if they were not awarded the last round of SSARP project call because CTC had informed Caltrans that it had an extra $7.7 Million. Caltrans notified the 10 agencies whose projects were not awarded the first time that they would be awarded. He reported that the paperwork has been processed, which is at Local Assistance in Sacramento, and it is being forwarded to the June 2017 CTC meeting. Another round of inactive projects was posted on the Local Assistance web page on April 28. If a project is listed in red stating it's inactive, Local Assistance would need an invoice by Friday, May 19. There are 28 projects in the Riverside/San Bernardino area. For the next round of inactive projects, the due date for invoicing is August 21. Mr. Yeung also stated that regarding the ATP program, cycle 3, according to the program guidelines, all projects should be done and have a closeout package submitted by no later than September 30, 2021. [Note: this was clarified after the meeting and it was determined that Sean mistakenly said ATP Cycle 3, however in fact he was referring to older SRTS projects.] He said he will send a new Local Assistance staff assignment sheet to the local agencies. He pointed out there are two additional seniors. One is Chad Yang, Construction Oversight Engineer, who will have oversight of Riverside County and San Bernardino. The other person is David Lee, District Local Assistance Planner, who will handle local assistance engineer matters with Sean Yeung. Aaron Burton is the Environmental Specialist, also working in Local Assistance. 9. FEDERAL OBLIGATION PLAN UPDATE Martha Masters, RCTC, stated it is the Commission's goal to help obligate 100 percent of its federal apportionment every year. She drew attention to the most recent FFY 2016/17 Obligation Plan attached to her staff report and said that RCTC and Caltrans meet every month to go over the report Technical Advisory Committee Meeting May 15, 2017 Page 4 to discuss the status of CMAQ and RSTP projects awarded through various call for projects. She encouraged the TAC members to continue the federal aid process and contact RCTC staff if you have any questions or concerns. She believes 69 percent of the planned obligations have a good chance of securing E-76 approvals totaling $129 Million. She further stated that RCTC will be working closely with Caltrans and other County Commissions to determine if RCTC will need an apportionment and/or OA loan from another county to ensure our projects are obligated. She also encouraged the TAC to let her know if there are any inaccuracies in the attachments to her staff report so it can be updated. 10. 2017 FTIP UPDATE Martha Masters reported that as of today, the Southern California Association of Governments has processed four formal amendments; two consistency amendments associated to the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy amendments; and three administrative modifications. All formal amendments with the exception of Amendment 8 have received the reviewing agencies conformity approvals; consistency Amendment 3 is expected to be approved in June/July 2017 and consistency Amendment 7 in August/September 2017. The next amendment is an administrative modification (17-10) and is due to SCAG on May 23. 11. SB 821 UPDATE Ms. Masters reported that RCTC released the call for projects on February 6. The cities within the county and the county itself were notified that an estimated $3,467,784 would be available for programming in FY 2017/18. Commission staff held a SB 821 Technical Workshop on February 16. Proposals were due April 27. The Commission received 34 project proposals totaling $6,420,979 in SB 821 funding requests. The evaluation committee, comprised of six members representing Caltrans District 8, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, the city of Indian Wells, Riverside Transit Agency, San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, and the Western Riverside Council of Governments. The evaluation committee met and reviewed the proposals. The evaluation committee recommendations will be presented to the Budget and Implementation Committee on May 22 and will be forwarded to the Commission June 14 for final approval. Staff will notify the TAC once the Budget and Implementation Committee agenda is posted online. 12. MAY COMMISSION HIGHLIGHTS • Shirley Medina, RCTC, reported that the May Commission meeting included a public hearing for its proposed budget. • There was a lengthy review of the 1-15 Express Lanes, the SR-91 project completion plans. • 2017 Series A sales tax revenue bonds and it also includes the TIFIA loan, which is still in process. • The Long Range Transportation Plan consultant selection was awarded to VRPA Technologies. Staff will give updates to the TAC and request input from the TAC. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting May 15, 2017 Page 5 13. OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS Tim Jonasson announced his impending retirement. Derek Wieske, City of Hemet, introduced himself to the TAC. Lorelle Moe -Luna, reminded the TAC that John Standiford, RCTC's Deputy Executive Director, recently provided an overview and presentation on the Regional Truck Study that RCTC is undergoing and stated that staff will update the TAC regularly on the status of that project. The study will kick off this month with a meeting on Thursday, May 25, 1:00. She said if any of the cities are interested in joining the study advisory team for the Regional Truck Study, please let her know and she will send out a reminder email. She thanked the agencies that submitted Measure A CIPs. There are still a few that have not submitted and encouraged them to let her know if they need additional time. The Chair reminded the TAC that the next meeting will be July 17, 10:30 in the CVAG Board Room. 14. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business presented. 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at approximately 10:47 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Medina Planning and Programming Director AGENDA ITEM 5 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 5. CALTRANS DISTRICT 8 LOCAL ASSISTANCE Helping our partners deliver local transportation projects Construction Oversight Engineer FTA / CWA Coord Student Assistant ATP HSIP Training Riv Co (A. Vergel)David Lee, temp Anh Nghiem ER Inactive SBd Co (S. Yeung, temp ) DBE PE > 10 Adelanto (S.Chowdhury, temp)Desert Hot Springs (A. Vergel)Moreno Valley (C.Dike)San Jacinto (C. Dike) Apple Valley (J. Chan, temp)DWR (S. Yeung, temp )Murrieta (C. Dike)Temecula (C. Dike) Banning (C. Dike)Eastvale (E. Premdas)Needles (S. Yeung, temp)Twentynine Palms (Chowdhury, temp ) Barstow (S. Yeung, temp )Fontana (J. Chan)Norco (C. Dike)Upland (S. Chowdhury, temp) Beaumont (C. Dike)Grand Terrace (J.Chan)Ontario (J. Chan)Victorville (S.Chowdhury, temp) Big Bear Lake (S.Yeung, temp )Hemet ( C. Dike)Palm Desert (A. Vergel)Wildomar (C. Dike) Blythe (A. Vergel)Hesperia (S. Yeung, temp)Palm Springs (A. Vergel)WRCOG (E. Premdas) Calimesa (C. Dike)Highland (S. Yeung, temp )Perris (E. Premdas)Yucaipa (S.Yeung, temp ) Cathedral City (A. Vergel)Indian Wells (A. Vergel)Rancho Cucamonga (S.Chowdhury, temp )Yucca Valley (S. Yeung, temp) Chino (J. Chan, temp)Indio (A. Vergel)Rancho Mirage (A.Vergel) Chino Hills (J. Chan, temp)Jurupa Valley (E. Premdas)Redlands (S. Chowdhury, temp)Regional Agencies Coachella (A. Vergel)La Quinta (A. Vergel)Rialto (J. Chan, temp)RCTC (E. Premdas) Coastal Conservancy (E. Premdas)Lake Elsinore (C. Dike)Riverside City (C. Dike)SBCTA ( J.Chan, S. Yeung, temp Colton (S. Yeung, temp )Loma Linda (S.Chowdhury, temp )Riverside County (E. Premdas)S. Chowdhury, temp ) Corona (C. Dike)Menifee (E. Premdas)San Bernardino City (S.Chowdhury)ER Project CVAG (E. Premdas)Montclair (S. Yeung, temp )San Bernardino Co (S. Yeung, temp )Chigo Dike Sidhartha.Chowdhury@dot.ca.gov Senior Environmental Planner Aaron Burton Aaron.Burton@dot.ca.gov (909) 383-2841 Chad Yang, P.E. Chad.Yang@dot.ca.gov (909) 806-3954 Senior Environmental Engineer Sean Yeung, P.E. Sean.Yeung@dot.ca.gov (909) 383-4030 Jenny Chan, PTP (909) 806-3959 Chigo Dike, P.E. (909) 806-4709 Chigo.Dike@dot.ca.govAlbert.Vergel.de.Dios@dot.ca.gov (909) 806-3944 Program Coordinator David Lee District Local Assistance Planner David.Lee@dot.ca.gov (909) 806-4759 Mail Submissions to: 464 W. 4th Street, 6th Floor MS 760, San Bernardino, CA 92401 Area Engineers Local Agencies Highway Bridge Program Evita Premdas (909) 806-3943 Sidhartha Chowdhury, P.E. (909) 806-3942 Evita.Premdas@dot.ca.gov Albert Vergel de Dios, P.E. Jenny.Chan@dot.ca.gov Marcos Amancio V:\Planning\Local_Assistance\STAFF ASSIGNMENT\2017-07-Revised.xlsx CTC Senate Bill 1 Workgroup Membership Form An integral part of the California Transportation Commission's implementation strategy for the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, Senate Bill (SB) 1 is to solicit input and feedback from transportation stakeholders and the public at large regarding the process of building guidelines for the new and existing programs under SB 1. If you are interested in participating on one or more of the workgroups or interested in receiving further information regarding the programs, please take a moment to complete this form. Name Company Phone E-mail On which program workgroups do you want to participate? D Local Partnership Program D Local Streets and Roads Apportionments D Solutions for Congested Corridors Program D Freight Program D Active Transportation Program Augmentation For which programs would you like to receive updates and information regarding workshops? D All SB 1 Programs D Local Partnership Program D Local Streets and Roads Apportionments D Solutions for Congested Corridors Program D Freight Program D Active Transportation Program Augmentation Please e-mail completed form to Douglas Remedios at CTC@dot.ca.gov STATE OF CALIFORNIA:=<;AL!FQRNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AG!,;NCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF LOCAL ASSISTANCE P.O. BOX 942874, MS-1 SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001 PHONE {916) 654-1776 FAX (916) 653-1905 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov July 13, 2017 To: CITIES AND COUNTIES IN CALIFORNIA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCIES Dear Transportation Partners: EDMUND G BRQWN Jr. Goyernor Making Conservation a California Way o!J:ife. The purpose of this letter is to provide you information on the implementation of the latest earmark repurposing by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). On June 16, 2017. the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued guidance on the implementation of earmark repurposing provisions contained in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 20 I 7, along with lists of earmark projects that are potentially eligible for the repurposing effort. This earmark repurposing provides us an opportunity to use unspent federal earmark funds on other transportation projects, including existing projects with funding shortfalls. Earmark Projects Eligible for Repumose: To be eligible for repurpose, an earmark must have been designated on or before September 30, 2006, and must be either: • Less than 10 percent earmark funds obligated, or • Completed and closed if more than 10 percent earmark funds obligated. Earmark Funding Potentially Available for Repurposing: The initial release of earmarkproject lists by FHWA show over $37 million in available earmark funds that fall into the "less than 10 percent obligated" category, and another $305 million in earmark funds possibly available in the "greater than I 0 percent obligated" category. However, these initial lists have not accounted for the available Obligation Authority, project closures, and transfers as explained below. Unobligated Balance vs. Available Obligation Authority-The amount of actual funding available for repurpose is limited by the amount of Obligation Authority (OA), not the Unobligated Balance, as was provided by FHW A. For example, an earmark for $1,000,000 typically receives about $900,000 of OA, or about 90 percent. If all $900,000 has been obligated on a project, leaving $0 OA, then there will be $0 available for repurposing, even though $100,000 in earmark funds remains "unobligated." Not all earmarks with positive OA are eligible tor repurpose-Earmarks on the "greater than 10 percent obligated" list require all related projects to be closed in order to be eligible for repurpose. After checking the project status in the Caltrans and FHW A project databases, only a small percentage of these "greater than l 0 percent obligated" earmarks have all related projects closed. "Provide a safe. sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California 's economy and livability·· Transportation Partners July 13, 2017 Page2 Some earmarks with positive OA have been transferred to other agencies-Some earmarks included on FHWA 's list have been transferred to the Federal Transit Administration or other federal agencies. These earmarks will not be available for repurposing, unless excess funding was retained by FHW A, as the provision only applies to funds administered by FHW A. lmoortant Deadlines: Deadline for repurposing: All of California's repurposing requests are due from the FHWA California Division Office to FHW A Office of the Chief Financial Officer by September l 2, 2017. To meet this deadline and allow Caltrans Headquarters (HQ) and districts time to process the requests, the deadline for local/regional agencies to submit requests to their Caltrans District Local Assistance Engineer is August 18, 2017. Deadline for obligation of repurposed funds: Once earmark funds are repurposed, they are available for obligation until September of 2020. Note: Due to the time constraints, there will be no opportunity for agencies to submit final invoices and close earmark projects, such as was done in 2016. Local/regional agencies are reminded to process final invoices, closeout, and final report of expenditures documentation in a timely manner for all projects as a general rule. Eligible use of Repurposed Funds To be eligible to use the repurposed earmark funds, a project will need to: • Be eligible for Surface Transportation Block Grant Program • Be within 100 miles of the original earmark To help implement this earmark repurposing process, Caltrans will reconvene the Earmark Repurposing Workgroup, which includes members representing regional transportation planning agencies, cities, counties, and FHW A. A date for this meeting and roster are currently being developed and should occur within the next two weeks. Also, over the next two weeks, Caltrans will provide updated earmark lists, additional information and links, and instructions on the newly added "2017 Earmark Repurposing" webpage found at this address: http:/ fwww.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/eam1ark/earmark2017 .htm Caltrans will coordinate with our local and regional partners, through the Earmark Repurposing Workgroup, to identify which earmarks will be repurposed and which projects will receive these funds. Acting Chief Division of Local Assistance '"Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California 's economy and livability" Highway Bridge Program 101 2017 HBP Highway Bridge Program Local Bridge Seismic Retrofit Program Bridge Program Coordinators: • Eileen Crawford, Reza Fereshtebnejad and Linda Newton HIGHWAY BRIDGE PROGRAM (HBP) o A Federal aid reimbursement program to correct deficiencies on eligible bridges. o Presentation Overview: • Purpose of HBP • Eligibility • Eligible Scopes of Work • Programming •Funding QUIZ 1 o Question # 1 How much does a house weigh? o Question # 2 How much weight can a rural two -lane bridge hold? July 11, 2017 • • 1 Highway Bridge Program 101 o and ... Question #3 o WOULD THIS BE COVERED BY HOME INSURANCE, CAR INSURANCE, OR, DOES IT COME UNDER ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE? July 11, 2017 ~ "' " . , . • 2 Highway Bridge Program 101 PURPOSE OF HBP State managed program to provide funding to improve the condition of public highway bridges through replacement, rehabilitation or systematic preventive ·maintenance Major reconstruction or replacement projects should remove all deficiencies from a bridge • ELIGIBLE BRIDGE PROJECT o Eligible Bridge • Status: Structurally Deficient (SD) • AND Sufficiency Rating (SR) ,; 80 • o Go to the Internet to view the Status and SR of local agency bridges at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaintlloc al/localbrlist. pdf ELIGIBLE SCOPES OF WORK o Rehabilitation • Must be SD and SR,; 80 • Replacement OK, if cost effective and have SLA recommendation o Replacement • Must be SD and SR,; 50 • Rehabilitation should still he considered July 11, 2017 • • 3 .Highway.cBridge Program 101, ELIGIBLE SCOPES OF WORK (CONTINUED) oPainting • Paint Code Index < 65 • When local agency does not want to rehab or replace a bridge o Scour Countermeasures • NBI Item 113::; 3 • When a local agency does not want to rehab or replace a bridge and countermeasure is cost effective • ELIGIBLE SCOPES OF WORK (CONTINUED) o Seismic Retrofit •Mandatory ELIGIBLE SCOPES OF WORK (CONTINUED) o Bridge Preventive Maintenance • Preserve the structural integrity and extend the useful service life of bridges • Do not need to be an eligible project • Routine maintenance is not eligible • May change the bridge status and/or SR once complete • Can be done as Stand Alone, if appropriate, or Grouped • Grouped must have Bridge Preventive Maintenance Plan • July 11, 2017 4 Highway Bridge Program 101 STAND-ALONE SCOPES OF WORK o Work that is required, but may not remove all deficiencies from the bridge •Painting • Scour Countermeasure • Seismic Retrofit • Preventive Maintenance WHAT IS PROGRAMMING? o Commitment oftransJ>ortation funds to be available over several years for a particular project oAgency commits to delivering project o Scope of project is consistent with HBP or BPMP Guidelines o Federal funds are Budgeted by Caltrans • o Projects are included in the FTI:PJ>_y the MPO and the FSTIP is approved by FHWA How MUCH FEDERAL MONEY? o Total Annual Apportionment about $292.5 million o Annual On Federal Aid System Apportionment about $217.5 million o Annual Off Federal Aid System Apportionment about $75 million July 11, 2017 • • 5 Highway Bridge Program 101 FTIP PROGRAMMING YEARS • BASIC PROGRAMMING PROCESS o Bridges are selected by local agency o Local Agencies submit HBP applications to the DLAE o Local Agencies are notified of eligibility for funding o Caltrans submits financially constrained lists of projects for approval in RTIP(s) and FTIP HBP GUIDELINES AND POLICIES o Chapter 6 Local Assistance Program Guidelines o BPMP Guidelines o Office Bulletins • FTIP Procedures OB 10-01 • Project Prioritization Policy OB 11-01 • High Cost Projects 0 B 11-02 • Bridge Investment Credit OB 15-04 • July 11, 2017 6 · Highway Bridge Program 101 HBP FINANCIAL CONSTRAINT FOR OCT 2016 YIELDED Actual $292.5 Million per o $3.54 Billion of Unfunded Year Projects outside of the • $217.5MillionOnSystem FTIP • $75 Million Off System o Total Programmed (Mandated) $6 BILLION Over 1000 Projects TIPS FOR SUCCESS o Read and understand Program Guidelines and Procedures Manual o Keep notes and emails on the activity of your projects in your project file for Audits o Actively coordinate the resolution of problems causing project delays or threaten HBP participation o Truth in Programming • Milestones •Cost o Be Prepared to bring Local $$ to the table "' July 11, 2017 • 7 Bighway Bridge Program 101 CONTACTS o Eileen Crawford-916-653-57 40 • Eileen.crawford@dot.ca.gov o Reza Fereshtehnejad -916-651-6876 • reza.fereshtehnejad@dot.ca.gov o Linda Newton -916-651-0022 • linda.newton@dot.ca.gov o http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/Loca!Programs/hbrr99/hbrr99a.htm • Questions? • • July 11, 2017 8 Division of Local Assistance -Office Bulletin Office of Bridge and Safety Programs DLA-OB-10-01 • Issued -January 19, 2010 \ .... }J Expires -Upon Issuance of LP P Highway Bridge Programming FTIP Procedures I. BACKGROUND Chapter 6, Highway Bridge Program, Local Assistance Program Guidelines, defines eligibility requirements and high level programming instructions. These procedures provide additional detail for compliance with the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) regulations implemented under the federal Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users (SAFETEA-LU). This Office Bulletin also addresses programming priorities for California's ongoing bridge seismic retrofit program. Detailed information on the general FTIP process can be found on the Department's Division of Transportation Programming web site: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ II. POLICY Department and California Transportation Commission (CTC) policy is to maximize the use of federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP) funds. CTC Resolution LBSlB-G-0708 establishes the Proposition lB Seismic Program as the top priority for programming HBP funds. It is CTC's intent that the Department also program funds for the bridge inspection program and critical safety non-seismic projects. Bridges with serious structural deficiencies are also a top priority for funding. The statewide program list will be prioritized based on a ranking policy in compliance with federal regulations and developed in cooperation with the Local Assistance Highway Bridge Program Advisory Committee. The HBP will be programmed consistent with the delivery schedule for Proposition lB seismic projects provided by local agencies constrained by available federal funds. These procedures will provide a basis for fully utilizing HBP funds and obtaining the policy goals of the HBP through the federal transportation programming process. III. PROGRAMMING TOOLS TO ADVANCE PROJECTS Expedited Project Selection Procedures (EPSP) allow any project programmed in the 4 year element of the FTIP to be advanced (obligated/authorized) provided Obligational Authority (OA) and apportionment are available to fund the project and programming capacity is made available in the year of obligation of funds. For the local assistance federal HBP, EPSP is managed by the Office of Bridge and Safety Programs (OBSP). Post-programming changes are changes to phases of work that have already been authorized/obligated and require additional funds. No pre-approved FTIP amendment is required to obligate additional funds for a post-programming change provided there is no scope change to the project. Post programming changes must be reflected in future FTIP amendments Page 1of4 Filename: 2010_01_19 HBPl Office Bulletin.doc Prepared by: [EBost] '' .,, ~ Division of Local Assistance -Office Bulletin Office of Bridge and Safety Programs DLA-OB-10-01 I.iii·~ Issued-January 19, 2010 ,\. ''-~ to ensure that the FTIP always reflects total project costs and is financially constrained. Post programming changes are subject to approval of the OBSP. 1) Expedited Project Selection Procedures (EPSP) and Post Programming Policy: a. Due to limited federal funds, funds programmed in the current year of the FTIP will be reserved specifically for the projects in the current year of the FTIP. These funds will be held in reserve until March 30th of any given year. b. Effective October 1st of every year, EPSP and post programming changes will be suspended for all projects, unless otherwise approved by the OBSP. Exceptions will be granted provided there will be no impact to the delivery of current year programmed projects. The Department will try to hold back a reserve of unprogrammed capacity each year to fund CCOs, cost overruns, and other mid- phase cost increases to help ensure smooth project development activities. 2) Advancing non Proposition lB Seismic Projects (other HBP projects) a. "Advancing" means obligating funds on a project where the funds are not programmed in the current year of the FTIP. b. If there is schedule slippage or savings in current year programmed projects, and no Proposition lB Seismic projects can be advanced to use current year funds, the Department will make HBP funds available to other HBP funded bridge projects programmed in future years within the 4 year element of the FTIP. c. The priority for programming federal HBP funds will be based on having a complete request for authorization package in the possession of the Caltrans District Local Assistance Engineer (DLAE), the type of work, the deficiencies with the bridge, and having approved scopes of work. IV. IMPLEMENTATION 1) At the beginning of every FTIP cycle, the FTIP (all years) will be programmed to reflect the most current cost and schedule data for the Proposition lB Seismic projects. Safety non- seismic bridge projects may also be programmed based upon the Department's project ranking policy. Financially constrained program lists can be found on the Local Assistance web site: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hg/LocalPrograms/programlnformation.htm Note that these program lists are not the FTIP. These lists are input for the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) used to program the FTIP. 2) The DLAEs shall date stamp every seismic and non-seismic Request for Authorization (RFA) (all phases) when the DLAE determines the package is complete and ready to obligate. The DLAE shall update the FileMaker HBP programming database with the revised funds and schedule in the current year of the FTIP. The date stamp shall be keyed into the FileMaker HBP programming database when funds cannot be obligated due to problems including but not limited to scope issues, delays in modifying the FTIP, or if the Page 2 of 4 Filename: 2010_01_19 HBPl Office Bulletin.doc Prepared by: [EBost] Division of Local Assistance -Office Bulletin Office of Bridge and Safety Programs DLA-OB-10-01 Issued-January 19, 2010 project phase is programmed in a future year. The DLAEs should not transmit the RFA for obligation until scope and FfIP issues are resolved. 3) Post programming changes for construction phase for HBP or seismic projects must be elevated to OBSP for funding approval as soon as the DLAE has reviewed the Request for Authorization (RFA) package for completeness. The Exhibit 6D, justification for cost increase, must be provided. The DLAE must sign the Exhibit 6D recommending approval (normal procedures). 4) Beginning in January of every year and completed on February 15th of every year: a) The OBSP will review the quarterly status updates that local agencies are required to maintain through the LA-ODIS database. This review will flag which seismic projects in the current year cannot be delivered and which seismic projects can be advanced. b) The DLAEs will review projects programmed in the current year to evaluate if the project phases programmed can potentially be delivered. DLAEs, depending on staff resources, may need to coordinate with Local Agencies to ensure request for authorization packages are being developed. c) The DLAEs will maintain the "ready to advertise" or "nearly ready to advertise" flags in the HBP FileMaker database. These flags impact a project's prioritization and must be maintained by the DLAE. d) The OBSP will select the projects ready to obligate for inclusion into the FfIP, if needed, or for funding projects advanced under EPSP or post programming changes. 5) Revised program lists may be released to the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) on March 30th of every year to ensure all current year federal funds are obligated. These lists would advance projects outside the 4 year element of the FfIP so the projects could be obligated by September 301h of the current year, provided OA and apportionment are available at that time. 6) After March 30th of every year, EPSP and post-programming procedures will be implemented for all projects funded in the 4 year element of the FfIP until federal apportionment or OA is exhausted. Some reserves may be held if there were delays in processing FflP amendments based on the previous October program lists. The OBSP will review this situation on a case by case basis. 7) Starting in July of each year, the DLAEs will survey their local agencies for next year's needs. The surveys will be provided by the OBSP to the DLAEs. The FileMaker database must be updated by DLAEs by the end of September. The Office of Bridge and Safety Programs will release new statewide program lists to the MPOs for inclusion into the FflP by the end of October of each year. Page3 of 4 ,. ,.__,.... Filename: 2010_01_19 HBPl Office Bulletin.doc Prepared by: [EBost] Division of Local Assistance -Office Bulletin Office of Bridge and Safety Programs .tii ..... DLA-OB-10-01 \ .• ,, Issued -January 19, 2010 '/ ,_,... V. SUMMARY OF PROCESS Start End Responsible Party Comments Oct. 1st. March 30th OBSP EPSP, Post-Programming changes suspended, unless annroved bv OBSP. Jan. 1st. Feb. 15th OBSP Review IA-ODIS for project slippage/advancement Jan. 1st. Feb. 15th DIAE DiAEs review current year programmed projects, renrogram funds in FileMaker database as needed. Feb.15th March 30th OBSP OBSP determines if new statewide program lists need to be developed and released to regions. March 30th Sept. 30th OBSP EPSP, Post-programming changes enabled. Funds obligated until balances are zero. Statewide program lists should be sent to MPOs if needed. July 1st. Sept. 30th DIAE DIAEs survey local agencies for next year's needs amd update HBP database. OBSP provides DIAE with survev forms. Oct. 1st. Oct. 30th OBSP New program lists developed and released to MPOs to amend their FflPs. VI. APPLICABILITY/IMPACTS This Office Bulletin applies to local assistance bridge projects funded through the federal Highway Bridge Program (23USC144) as authorized by Streets and Highways Code 2400 -2414, 179 -179.3. This policy/procedure is subject to annual review and recommendation of the Local Assistance Highway Bridge Program Advisory Committee. Members include the Department (Chair), representatives from the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, the California Association of Council of Governments, California Transportation Commission staff, and Federal Highway Administration. Recommended: Original Signed by Eric Bost on 1/19/2010 Eric Bost, PE, Statewide HBP Coordinator Date Approved:.~~~~~O=.:..ri~g~in=a~l~S~ig~n=e=d~b~y_Y.=.=in~-~P=in~g~L=i~o=n.:..=1/~1~9~12~0=1=0~~~~~~~~~~ Yin-Ping Li, PE Date Chief, Office of Bridge and Safety Programs Attachments: None. Page 4 of 4 Filename: 2010_01_19 HBPl Office Bulletin.doc Prepared by: [EBost] Division of Local Assistance -Office Bulletin Office of Bridge and Safety Programs DLA-OB-11-01 ~.. · Issued -February 24, 2011 f-~.. ~ . ... .... Expires --Upon Issuance of LPP Local Assistance Highway Bridge Program Project Prioritization Policy I. BACKGROUND This Office Bulletin replaces Office Bulletin 10-02 and adds a rank to prioritize Bridge Preventive Maintenance Plans relative to other projects in the local assistance Highway Bridge Program (HBP). This Office Bulletin also provides guidance on when individually listed projects in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) should have construction programmed in the 4 year element of the FTIP. This document provides policy and procedures for compliance with the federal HBP regulations relating to project prioritization implemented under the federal Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users (SAFETEA-LU). Relevant regulations from the Code of Regulations for Title 23: § 650.409 Evaluation of Bridge Inventory. (a) Sufficiency rating of bridges. Upon receipt and evaluation of the bridge inventory, a sufficiency rating will be assigned to each bridge by the Secretary in accordance with the approved AASIITO sufficiency rating formula. The sufficiency rating will be used as a basis for establishing eligibility and priority for replacement or rehabilitation of bridges; in general the lower the rating, the higher the priority. § 650.411 Procedures for Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Projects. (a) Consideration shall be given to projects which will remove from service highway bridges most in danger of failure. (b) Submission and approval of projects. (1) Bridge replacement or rehabilitation projects shall be submitted by the State to the Secretary in accordance with 23 CFR part 630, subpart A Federal-Aid Programs, Approval and Authorization. (2) Funds apportioned to a State shall be made available throughout each State on a fair and equitable basis. II. POLICY California Transportation Commission (CTC) Resolution LBSlB-G-0708 establishes the Proposition lB Seismic Program as the top priority for programming HBP funds. It is CTC's intent that the Department also program funds for the bridge inspection program and critical safety non-seismic projects. Bridges with serious structural deficiencies are also a top priority for funding. The ranks below will be used to determine funding priorities for developing the Highway Bridge Program lists. After projects are prioritized and funds reserved, the Department submits the financially constrained program lists to the Metropolitan Plan Organizations (MPOs) for inclusion into the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). The lowest number rank is the highest priority. Within each rank the projects are sorted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASIITO) Sufficiency Rating (SR) to reflect the general condition of the bridge. The lowest SR is the highest priority. Page 1of4 Filename: 2011_2_23 HBPrank2 Office Bulletin.docx Prepared by: [EBost] Division of Local Assistance -Office Bulletin Office of Bridge and Safety Programs DLA-OB-11-01 ,. Issued -February 24, 2011 \' ~ ... _,... Preliminary Engineering (PE) (including final design) and Right of Way (R/W) phases for all projects, subject to budgetary constraints, will be funded to keep projects moving in the delivery pipeline. This means that lower ranked projects will have PE and R/W funded even though construction may be pushed out of the 4 year element of the FTIP. When these projects are ready for construction authorization, the ranking system will allow these projects to receive a high priority for construction programming within updated statewide program lists. RANKO: 1. This is not technically a priority rank. All projects with HBP funds obligated for construction will fall in this rank for listing purposes only. These projects cannot be pushed out of the 4 year element of the FTIP because funds have been obligated for construction. 2. Local funded Advance Construction (AC) projects not subject to cash management commitments. Local funded AC conversion can be converted to HBP funds when programming capacity is available. RANKlA: 1. For the general support of the federally mandated bridge inspection program, including the development of scour plans of action. RANKlB: 1. Projects are ready to advertise AND; 2. Are critical HBP funded rehab/replacement projects. These bridges must have major structural deficiencies causing the bridge to be posted or closed. The National Bridge Inventory (NBI) data item 41 must be coded B, D, E, K, P, or R. RANKlC: 1. Cash managed projects with future AC conversion commitments by the Department. Projects may or may not be ready to advertise. Federal HBP funding commitments are on a case by case approved by the Department. RANKlD: 1. Projects are ready to advertise AND; 2. Are Proposition lB seismic funded projects or; 3. Are scour countermeasure projects or rehab/replacement of scour critical bridges (NBI item 113<=3) or are Functionally Obsolete (FO) due to overtopping (NBI item 71 <= 3). RANKlE: 1. All other projects ready to advertise. RANK 2A: Bridge Preventive Maintenance Plans (BPMPs) 1. BPMPs are grouped listing of bridges that need Preventive Maintenance (PM) work. The programming reflects projects in various stages of development. This means that construction funds are distributed over multiple years based on how projects are actually awarded. Stand alone PM projects not part of a BPMP are excluded from this rank and will be treated like rehabilitation projects. Page 2 of 4 Filename: 2011_2_23 HBPrank2 Office Bulletin.docx Prepared by: [EBost] Division of Local As~ista~ce :: dtr.Je' Bulletin'. Office of Bridge and Safety Programs RANK 2B: Individually Listed Projects with Construction in the 4 Year Element of the FTIP. 1. High priority regionally significant or non air quality exempt (line item) projects that are not subject to cash management. Construction funding year is determined based on readiness to deliver and subject to Department case by case review. This rank highlights the sensitivities in rescheduling projects impacting regional air quality conformity determinations. 2. In the event of construction schedule slippage, the Department may push the project funding in the FfIP a minimum of two years out, after consultation with the MPO. If no programming capacity can be found, the project will need to be pushed out until the next FfIP cycle. Local agencies will be required to program local funded Advance Construction (AC) if the project is only slipping one year or the HBP cannot afford to fund the project according to the new project schedule. Local agencies will need to work with their MPOs/RTPAs to ensure the AC is programmed correctly in the FfIP. 3. If NEPA or R/W is not clear and R/W includes lengthy property acquisition, the construction funding should be pushed outside the 4 year element of the FfIP. RANK 3: All projects NEARLY ready to advertise within six months of a new reprioritized program list being generated. Rank 3A parallels Rank lB, Rank 3B parallels Rank lD, and Rank 3C parallels Rank lE. RANK4: 1. Projects are not ready to advertise. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents and R/W are not clear. Bridge must have major structural deficiencies causing the bridge to be posted or closed. NBI data item 41 must be coded B, D, E, K, P,orR. RANKS: 1. Includes Proposition lB seismic projects that are not ready to advertise. NEPA and R/W are not clear. 2. Includes scour countermeasure projects and rehab/replacement of scour critical bridges (NBI item 113<=3) or are FO due to overtopping (NBI item 71 <=3) and that are not ready to advertise. NEPA and R/W are not clear. RANK6: 1. All types of projects with State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) matching funds or other federal Regional Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds for enhanced project scopes. Projects are not ready to advertise. NEPA and R/W are not clear. 2. Voluntary seismic projects (no Proposition lB seismic involvement). Projects are not ready to advertise. NEPA and R/W are not clear. RANK7: 1. General bridge rehabilitation/replacement and other stand-alone scopes of work defined in Section 6.2 of the HBP Guidelines, including stand alone preventive maintenance projects. Projects are not ready to advertise. NEPA and R/W are not clear. Page 3 of 4 Filename: 2011_2_23 HBPrank2 Office Bulletin.docx Prepared by: [EBost] Division of Local Assistance • Office Bulletin Office of Bridge and Safety Programs DLA-OB-11-01 .; Issued -February 24, 2011 ~ v '-~ III. PROCEDURE These priority ranks will be applied to projects to financially constrain any program list needed to update the FfIP. District Local Assistance Engineers (DIAEs) are responsible for maintaining fields in the HBP FileMaker database that indicate a project's readiness to advertise. Local Agencies are responsible for closely coordinating with the DLAE on project status, schedule, and estimates as documented in Sections 6.7.1 and 6.9.1 of the HBP Guidelines. IV. APPLICABILITY/IMPACTS This Office Bulletin applies to local assistance bridge projects funded through the federal Highway Bridge Program (23USC144) as authorized by Streets and Highways Code 2400-2414, 179-179.3. This policy/procedure is subject to annual review and recommendation of the Local Assistance Highway Bridge Program Advisory Committee. Members include representatives from the Department (chair), the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, the California Association of Council of Governments, California Transportation Commission staff, and Federal Highway Administration. Original Signed By Recommended: ____________ _ Eric Bost, PE, Statewide HBP Coordinator Approved: Original Signed By Yin-Ping Li, PE Chief, Office of Bridge and Safety Programs Attachments: None. Page 4 of 4 Filename: 2011_2_23 HBPrank2 Office Bulletin.docx 2/24/2011 Date 2/24/2011 Date Prepared by: [EBost] 'Division of Loc~I As~istance -Office Bulletin Office of Bridge and Safety Programs Local Assistance Highway Bridge Program DLA-OB-11-02 Issued -February 24, 2011 Expires -Upon Issuance of LPP High Cost Projects Programming Policy and Procedures I. BACKGROUND Chapter 6, Highway Bridge Program (HBP), Local Assistance Program Guidelines, defines eligibility requirements and high level programming instructions. Office Bulletin DLA-OB-10- 01 establishes procedures for programming the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) in compliance with federal regulations. This Office Bulletin establishes policy and procedures to program high cost HBP funded projects. This Office Bulletin also replaces Section 6.2.11, High Cost Bridge Projects, Chapter 6, Highway Bridge Program, Local Assistance Program Guidelines. II. POLICY 1) Federal code, 23USC(144)G) states, "Sums apportioned to a State under this section shall be made available for obligation throughout such State on a fair and equitable basis." Allowing several very large projects to consume all HBP funds in one year would not be fair and would idle large sums of federal funds. The State will administer the HBP in a fair and equitable basis throughout the State of California. 2) The Department, Cities, and Counties, authorized under Streets and Highways Code Section 2400-2414 are required to fully utilize HBP funds to expedite projects. 3) High cost projects are defined as projects with construction or Right-of-Way (R/W) total costs in excess of $20 million. 4) It has been demonstrated that high cost projects commit large sums of federal funds but cannot spend the funds in one year due to local agency contract processes, time to mobilize the contractors and the time it takes to actually construct large projects. These idled federal funds could be used to advance other projects. Cash management is critical to effective stewardship of the local assistance HBP. III. IMPLEMENTATION 1) Upon approval of this Office Bulletin, the Department will identify the high cost projects and make contact with the project sponsors to explain this Office Bulletin and secure funding commitments consistent with this Office Bulletin. 2) A funding commitment letter will be issued when a high cost phase (RJW or Construction) of work needs to be programmed in the 4 year element of the FTIP or as needed for a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) required High Profile Project Financial Plan. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and RJW clearance along with status of the Plans Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) package will play a role in determining the need for the funding commitment letter. 3) The Department will issue a funding commitment letter (Exhibit A), and associated funding sheet (Exhibit B) to the local agency for a high cost project that commits the Department, subject to state and federal budget legislation and other limitations, to specify HBP funds in the FTIP over a multiple year period. The Department will program HBP funds in the FTIP after the local agency executes the Advance Construction (AC) Commitment Block included in Exhibit A. Page 1 of3 • _...., Filename: 2011_02_23 HBPHighCost Office Bulletin.docx Prepared by: [EBost] Division of Local Assistance -Office Bulletin Office of Bridge and Safety Programs DLA-OB-11-02, Issued -February 24, 2011 ·\. 4) Local agencies will need to secure the availability of local funds (budget authority) to back the AC commitment. 5) Local agencies that cannot obtain a source of local funds for AC will not have construction (or high cost R/W) programmed within the 4 year element of the FfIP using HBP funds. These agencies may appeal this policy and request a meeting with the Department to review the specific situation. Members of the Local Assistance Highway Bridge Program Advisory Committee (Committee) representing the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties (Streets and Highway Code Section 2413) may be invited to the meeting to offer advice to the Department on implementing the policy defined in this Office Bulletin as applied to the project in question. 6) The sum of cash managed high cost projects in any Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) should not exceed 50% of the annual revenue for that federal sub-apportionment for which the project is eligible without concurrence from the Local Assistance Highway Bridge Program Advisory Committee. 7) Funds allocated to a project for AC conversion should not exceed $20 million per year without concurrence from the Committee. 8) High Cost projects shall not be accepted into the local assistance HBP if all (including high cost projects) projects cannot be funded over a 20 year period. If the project is not accepted into the local assistance HBP, local agencies have the option of proceeding with their own funds using AC, but the Department will not budget the project(s) for AC conversion using HBP funds. 9) AC conversion in the year programmed will not be obligated unless at least 50% of the prior years' federal funds have been invoiced. This keeps the federal funds available to advance other projects that could be delivered. 10) In reference to Office Bulletin DLA-OB-10-01 which establishes procedures for programming the FTIP, the advancement of future year AC conversion using Expedited Project Selection Procedures (EPSP), for high cost projects will be after April 15th of each year instead of after March 30th. This will provide smaller projects programmed in future years the opportunity to advance before the high cost projects use up available HBP funds. After April 15th of any year, conversion of AC for high cost projects will be prioritized and prorated as follows: a. High Cost Projects with eligible costs that could be immediately reimbursed with AC conversion will be first priority for conversion and proration will be based on outstanding reimbursable expenditures. b. Second priority will be advancing AC conversion amongst the high cost projects with remaining AC even if there are no project expenditures that could be immediately reimbursed. Page 2 of3 -- Filename: 2011_02_23 HBPHighCost Office Bulletin.docx Prepared by: [EBost] Division of Local Assistancer Office Bulletin 'Office of Bridge and S~fety Programs · DLA-OB.-11-02 ~ •. Issued -February 24, 2011 (_.,.,ri c. Depending on current year delivery of the HBP and other local assistance programs, the Department may delay AC conversion of eligible projects in paragraphs III(lO)(a) and (b) to a later date. IV. APPLICABILITY /IMPACTS This Office Bulletin applies to local assistance bridge projects funded through the federal Highway Bridge Program (23USC144) as authorized by Streets and Highways Code 2400-2414, 179-179.3. This policy/procedure is subject to annual review and recommendation of the Committee. Members include the Department (Chair), representatives from the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, the California Association of Councils of Governments, California Transportation Commission staff, and the FHW A. Original Signed By Eric Bost, PE, Statewide HBP Coordinator Approved: Original Signed By Yin-Ping Li, PE Chief, Office of Bridge and Safety Programs Attachments: Exhibit A: Sample Funding Commitment Letter Exhibit B: Sample funding sheet for use in Exhibit A Page 3 of3 Filename: 2011_02_23 HBPHighCost Office Bulletin.docx 2/24/2011 Date 2/24/2011 Date Prepared by: [EBost] STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY Exhibit A: Sample Funding Commitment Letter EDMUND G. BROWN Jr .. Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF LOCAL ASSISTANCE -M.S. 1 1120 N STREET P. 0. BOX 942874 SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001 Flex your power! PHONE (916) Be energy efficient! FAX (916) TIY 711 Dear Public Works Director, Date: FfIP/FSTIP ID: Federal Aid Project Number Project Description The purpose of this letter is to commit the California Department of Transportation (Department) to fund the {fill in} bridge project (Project) consistent with the attached draft project funding sheets. The Department requests the {fill in} (Agency) to concur with this proposal and commit local resources to allow the Department to produce a new financially constrained Program list for the {MPO name} region. The {MPO} will then incorporate the revised Program list into the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FfIP). The Department, in cooperation with the Local Assistance Highway Bridge Program (HBP) Advisory Committee (California Streets & Highway Code Section 2413), has implemented a policy (Office Bulletin 11-02) to fund high cost projects. Members of Local Assistance HBP Advisory Committee include the Department (Chair), representatives from the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, the California Association of Councils of Governments, California Transportation Commission staff, and the Federal Highway Administration. It has been demonstrated that high cost projects commit large sums of federal funds but cannot spend the funds in one year due to local agency contract processes, time to mobilize the contractors and the time it takes to actually construct large projects. These idled federal funds could be used to advance other projects. Cash management is critical to effective stewardship of the local assistance HBP. This letter implements the cash management policy for the Project. The Project is subject to the high cost policy because the {Right of Way (RIW) or Construction, specify} phase exceeds $20 million. The Department's funding commitments, as shown in the attached draft project funding sheet, are conditional. The conditions are as follows: 1. Agency is responsible for committing (budgetary) non-federal fund sources to fund the Advance Constructi<;m (AC) to cash flow the high cost phase of the Project. Date: Page 2of3 ,,' ' Exhibit A: Sample Funding Commitment Letter FI'IP /FSTIP ID: Federal Aid Project Number: Project Description: 2. AC conversion may not be automatic if there are delays in constructing the Project. At least 50% of the federal funds obligated on the Project must be spent to justify future programmed AC conversion. 3. Office Bulletin 10-01 authorizes the Department to reserve current year HBP funds for projects programmed in that current year through March 30th. After March 30th, Department redirects the HBP funds to other projects that may be advanced from future years of the FI'IP. Current year programmed AC conversion must be obligated prior to March 30th. 4. Additional AC conversion may be obligated in {specify FFYs} using Expedited Project Selection Procedures (EPSP), if HBP funds are available after April 151h of each year. 5. Proposition lB bond funds, Local Bridge Seismic Retrofit Account, matching funds may only be encumbered on the project when matching federal funds are obligated on the Project as shown in the attached draft project funding sheets. 6. Congress has not yet authorized a new transportation act. It is unknown what the State's authority to commit and/or obligate future HBP funds will be until there is a new act. 7. If the federal funds for the initial authorization of {R/W or Construction, specify} phase shown in the attached draft project funding sheets is not obligated in the year programmed, the Agency must commit additional local AC resources on the project in the following year to ensure the Project is fully funded or the project must be removed from the 4 year element of the FI'IP until the next FI'IP cycle. In either case, the funding commitment in this letter will be vacated and a new letter must be developed. 8. In the event the Project becomes inactive, the funding commitment in this letter may be vacated and a new a new letter must be developed. An "inactive project" is a project for which no expenditures have been charged against federal funds for the past 12 months. (23CFR630.106( a)( 5)) 9. Nothing in this letter can be considered a payable contractual commitment by the Department. Contractual commitments to the Agency are made through the procedures/processes defined in the Local Assistance Procedures Manual. Other Recommendations: 10. The Agency is advised to ensure HBP funds are obligated prior to March 301h of any given year or risk losing programmed funds. It is recommended the Agency schedule project authorizations and AC conversions in the late fall of any given year to ensure federal funds are available. 11. This letter, returned to the District Local Assistance Engineer (DLAE), with Agency approval signature (below) may be used in lieu of the submittal of Exhibit 3-I, Request 2011_02_22 ExhibitA HBP HighCostLetter.docx Date: Page 3of3 Exhibit A: Sample Funding Commitment Letter FfIP/FSTIP ID: Federal Aid Project Number: Project Description: for Local Advance Construction Authorization, from the Local Assistance Procedures Manual. 12. The local agency is further reminded that this project is subject to mandatory value analysis since the total project cost is in excess of $20 million. If the total project cost is greater than $100 million, additional federal oversight will be required such as a multi- year financial plan and other project specific federally mandated oversight. The Department requests the Agency to commit their local resources consistent with this proposal to allow the Department to produce a new financially constrained bridge program list for the {MPO} region. In the event the Agency cannot commit local funds to cash manage the Project, the Agency may request a meeting with the Department to appeal this policy. If you have questions, please contact ____ _ Sincerely, DLAE Local Agency AC Commitment Block {Specify Federal Aid Project Number} The Agency agrees to use local funds in lieu of federal funds to finance the cost of work as shown in the attached draft project funding sheets shown as LOCAL FUNDED AC until such time that federal funds become available for obligation and subsequent reimbursement of eligible work. It also is understood that federal reimbursement is not guaranteed for funds identified as LOCAL FUNDED AC. The Agency understands that work performed prior to federal authorization is ineligible for federal reimbursement and that advertising the construction contract prior to federal authorization will deem the construction and construction phases of work ineligible for federal funds. Local Agency Representative Authorized to Commit Local Funds Date Title 2011_02_22 ExhibitA HBP HighCostLetter.docx Exhibit B: Sample funding sheet for use in Exhibit A. FOR DRAFT REVIEW ONLY ---2008/9-2013/14 Highway Bridge Program 10/4/2010, 5:17 PM Notes: 1) MPOs/RTPA's must not use this listing. 2) This is NOT an approved listing for use in developing the FTIP/FSTIP. See the HBP web site for the official proposed FTIP/FSTIP program listings: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/ Note id: 18 Exhibit B: Sample funding sheet for use in Exhibit A. FOR DRAFT REVIEW ONLY ---2008/9-2013/14 Highway Bridge Program District: 50 County: Sample County Location Responsible Agency HBP-10 Project Description Sample Responsible Local Agency 3715 Sample High Cost Project: Replace 2 lane bridge with 6 lane bridge, on Sample Road, between Example Dr. and Fictitious Ave. Fed Proj: BRLS-0268(001) Phase Summary: Prior 8/9 9/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 Beyond Total PE 7,000,000 7,000,000 RMJ 7,000,000 7,000,000 CON 85,000,000 85,000,000 Total 7,000,000 7,000,000 85,000,000 99,000,000 Fund Source Summary: Prior 8/9 9/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 Beyond Total Fed$ 6,197,100 6,197,100 5,710, 185 20,000,000 20,000,000 29,540,315 87,644,700 Local Match 802,900 802,900 9,749,500 11,355,300 LSSRP Bond Local AC 69,540,315 -20,000,000 -20,000,000 -29,540,315 -0 Total 7,000,000 7,000,000 85,000,000 99,000,000 PE Summary: Prior 8/9 9/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 Beyond Total Fed$ 6,197,100 6,197,100 Local Match 802,900 802,900 LSSRP Bond Local AC Total 7,000,000 7,000,000 R/W Summary: Prior 8/9 9/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 Beyond Total Fed$ 6,197,100 6,197,100 Local Match 802,900 802,900 LSSRP Bond Local AC Total 7,000,000 7,000,000 CON Summary: Prior 8/9 9/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 Beyond Total Fed$ 5,710,185 20,000,000 20,000,000 29,540,315 75,250,500 Local Match 9,749,500 9,749,500 LSSRP Bond Local AC 69,540,315 -20,000,000 -20,000,000 -29,540,315 -0 Total 85,000,000 85,000,000 Caltrans, Division of Local Assistance 10/4/2010, 5:17 PM Det2 FL4 SmlTxt brf Page 2 Division of Local Assistance -Office Bulletin Office of Bridge, Bond, and Safety Programs ~~ .. OBJS-04-Local Assistance HBP ~ • .-:-~. · · · ; / 1'! Bridge Investment Credit ~ ~· . ' '-~ I. PURPOSE Local Assistance Highway Bridge Program Bridge Investment Credit (BIC) Issued -November 04, 2015 Expires -Upon Issua,,ce of LPP ~ Federal-aid Highway funds provides valuable financial resources to local agencies in making improvements to transportation facilities on the local roads. Federal funding also comes with many requirements that need to be met in carrying out a project. Ideally, the most efficient use of federal funds is to maximize federal funds on fewer, larger projects, funding smaller projects with non- federal funding sources, such as local funds. The Bridge Investment Credit (BIC) is a new element in the Highway Bridge Program (HBP) aimed at encouraging local agencies to invest in making improvements to bridges on local roads using local or other non-federal funds and receive credit to use as match funds for future HBP projects. The purpose of this Office Bulletin is to provide instructions on the Bridge Investment Credit (BIC), available to local agencies using Highway Bridge Program (HBP) funding. The BIC allows local agencies to replace, rehabilitate, and do preventive maintenance work on HBP eligible bridges using local funds, then receive credit for up to 100 percent of the eligible work. The credit, in turn, serves as the required non-Federal match for a future local Federal-Aid bridge project. HBP is a safety program that provides federal-aid to local agencies to do preventive maintenance work, rehabilitate, or replace deficient locally owned public highway bridges. For general HBP eligibility requirements, refer to Chapter 6, Local Assistance Highway Bridge Program Guidelines, and the Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program (BPMP) Guidelines for Local Agencies, available on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Local Assistance web site: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/Loca1Programs/hbrr99/hbrr99a.htm II. ELIGIBILITY To be eligible for BIC, a bridge must meet the current eligibility criteria for HBP as outlined in the current bridge Preventive Maintenance Program Guidelines and Chapter 6 of Local Assistance Program Guidelines. The only exception is that low water crossings are not eligible to earn credits with the BIC. Eligible HBP projects determined to be noncontroversial (meaning that it has minimal environmental impacts) and preventive maintenance projects are the best candidates to be funded by local agencies under this program. Eligible HBP projects that local agencies choose to design and build with local funds do not need to comply with Federal requirements (such as consultant selection procedures, National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), etc.), however the project must meet current minimum AASHTO design standards with the California amendments to receive credit. Filename: obl5-04_ob_pdf Page 1 of3 Division of Local Assistance -Office Bulletin Office of Bridge, Bond, and Safety Programs III. PROJECT PROGRAMMING FOR BANKING BIC: DLA-OB 15-04 -Local Assistance HBP Bridge Investment Credit Issued -November 04, 2015 Local agencies using local funds on an eligible HBP project to earn credits under the BIC must submit an Exhibit 6-A which clearly defines scope and cost of the project. For BPMP's they must submit a certification letter and a BPMP plan. Cost on the submitted exhibits should be 100% local funds. Caltrans approval of scope and cost for the BIC program is required prior to commencing work. If scope and cost is approved, the project will be programmed in the HBP database with 100% local funds. IV. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION FOR BANKING BIC: The project sponsor is responsible for following all the applicable state and local laws and requirements in designing and constructing the project. Upon completion of the project, project sponsor must submit documentation including final project cost and as-builts to Caltrans. Caltrans will review the documentation and may field review the completed project to confirm it was constructed in accordance with all applicable standards and to the approved scope. Caltrans will approve the credit as it was originally requested or as shown in the final project cost whichever is lower. Upward cost adjustment is not allowed. Credit will be banked at the completion of the project and the sponsor notified. V. PROJECT PROGRAMMING FOR USING BIC Local agencies may apply to use their banked BIC to cover their local match for any phase of a HBP eligible project as long as their banked credit is 200% of required local match for Preliminary Engineering (PE) and Right of Way (R/W) and 125% of required local match for Construction (CON) at the time of obligation. The higher percentages are required to ensure that there are enough credits to cover cost increases and scope changes. As for any other HBP project, project sponsor must submit an Exhibit 6-A which clearly defines scope and cost of the project. Cost on the submitted exhibit should be 100% federal funds. In addition to the Exhibit 6-A project sponsor must provide a letter requesting their banked credit be applied to the phase or phases of the project that they want funded at 100% federal funds. The letter should include a table showing available credit and deduction based on the percentages mentioned above. Caltrans approval of scope and cost for the BIC program is required prior to programming the project. When scope and cost is approved, and if the available credit is sufficient, the project will be programmed in the HBP database with 100% federal funds for the appropriate phase(s). VI. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION FOR USING BIC Project administration for bridges using banked BIC to cover the required local match is the same as any other HBP project except the reimbursement ratio will be at 100% federal. Since federal funds are involved all the applicable federal, state, and local laws and requirements in designing and constructing the project must be followed. When the project completion paperwork is submitted to Caltrans, a reconciliation of the credit balance will be done based on the final invoice and the project sponsor notified. Filename:obl5-04_ob_pdf Page 2 of3 Division of Local Assistance -Office Bulletin Office of Bridge, Bcmd, and Safety Programs 'Dl,,J4-0B 15·04 -Local Assistance HBP · ~ · Bridge Investment Credit Approved: Approved: Original Signature Reza, Fereshtehnejad, Highway Bridge Program Manager Office of Policy Development & Quality Assurance Original Signature Robert Peterson, Chief Office of Bridge, Bond and Safety Attachments: Attachment 1 -Draft Bridge Investment Credit Concept Attachment 2 -Bridge Investment Credit Questions and Answers Issued -November 04, 2015 10/30/2015 Date 10/30/2015 Date Attachment 3 -Bridge Investment Credit (BIC) Draft Office Bulletin Comments and Questions form District and Local Agencies Filename: ob15-04_ob_pdf Page 3 of3 AGENDA ITEM 6 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 6. Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 19-A Construction Review Checklist (Preliminary) Page 1 of 4 July 2016 Exhibit 19-A Construction Review Checklist (Preliminary) Review Type: Preliminary A. PROJECT INFORMATION Date of Review: 1. Federal Aid Project No. : 2. District: 3. Agency: 4. Project Description: 5. Project Location: County: City: Street(s): 6. Project Type: 7. Funding Source(s): 8. Caltrans Reviewer(s): 9. Caltrans Construction Oversight Engineer: 10. Caltrans DLAE: 11. FHWA Participant(s) (if applicable): 12. Local Agency Participant(s): B. PROJECT STAFFING 1. Local Agency Employee in Responsible Charge of project: 2. Project Resident Engineer (RE): Does RE work for (check one): Local Agency or Consultant 3. Is RE a licensed PE: (Y/N) If yes, PE License No: 4. If not, who is the licensed PE who delegated this responsibility? Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 19-A Construction Review Checklist (Preliminary) Page 2 of 4 July 2016 5. If RE is a consultant, name of consultant firm: 6. Prime Contractor: C. CONTRACT INFORMATION FHWA Construction Authorization (E/76) Date: Engineer’s Estimate Amount (Bid Items Only): Alternative Contracting Method (Y/N): If yes, what method? (design-build, cost-plus-time (A+B), etc.) Advertising Date: Bid Opening Date: Award Date: Low Bid Amount: High Bid Amount: Contract Award Amount: Percentage over/under Engineer’s Estimate: No. of Bids: No. of competitive bids (No. of bids w/in 20% of low bid): Contract Time: Standard Working Days or Calendar Days Notice to Proceed Date: Estimated Date of First Working Day: Estimated Completion Date: 1. Has the Agency sent Caltrans the notice to proceed letter? (Y/N) 2. Has the agency sent Caltrans the award package? (Y/N) 3. Is the FHWA-1273 Contract Provisions form physically attached to the prime contractor signed construction contract? (Y/N) 4. Is the applicable federal minimum wage rate physically attached to the prime - contractor signed construction contract? (Y/N) 5. Did the agency perform, document, and file a bid analysis prior to project award? (Y/N) (Written Justification required for projects where lowest responsible bidder exceed engineer estimate by 10% or more) 6. If the lowest bidder exceed the engineer estimate by 10% or more, is written justification on file? (Y/N) 7. Is Local Agency Bidder DBE Commitment (Form 15-G) on file? (Y/N) 8. Is DBE Evaluation of GFE (Exhibit 9-E) on file? (Y/N) (Required when contract DBE goal is not met) Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 19-A Construction Review Checklist (Preliminary) Page 3 of 4 July 2016 Consultant Services Consultant Company Contract Type (Specific, On-Call) Consultant Selection Process & Agreement Documentation on File (Y/N) 9. Does the approved project PS&E include a TMP/TTC plan or provisions for the contractor to develop a plan? (Y/N) (TTC for projects that have less than significant work zone impacts) 10. Does the contract specify that the prime contractor must perform work equaling at least 30% of total bid? (Y/N) 11. Do the contract provision regarding payment of withheld funds to subcontractor s match the option selected on Exhibit 9-B, Local Agency DBE Annual Submittal Form? (Y/N) 12. Is the project Environmental Commitment Record (ECR) in the files? (Y/N) 13. Are liquidated damage provision included in the contract? (Y/N) 14. If yes, what is the dollar amount of liquidation damage per day? 15. Does the project contain incentive/disincentive provisions? (Y/N) 16. Are there any local agency furnished materials for this contract? (Y/N) 17. If yes, has the local agency included a Public Interest Finding (PIF) in the project records covering each local agency furnished material? (Y/N) 18. Where local agency furnished materials are used, has the local agency provided documentation showing a competitive process was used for procuring those materials? (Y/N) 19. Does the contract contain any sole source items? (Y/N) 20. If yes, has the local agency included a PIF in the project records covering each sole source item? (Y/N) 21. If no, has approved PIF and Certification, if applicable, emailed to Proprietary.PIF@dot.ca.gov and placed a copy I the project files? (Certification is required if product is essential for synchronization, on suitable alternative exists, or the product is for research/experimentation.) 22. Will the local agency be using consultant contracts for contract administration, materials testing, surveying, environmental monitoring or other facets in support of the contract? (Y/N) 23. Where consultant contracts will be utilized for the construction phases, identify the following information: Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 19-A Construction Review Checklist (Preliminary) Page 4 of 4 July 2016 24. Comments: D. WORK STATUS: Review taking place prior to first working day? (Y/N) If not, Percentage (%) of work completed & Percentage (%) of time completed? Pre-bid meeting held? (Y/N) If so, was the meeting Mandatory or Optional? Preconstruction conference held or to be held ? (Y/N) Estimated or actual date of preconstruction conference: Review of applicable detailed mid-project and after-acceptance project survey questions with RE? (Y/N) Mid-project review scheduled date: Follow up items for major deficiencies: Deficiency Description Course of Action Action Dates Local Agency Contact: Local Agency Contact Phone Number: E. SUMMARY Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 19-A Construction Review Checklist (Preliminary) Exhibit 19-A Construction Review Checklist (Preliminary) Review Type: Preliminary A. PROJECT INFORMATION Date of Review: 1. Federal Aid Project No. : 2. District: 3. Agency: 4. Project Description: 5. Project Location: County: City: Street(s): 6. Project Type: 7. Funding Source(s): 8. Caltrans Reviewer(s): 9. Caltrans Construction Oversight Engineer: 10. Caltrans DLAE: 11. FHWA Participant(s) (if applicable): 12. Local Agency Participant(s): B. PROJECT STAFFING 1. Local Agency Employee in Responsible Charge of project: 2. Project Resident Engineer (RE): Does RE work for (check one): D Local Agency or 3. Is RE a licensed PE: (Y /N) ~' --~ If yes, PE License No: 4. If not, who is the licensed PE who delegated this responsibility? D Consultant Page 1of4 July 2016 Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 19-A Construction Review Checklist (Preliminary) 5. If RE is a consultant, name of consultant firm: 6. Prime Contractor: C. CONTRACT INFORMATION FHWA Construction Authorization (E/76) Date: Engineer's Estimate Amount (Bid Items Only): Alternative Contracting Method (Y /N): If yes, what method? (design-build, cost-plus-time (A+B), etc.) ,____ __ , Advertising Date: ..... 1 ____ _.I Bid Opening Date: I.__ ____ __. Award Date: Low Bid Amount: I I High Bid Amount: I.__ ____ __. Contract Award Amount: I I Percentage over/under Engineer's Estimate: No. of Bids: I I Contract Time: D Notice to Proceed Date: Estimated Completion Date: No. of competitive bids (No. of bids w/in 20% of low bid): Standard Working Days D or Calendar Days D Estimated Date of First Working Day: 1. Has the Agency sent Caltrans the notice to proceed letter? (Y /N) 2. Has the agency sent Caltrans the award package? (Y /N) 3. Is the FHWA-1273 Contract Provisions form physically attached to the prime contractor signed construction contract? (Y/N) 4. Is the applicable federal minimum wage rate physically attached to the prime- contractor signed construction contract? (Y /N) 5. Did the agency perform, document, and file a bid analysis prior to project award? (Y /N) (Written Justification required for projects where lowest responsible bidder exceed engineer estimate by 10% or more) 6. If the lowest bidder exceed the engineer estimate by 10% or more, is written justification on file? (Y/N) 7. Is Local Agency Bidder DBE Commitment (Form 15-G) on file? (Y /N) 8. Is DBE Evaluation of GFE (Exhibit 9-E) on file? (Y/N) (Required when contract DBE goal is not met) Page 2 of 4 July 2016 I Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 19-A Construction Review Checklist (Preliminary) 9. Does the approved project PS&E include a TMP/TIC plan or provisions for the contractor to develop a plan? (V/N) (TIC for projects that have less than significant work zone impacts) 10. Does the contract specify that the prime contractor must perform work equaling at least 30% oftotal bid? (Y/N) 11. Do the contract provision regarding payment of withheld funds to subcontractors match the option selected on Exhibit 9-B, Local Agency DBE Annual Submittal Form? (V/N) 12. Is the project Environmental Commitment Record (ECR) in the files? (V/N) 13. Are liquidated damage provision included in the contract? (Y /N) 14. If yes, what is the dollar amount of liquidation damage per day? !.___ _ _______, 15. Does the project contain incentive/disincentive provisions? (V/N) 16. Are there any local agency furnished materials for this contract? (V/N) 17. If yes, has the local agency included a Public Interest Finding (PIF) in the project records covering each local agency furnished material? (Y/N) 18. Where local agency furnished materials are used, has the local agency provided documentation showing a competitive process was used for procuring those materials? (V/N) 19. Does the contract contain any sole source items? (Y/N) 20. If yes, has the local agency included a PIF in the project records covering each sole source item? (Y/N) 21. If no, has approved PIF and Certification, if applicable, emailed to Proprietary.PIF@dot.ca.gov and placed a copy I the project files? (Certification is required if product is essential for synchronization, on suitable alternative exists, or the product is for research/experimentation.) 22. Will the local agency be using consultant contracts for contract administration, materials testing, surveying, environmental monitoring or other facets in support of the contract? (V /N) 23. Where consultant contracts will be utilized for the construction phases, identify the following information: Consultant Services Consultant Company Contract Type Consultant Selection Process (Specific, On-Call) & Agreement Documentation on File (Y /N) Page 3 of 4 July 2016 Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 19-A Construction Review Checklist (Preliminary) 24. Comments: D. WORK STATUS: Review taking place prior to first working day? (Y/N) If not, Percentage (%) of work completed & Percentage (%)of time completed? Pre-bid meeting held? (Y/N) If so, was the meeting Mandatory or Optional? Preconstruction conference held or to be held? (Y/N) Estimated or actual date of preconstruction conference: Review of applicable detailed mid-project and after-acceptance project survey questions with RE? (Y/N) Mid-project review scheduled date: Follow up items for major deficiencies: Deficiency Description Course of Action Local Agency Contact: Local Agency Contact Phone Number: E. SUMMARY Action Dates Page 4 of 4 July 2016 AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 17, 2017 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Jillian Guizado, Senior Legislative Affairs Analyst Aaron Hake, External Affairs Director SUBJECT: Senate Bill 1 Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Senate Bill (SB) 1 (Beall) SB 1 was passed by both houses on April 6, 2017 and signed by Governor Brown on April 28, 2017. Also known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, SB 1 estimates over the next 10 years $26.575 billion will be allocated to local agencies and $25.895 billion will be allocated within the state for transportation purposes. In addition, it sets preliminary performance outcomes for state highway investments to ensure the existin g transportation system is brought into a state of good repair. Revenues raised by SB 1 come from the following sources:  12 cent gasoline excise tax increase and annual adjustment for inflation (starting November 2017)  Resets price-based excise tax on gasoline and annual adjustment for inflation (starting July 2019)  Transportation improvement fee on registered vehicles - ranges from $25 - $175 depending on vehicle value (starting Spring 2018)  20 cent diesel excise tax increase and annual adjustment for inflation (starting November 2017)  4 percent increase on diesel sales tax (starting November 2017)  $100 vehicle registration fee on zero emission vehicles (starting July 2020)  $706 million Transportation Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) loan repayments Local Streets and Roads (LSR) and State Transit Assistance (STA) funds to Riverside County are anticipated to be $38.7 million annually and $15 million annually respectively, attached. Additionally, Caltrans District 8 will receive approximately $226 million annually for the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) and the Commission will have $4.7 million annually to program in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Metrolink may receive approximately $4 million annually for the next three years. The statewide Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program will receive $25 million annually of which the Commission expects to receive approximately $1.2 million annually. The rest of the funds available under SB 1 are expected to be distributed on a competitive basis. These funds include:  Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) at $273 million annually;  Active Transportation Program (ATP) at $96 million annually;  Trade Corridor Enhancement Account (TCEA) at $300 million annually;  Local Partnership Program (LPP) at $200 million annually; and  Congested Corridor Program (CCP) at $250 million annually. The full text of the legislation can be found here: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1 . Attachments: Summary by Section of the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB 1) SCAG Staff Report - SB 1 Update with Estimated Allocation by Program for SCAG Region and CTC Implementation Plan Overview CTC SB 1 Workshop Schedule The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB 1) March 30, 2017 version SEC. 1. Findings and Declarations. This section outlines the findings and declarations of the Legislature regarding the needs of the state and local transportation systems and the contribution of transportation to the state's economy. It also details the estimated amount of constitutionally protected revenues contained in the act to address state and local transportation infrastructure needs, and investments in transit, active transportation and trade corridors. Finally, this section outlines preliminary performance outcomes for the state highway system. SEC 2. The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. This section officially names this bill the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. SEC. 3. Complete Streets in Highway Design (Adds Section 14033 to Government Code). This section requires the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to incorporate the "complete streets" design concept into the Highway Design Manual. SEC 4. Small Business, Disadvantaged Business Enterprises and Disabled Veteran Business Enterprises (Adds Section 14110 to Government Code). This section requires Caltrans to develop a plan by 2020, and provide the plan to the Legislature, to increase by up to 100 percent the dollar value of contracts and procurements awarded to small businesses, Disadvantaged Business Enterprises and Disabled Veteran Business Enterprises. SEC. 5. Department of Transportation Independent Office of Audits and Investigations (Adds Chapter 5 to Part 5 to Division 3 of Title 2 of Government Code). This section creates an Independent Office of Audits and Investigations within Caltrans to ensure the department and external entities are expending state and federal transportation funds efficiently, effectively, and in compliance with applicable federal and state laws. The head of the Audits and Investigations office, who would be called the Inspector General (IG), would be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate for a six -year term. The IG would report to the Governor, the Legislature, and the California Transportation Commission (CTC), annually with a summary of findings, investigations, and audits. SEC. 6. State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) — Asset Management Program (Amends Section 14526.5 of Government Code). This section makes changes to the existing SHOPP program development and approval process administered by the CTC. It requires Caltrans to submit additional information on the proposed SHOPP program prior to CTC review and approval including cost, scope, schedule, and performance metrics. Additionally, it requires the CTC to conduct one public hearing in Northern California and one public hearing in Southern California to get feedback on the proposed SHOPP from stakeholders and the public. This section also requires every SHOPP project to have an allocation from the CTC for all capital outlay support costs, and requires Caltrans to submit a supplemental allocation request for increases in those costs if required by the CTC. SEC. 7. State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) — Asset Management Program (Adds Section 14526.7 to Government Code). This section requires Caltrans to incorporate the performance outcomes from Section 1 into the asset management plan for the SHOPP. It also requires CTC to develop targets for each asset class identified in section 1 to measure the degree to which progress was made in achieving the goals by 2027. 1 Updated March 31, 2017 SEC. 8. Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) (Adds Section 14556.41 to Government Code). This section declares the completion of all projects from the TCRP as of June 30, 2017. SEC. 9. Loan Repayments (Adds Section 16321 to Government Code). This section requires that outstanding loans from transportation special funds, totaling $706 million, be repaid no later than June 30, 2020, proportionally and in equal installments over three years from the Budget Stabilization Account. The loan repayment funds will be distributed as follows: $256 million to the Public Transportation Account for up to $20 million for local and regional climate change adaptation planning and the remainder for the existing Transit and Intercity Capital Rail Program, $225 million to Caltrans for the SHOPP, and $225 million to cities and counties for local streets and roads. SEC. 10-17. Tribal Compact Bonds for Transportation Loan Repayments Close Out (repeals sections 63048.65 - 63048.85 of GOV. adds new section 63048.65 to GOV). These sections delete now obscure statutes relating to using tribal gaming revenue to repay Traffic Congestion Relief Fund loans to the General Fund. Additionally, these sections delete the option for the state to issue bonds against future tribal compact revenues. SEC. 18. Commercial Motor Vehicle Retirement, Replacement, and Retrofitting (Adds Section 43021 to Health and Safety Code). This section allows certain truck owners, who have upgraded their equipment to meet established emissions standards for engines, to own and operate that truck for a reasonable period of time before the state can again require that they upgrade or replace that equipment to meet a newly -issued emissions standards. This requirement does not apply to equipment utilized for safety, voluntary incentive, or inspection programs or programs designed to address imminent health risks where immediate corrective action is necessary to prevent injury or death. SEC. 19. Transit Funding "State of Good Repair" Requirements for Portion of the Transportation Improvement Fee (TIF) (Amends Section 99312.1 of Public Utilities Code). This section, combined with the new Transportation Improvement Fee in Section 31, will help transit agencies fund their capital infrastructure backlog to achieve and maintain a "state of good repair." Specifically, transit agencies can use their portion of the new TIF, which is distributed through existing transit formulas, to fund transit capital projects or services to maintain or repair existing transit fleets and facilities, new facilities that improve existing transit services, or transit services that complement local infrastructure improvements. This section also requires recipient transit agencies to submit a list of projects proposed to be funded to Caltrans, and report to Caltrans after expending funds on a project including the amount of funds spent and the estimated useful life of the improvement. SEC. 20. Intercity and Commuter Rail Funding Allocations for Portion of the Increase in the Diesel Sales Tax (Adds Section 99312.3 to Public Utilities Code). This section prescribes the distribution for 0.5% of the increase in the diesel sales tax increment an additional 4% in Sections 23 and 24. The revenue derived from the 0.5% will be allocated as follows: • 50% of the revenue will be allocated equally to the three state -supported intercity -rail operators, with 25% of the funds available for existing lines or emerging corridors. • 50% of the revenue will be allocated equally to the state's five commuter rail operators in the first three years. In 2020 and thereafter, the funds will be allocated based on guidelines and a formula developed by the California State Transportation Agency (CaISTA). The guidelines will be developed with input from the rail operators and the public. 2 Updated March 31, 2017 SEC. 21. Portion of Transportation Improvement Fee to the Public Transit Account --Transit Intercity Rail Capital Program (Adds Section 99312.4 to Public Utilities Code). This section clarifies that the portion of the Transportation Improvement Fee (Section 31) transferred to the Public Transit Account for purposes of the Transit Intercity Rail Capital Program is available for appropriations through the annual budget process. SEC. 22. State Transit Assistance Reporting (Adds Section 99314.9 to Public Utilities Code). This section codifies current practice of the State Controller's Office for reporting State Transit Assistance allocations and requires a separate list be published for the new "State of Good Repair" funds. SEC. 23. Diesel Sales Tax Increase and Indexing (Amends Section 6051.8 of Revenue and Taxation Code). This section, and Section 24, increases the diesel sales tax increment an additional 4% starting November 1, 2017. Of the new 4% increment, 3.5% will be distributed through existing transit formulas for transit operations support and capital projects and 0.5% will be distributed to intercity and commuter rail operators as outlined in Section 20. SEC. 24. Diesel Sales Tax Increase and Indexing (Amends Section 6201.8 of Revenue and Taxation Code). This section, and Section 23, increases the diesel sales tax increment an additional 4% starting November 1, 2017. Of the new 4% increment, 3.5% will be distributed through existing transit formulas for transit operations support and capital projects and 0.5% will be distributed to intercity and commuter rail operators as outlined in Section 20. SEC. 25. Gasoline Excise Tax Increase and Indexing — Eliminates Gas Tax Swap True Up (Amends Section 7360 of Revenue and Taxation Code). This section increases the gasoline excise tax by 12 cents per gallon starting November 1, 2017. It also indexes the tax to the California Consumer Price Index, requiring the Board of Equalization (BOE) to adjust the tax every year, starting July 1, 2020, to keep pace with inflation. Additionally, this section resets the price -based excise tax at 17.3 cents per gallon in 2019, and ends the current BOE "true up" called for by the Gas Tax Swap of 2010, which requires the BOE to adjust the gasoline excise tax rate annually to match the amount that the previous gasoline sales tax would have raised. SEC. 26. Excise Tax Increase on Stored Motor Vehicle Fuels. (Adds Section 7361.2 to the Revenue and Taxation Code). This section applies the increased gasoline excise tax rates in the Act to stored motor vehicle fuels held as of the date of the increase. SEC. 27. Excise Tax Increase on Stored Motor Vehicle Fuels Reporting (Adds Section 7653.2 to the Revenue and Taxation Code). This section requires each person, by January 1, 2018, subject to the excise tax on storage of motor vehicles fuels (Section 26) to file a report with the BOE detailing the amount of fuels held in storage on November 1, 2017, the amount of taxes owed, and pay the outstanding taxes. SEC. 28. Non -Highway Vehicles Portion of New Excise Tax — Boating and Waterways (Amends Section 8352.4 of Revenue and Taxation Code). This section directs the portion of the new 12 cents per gallon gasoline excise tax (Section 25) attributable to boating use to the State Parks and Recreation Fund to fund state parks, off -highway vehicle programs, and boating programs. 3 Updated March 31, 2017 SEC. 29. Non -Highway Vehicles Portion of New Excise Tax — Agriculture (Amends Section 8352.5 of Revenue and Taxation Code). This section directs the portion of the new 12 cents per gallon gasoline excise tax (Section 25) attributable to agriculture use to the Department of Food and Agriculture Fund to fund agriculture programs. SEC. 30. Non -Highway Vehicles Portion on New Excise Tax — Off -Highway Vehicles (Amends Section 8352.6 of Revenue and Taxation Code). This section directs the portion of the new 12 cents per gallon gasoline excise tax (Section 25) attributable to off -highway vehicle use to the State Parks and Recreation Fund to fund state parks, off -highway vehicle programs, and boating programs. SEC. 31. Transportation Improvement Fee and Indexing (Adds Chapter 6 to Part 5 of Division 2 of Revenue and Taxation Code). This section enacts the Transportation Improvement Fee (TIF) based on the market value of a vehicle, starting January 1, 2018. The fee range is: • $25 per year for vehicles with a market value $0- $4,999 • $50 per year for vehicles with a market value $5,000 -- $24,999 • $100 per year for vehicles with a market value $25,000 -- $34,999 • $150 per year for vehicles with a market value $35,000 -- $59,999 • $175 per year for vehicles with a market value $60,000 and higher The TIF does not apply to commercial vehicles over 10,000 pounds, exempt vehicles, or historic collectible vehicles. This section also indexes the fee to the California Consumer Price Index, requiring the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to adjust the fee every year, starting July 1, 2020, to keep pace with inflation. Funding generated by the TIF will be allocated as follows: • $350 million per year, as adjusted by CPI, will be deposited in the Public Transportation Account with 70% allocated to the existing Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program and 30% be distributed through existing transit formulas for "State of Good Repair" capital projects as detailed in Section 19. • $250 million per year will be allocated for the Congested Corridor program outlined in Sections 43-44. • The remaining revenue will be deposited in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account. SEC. 32. Diesel Excise Tax Increase and Indexing — Eliminates Gas Tax Swap True Up (Amends Section 60050 of Revenue and Taxation Code). This section increases the diesel excise tax by 20 cents per gallon starting November 1, 2017, and indexes the tax to the California Consumer Price Index, requiring the BOE to adjust the tax every year, starting July 1, 2020, to keep pace with inflation. Additionally, this section resets the current diesel excise tax at 16 cents per gallon (the current rate) and ends the current BOE "true up" called for by the Gas Tax Swap of 2010, which requires the BOE to adjust the diesel excise tax rate annually to remain revenue neutral with the amount raised by the diesel sales tax. SEC. 33. Diesel Excise Tax Increase on Stored Diesel Fuels. (Adds Section 60050.2 to Revenue and Taxation Code). This section applies the increased diesel tax rate in the Act to stored diesel fuels held as of the date of the increase. 4 Updated March 31, 2017 SEC. 34. Diesel Excise Tax Increase on Stored Diesel Fuels Reporting (Adds Section 7653.2 to Revenue and Taxation Code). This section requires each person, by January 1, 2018, subject to the tax on storage of diesel fuel (Section 33) to file a report with the BOE detailing the amount of fuel held in storage on November 1, 2017, the amount of taxes owed, and pay the outstanding taxes. SEC. 35. Advance Mitigation Program (adds article 2.5 to chapter 4 of division 1 of Streets and Highways Code). This section creates an Advance Mitigation Program administered by Caltrans to enhance communications between Caltrans and stakeholders to protect natural resources through project mitigation, accelerate project delivery, and improve environmental mitigation for planned transportation projects. This section provides for one-time funding of $30 million for four years -- $120 million total -- to Caltrans from a combination of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and SHOPP funds for the planning and implementation of projects. This section requires Caltrans to consult with the Department of Fish and Wildlife. SEC. 36. Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program (Adds Chapter 2 to Division 3 of Streets and Highways Code). This section creates the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program to address deferred maintenance on the state highway system and the local street and road system. The program will be funded by the increase in the gasoline excise tax (Section 25), Transportation Improvement Fee (Section 31), 50% of the increase in the diesel excise tax (Section 32), and the Zero Emission Vehicle road improvement fee (Section 47). Funding for the program shall be prioritized for expenditure on basic road maintenance and road rehabilitation projects, and on critical safety projects. Specifically, projects such as road maintenance and rehabilitation; safety projects; railroad grade separations; complete street components, including active transportation purposes, pedestrian and bicycle safety projects, transit facilities, and drainage and stormwater capture projects in conjunction with any other allowable project; and traffic control devices can be funded from the program. Funding will be distributed by formula with 50 % allocated to the state for maintenance and the SHOPP and 50% allocated to cities and counties for local streets and roads. Prior to that distribution the following programs will receive funding annually: • $200 million per year will be allocated to the CTC for a program for local jurisdictions that have approved transportation sales tax measures and other local funds dedicated for transportation purposes. The CTC will develop guidelines for this program in cooperation with Caltrans and regional and local agencies. Sound wall projects for freeways built prior to 1987 are eligible for funding. • $100 million per year will be allocated to the CTC for the Active Transportation Program (ATP), for bicycle and pedestrian projects. • $400 million per year will be allocated to Caltrans for bridge and culvert maintenance and rehabilitation. • $25 million per year will be allocated to support Freeway Service Patrols throughout the state. • $5 million for five years -- $25 million total — for the California Workforce Development Board to assist local agencies to implement policies to promote preapprenticeship training programs as defined in this section. • $25 million per year will be allocated to Caltrans for local and regional planning grants. Caltrans will develop a grant guide in consultation with the Air Resources Board, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development. • $2 million per year will be allocated to the California State University system and $5 million per year to the University of California's Institutes for Transportation Studies to fund transportation research and transportation -related workforce education, training, and development. 5 Updated March 31, 2017 This section requires Caltrans and cities and counties to consider and utilize, to the extent possible and cost effective, the following: • Advanced technologies and material recycling techniques that reduce the cost of maintaining and rehabilitating streets and highways and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through material choice and construction methods. • Advanced technologies and communications systems in transportation infrastructure that help accommodate advanced automotive technologies, such as ZEV charging or fueling and autonomous vehicle systems. • Features in projects to better adapt to withstand the negative effects of climate change and make the system more resilient to impacts such as fires, floods, and sea level rise. • Complete streets elements to improve the quality of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and improve safety for all users. This section requires Caltrans to report annually to the CTC on its progress in meeting performance goals included in the act. Caltrans shall also report to the CTC on projects funded by the act, including the amount of funds spent and the estimated useful life of the improvement. The CTC will evaluate their progress and may make recommendations for improvement. The CTC may also withhold future project allocations if they determine the funds are not appropriately being spent. This section requires Caltrans to implement efficiency measures with a goal of generating $100 million per year in savings to invest in further maintenance and rehabilitation of the state highway system. This section also requires cities and counties to submit a list of projects proposed to be funded to the CTC and report to the CTC after expending funds on a project including the amount of funds spent and the estimated useful life of the improvement. Additionally, cities and counties are required to sustain a maintenance of effort by spending at least the same amount as previous fiscal years on transportation purposes from the city or county general fund. Cities and counties may use their funds for other transportation priorities if the city's or county's average Pavement Condition Index meets or exceeds 80. Finally, this section calls for the California Workforce Development Board (Board) to develop guidelines for public agencies receiving funding from this section to participate in, invest in, or partner with, new or existing preapprenticeship training programs. By July 1, 2023, Caltrans and local agencies must follow the guidelines developed. The Board will also develop a grant and training program funded by this section of which local agencies can apply. Criteria for the grants require a program to contain specific core curriculum implemented by the State Department of Education; include a plan for outreach to and retention of women, minority, disadvantaged youth participants, local labor market area, and formerly incarcerated individuals; and coordinate with existing programs, building trade councils and the California Conservation Corps. SEC. 37. Gasoline and Diesel Excise Tax Allocation (Adds Section 2103.1 to Streets and Highways Code). This section directs the 12 cents per gallon increase in the gasoline excise tax to the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (Section 36). This section also directs the 20 cents per gallon increase in the diesel excise tax with 50% to the Trade Corridors Enhancement Account (Section 32), and 50% to the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (Section 36). 6 Updated March 31, 2017 SECS. 38-41. Distribution of CPI Growth to the Base 18 Cents Per Gallon Gasoline Excise Tax (Amends Sections 2104-2107 of Streets and Highways Code). This section converts existing allocations of the base 18 cents per gallon gasoline excise tax from fixed dollar amounts to percentages so that future increases as adjusted for inflation, as called for in Section 25, are allocated proportionally between the cities, counties, and the state SEC. 42. Portion of Diesel Excise Tax Increase to Trade Corridors Enhancement Account (Adds Section 2192.4 to Streets and Highways Code). This section creates the Trade Corridor Enhancement Account and allocates 50% of the 20 cent per gallon increase in the diesel excise tax (Section 32) to corridor -based freight projects nominated by the state and local agencies. SECS. 43-44. Congested Corridors Program (Adds Chapter 8.5 to Division 3 of Streets and Highways Code). This section creates Solutions for Congested Corridors Program to address the state's most congested travel corridors by undertaking long-term, comprehensive, and multi -modal approaches that address mobility, community, and environmental challenges. The program will be funded at $250 million per year from the Transportation Improvement Fee (Section 31). Funding for the program will be allocated by the CTC for projects that make specific performance improvements and are a part of a comprehensive corridor plan. The corridor plans can include improvements to state highways, local streets and roads, public transit facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and restoration or preservation work that protects critical local habitat or open space. All projects must also be included in a region's Regional Transportation Plan and, if required, a Sustainable Communities Strategy. This section authorizes regional transportation planning agencies, county transportation commissions or the state to nominate projects for funding alone or jointly, with preference given to state — local jointly nominated projects. The CTC cannot allocate more than half of the funds each year to projects nominated exclusively by the state. This section requires project sponsors to include quantitative and qualitative measures demonstrating the project meets program goals, and provides scoring criteria for the CTC to evaluate proposed projects for consistency with corridor plans. This section directs the CTC to develop and adopt guidelines, in consultation with the Air Resources Board, for the program, including conducting a public hearing in northern California and southern California. The CTC will adopt a program of projects that may cover multi -years of funding, with programs of projects being adopted on a biennial basis. Finally, this section requires the CTC include information about this program in their annual report to the Legislature, and will include details, as defined, on each project that received funding. SEC. 45. Truck Emissions Standards: Compliance (Adds Section 4000.15 to Vehicle Code). This section prohibits DMV, starting in 2020, from registering or renewing the registration of specified medium- and heavy-duty diesel trucks unless they can demonstrate full compliance with applicable emissions requirements thereby ensuring that all truck in operation on California roadways meet all applicable emissions standards and requirements. SEC 46. Temporary Registration (Amends Section 4156 of Vehicle Code). This section authorizes DMV to issue a one-time, temporary (90-day) registration to operate a truck, unless otherwise approved by ARB, if the truck fails to meet applicable emissions standards. This section is intended to allow a truck operator time to come into compliance with existing emissions standards and requirements, after 7 Updated March 31, 2017 which the truck can be fully registered or, if the specified emission requirements are not satisfied, registration will be denied thereby ensuring that the truck cannot be legally operated on California roadways. SEC. 47. Zero Emission Vehicle Road Improvement Fee and Indexing (Adds Section 9250.6 to Vehicle Code). This section creates a $100 per year road improvement fee for zero emission vehicles (ZEV), starting July 1, 2020. The fee would be paid starting on the second and subsequent year of ownership of a new ZEV, model year 2020 or later. This section also indexes the fee to the California Consumer Price Index, requiring the DMV to adjust the fee every year, starting July 1, 2021, to keep pace with inflation. The new funds derived from the increase are allocated to the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program (Section 36). SEC. 48. Zero Emission Vehicle Report. This section requires the University of California, Davis, in consultation with the Air Resources Board, Caltrans, DMV, and BOE, to prepare a report, by January 1, 2019, that makes recommendations on potential methodologies to raise revenue from zero -emission and low -emission vehicle owners to achieve the state's transportation electrification, clean air, and climate targets while also ensuring those vehicle owners pay their fair share of any costs borne by motorists to fund improvements to the transportation system. SEC. 49. Administrative Procedures Act. This section exempts guidelines adopted by the CTC, Caltrans or California Ca1STA, to implement the Act, from the Administrative Procedures Act. SEC. 34. Urgency Clause. This section adds an urgency clause for the bill to go into effect immediately upon signature. 8 Updated March 31, 2017 DATE: July 6, 2017 TO: Transportation Committee (TC) FROM: Annie Nam, Manager, Goods Movement & Transportation Finance; (213) 236-1827; nam@scag.ca.gov SUBJECT: Update on Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 Implementation (SB 1) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S APPROVAL: RECOMMENDED ACTION: For Information Only – No Action Required. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill [SB] 1) is estimated to provide $52.4 billion for transportation purposes over the next 10 years. Based on known or reasonably anticipated allocation processes, over the next 10 years, the SCAG region should receive a minimum of $18.7 billion from new revenue sources established under SB 1. Competitive programs are subject to further analyses as guidelines are developed and are anticipated to yield the SCAG region additional funding. Staff will provide an update on implementation efforts currently underway. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item supports SCAG’s Strategic Plan, Goal 1: Improve Regional Decision Making by Providing Leadership and Consensus Building on Key Plans and Policies; Objective (a) Create and facilitate a collaborative and cooperative environment to produce forward thinking regional plans. BACKGROUND: SB 1 is estimated to provide $52.4 billion for transportation purposes over the next 10 years for investments targeted at fix-it-first strategies on local streets and roads, state highways, transit operations and maintenance, capital improvements, and active transportation. Based on known or reasonably anticipated allocation processes, over the next 10 years, the SCAG region should receive a minimum of $18.7 billion from new revenue sources established under SB 1 (as detailed in the attachment to this report). Competitive programs are subject to further analyses as guidelines are developed and are anticipated to yield the SCAG region additional funding. Development of guidelines for competitive programs were officially kicked off at an implementation forum and workshop held in Sacramento on June 8 and 9, 2017. As the implementation process proceeds, staff will update estimates of the region’s anticipated share of SB 1 funds. FISCAL IMPACT: Work associated with this item is included in the Fiscal Year 2017-18 Overall Work Program under Project No. 015-00159.01 for RTP Financial Planning. ATTACHMENTS: 1. SB 1 / Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 Overview and Estimated Allocation for SCAG Region 2. Senate Bill 1 Implementation Plan Overview AGENDA ITEM NO. 10 July 6, 2017 TC Agenda - Page 146 of 153 This Page Intentionally Left Blank  SB 1 / Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 Overview and Estimated Allocation for SCAG Region  The Road Repair and Accountability Act (SB 1 Beall) is estimated to provide $52.4 billion for transportation purposes over the next 10 years for investments targeted to fix‐it‐first strategies on local streets and roads, state highways, transit operations and maintenance, capital improvements, and active transportation.  Overview of Revenue Increase – Statewide Totals Overview of Revenue Increase Funding Source Estimate of 10‐Year Revenue Gasoline excise tax increase: 12‐cent per gallon (starting November 2017) to be adjusted for inflation; reset of price‐based excise tax to 17.3‐cents per gallon (starting July 2019) to be adjusted for inflation. $24.4 billion Diesel excise tax increase: 20‐cent per gallon (starting November 2017) to be adjusted for inflation; base excise tax reset to 16‐cents per gallon (starting July 2019) to be adjusted for inflation. $7.3 billion Diesel sales and use surtax increase: 4 percent increase in diesel sales tax (starting November 2017) $3.5 billion Transportation Improvement Fee: new annual vehicle registration surcharge (ranging from $25 to $175) based on the value of the vehicle (starting January 2018) to be adjusted for inflation. $16.3 billion Road Improvement Fee on Zero Emission Vehicles: new $100 annual vehicle (starting July 2020) to be adjusted for inflation $200 million Accelerated General Fund loan repayments: loans to be repaid during Fiscal Years FY 2017‐18, FY 2018‐19 and FY 2019‐20. $706 million Total $52.4 billion  Overview of Investment Program Categories  SB 1 invests $52.4 billion over the next decade split generally equally between state and local investments; approximately $26.6 billion is dedicated for local expenditures and $25.8 billion for state purposes. Based on known or reasonably anticipated allocation processes, over the next 10 years, the SCAG region should receive a minimum of $18.7 billion from new revenue sources established under SB 1. Competitive programs are subject to further analyses as guidelines are developed and are anticipated to yield the SCAG region additional funding. Below is a summary of the estimated allocation of new revenues from SB 1 in the SCAG region over 10 years. The distribution estimates from SB 1 is derived from existing formula allocations and estimates provided by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).  July 6, 2017 TC Agenda - Page 147 of 153  Overview of Investment Program Categories Investment Category Eligibility Notes Estimated SCAG Region Allocation Allocation Process Allocation to Local Agencies Local Street and Road Maintenance Eligible projects include road maintenance and rehabilitation, safety projects, grade separations, complete street components, and traffic control devices. Agencies with a pavement condition index over 80 may use the funds for other transportation purposes. Project funded under this program are subject to maintenance of effort requirements and oversight by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and must meet reporting requirements, make efforts to use advanced technology, incorporate complete street elements, and make climate adaptation efforts. $6.784 billion regionally with the following estimated breakdown by county (based on estimates generated by Caltrans):  Imperial County: $139 million  Los Angeles County: $3.509 billion  Orange County: $1.180 billion  Riverside County: $841 million  San Bernardino County: $794 million  Ventura County: $321 million  ($15.0 billion statewide) Formula consistent with existing Highway Users Tax Account. County apportionments are based on numbers of registered vehicles and county road mileage. City apportionments are based on population. State Transit Assistance (STA) Program Transit agencies are required to submit to Caltrans a list of projects proposed to be funded and projects completed through the STA. The list can be changed to adapt to local needs if the changes are consistent with other requirements of the bill. $1.835 billion regionally with the following estimated breakdown by county (based on estimates generated by Caltrans):  Imperial County: $11 million  Los Angeles County: $1.234 billion  Orange County: $235 million  Riverside County: $152 million  San Bernardino County: $150 million  Ventura County: $54 million  ($4.3 billion statewide) Formula consistent with existing STA. Apportionments evenly split between population‐based and revenue‐based. Revenue‐based reflects the share of passenger fares and local support revenues relative to statewide total. Local Partnership Program Counties with dedicated transportation funding from uniform developer fees or voter‐approved taxes are eligible. Funds to be distributed to counties and cities within the county and are limited to local road maintenance purposes. The CTC will development guidelines by January 1, 2018. $1.161 billion regionally based on estimates generated by Caltrans, which is based on prior allocation of the Prop 1B State‐Local Partnership Program.   ($2.0 billion statewide) Formula details to be determined (TBD).  July 6, 2017 TC Agenda - Page 148 of 153  Overview of Investment Program Categories Investment Category Eligibility Notes Estimated SCAG Region Allocation Allocation Process Active Transportation Program SB 1 does not add any new limitations or condition on the use of these funds. $213 million regionally for MPO competitive program (based on estimates generated by Caltrans) and a portion of the statewide competitive program. Historically, roughly 50 percent of statewide competitive program has gone to projects / programs from the SCAG region, which equates to an additional $250 million.  ($1.0 billion statewide) Combination of formula to regions and statewide competition. Regional Share of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) SB 1 does not add any new limitations or condition on the use of these funds. $355 million regionally with the following estimated breakdown by county (based on estimates generated by Caltrans):  Imperial County: $10 million  Los Angeles County: $173 million  Orange County: $53 million  Riverside County: $47 million  San Bernardino County: $54 million  Ventura County: $18 million  ($825 million statewide) Formula consistent with existing STIP process. Local Planning Grants Encourage local and regional planning that furthers state goals, including, but not limited to, the goals and best practices cited in the CTC’s RTP guidelines. Caltrans will develop a grant guide in consultation with the State Air Resources Board, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development.  TBD  ($250 million statewide) Competitive – allocated by Caltrans.  July 6, 2017 TC Agenda - Page 149 of 153  Overview of Investment Program Categories Investment Category Eligibility Notes Estimated SCAG Region Allocation Allocation Process Allocation by the State State Highway Maintenance and Rehabilitation and Highway Bridge and Culvert Maintenance and Rehabilitation Provides Caltrans funding for maintenance of the state highway system or for purposes of the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP). Caltrans must report annually to the CTC on use of funds, detailed project descriptions, and progress in achieving performance goals. $8.371 billion regionally with the following estimated breakdown by county (based on based on estimates generated by Caltrans and 2016 SHOPP county shares):  Imperial County: $32 million  Los Angeles County: $4.444 billion  Orange County: $791 million  Riverside County: $976 million  San Bernardino County: $1.404 billion  Ventura County: $724 million  ($19.0 billion statewide) State (based on need). Transit and Intercity Rail Capital SB 1 does not add any new limitations or condition on the use of these funds. TBD  (approx. $2.5 billion statewide) Competitive – selected by California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA). Intercity and Commuter Rail Funding SB 1 does not add any new limitations or condition on the use of these funds. TBD  (approx. $500 million statewide) Competitive – selected by CalSTA. High Priority Freight Corridors Corridor‐based freight projects nominated by local agencies and the state.  TBD  ($3.0 billion statewide) Competitive – TBD. Solutions for Congested Corridors Program Eligible projects for this new program include improvements to state highways, public transit facilities, local streets and roads, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and restoration or preservation work that protects critical local habitat or open space. Highway capacity expansion projects are not eligible, except for HOV and HOT/express lanes or non‐general purpose TBD  ($2.5 billion statewide) Competitive – selected by CTC.  July 6, 2017 TC Agenda - Page 150 of 153  Overview of Investment Program Categories Investment Category Eligibility Notes Estimated SCAG Region Allocation Allocation Process lane improvements designed primarily to improve safety for all modes of travel, such as auxiliary lanes, truck‐climbing lanes or dedicated bicycle lanes. To qualify for funding, a project must be included in a comprehensive corridor plan designed to reduce congestion in highly traveled corridors by providing more transportation choices for residents, commuters and visitors to the area of the corridor while preserving the character of the local community and creating opportunities for neighborhood enhancement projects. The bill would provide for regional transportation agencies and Caltrans to nominate projects, with preference to be given to projects that demonstrate collaboration between the regional agencies and Caltrans. Only up to half of the annual appropriation may be allocated for state‐only nominated projects. Interregional Share of STIP SB 1 does not add any new limitations or condition on the use of these funds. TBD  ($275 million statewide) Caltrans and CTC consistent with existing STIP process. Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) SB 1 does not add any new limitations or condition on the use of these funds. TBD  ($250 million statewide) TBD – existing formula based on population, freeway mileage, and congestion levels.   July 6, 2017 TC Agenda - Page 151 of 153 This Page Intentionally Left Blank SENATE BILL 1 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN OVERVIEW California Transportation Commission Page 1 of 2 Senate Bill 1 (Beall, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017), The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, provides the first significant, stable, and ongoing increase in state transportation funding in more than two decades. In providing this funding, the Legislature has provided additional funding for transportation infrastructure, increased the role of the California Transportation Commission (Commission) in a number of existing programs, and created new transportation funding programs for the Commission to oversee. The development of guidelines will include workshops open to all interested parties. The timelines below are intended to be a guide. Staff will update these timelines during the guidelines development process. EXISTING PROGRAMS UNDER COMMISSION OVERSIGHT Active Transportation Program Augmentation ($100M per year) Local Partnership Program ($200M per year) Staff recommends making this funding available to already programmed projects that can be delivered earlier than currently programmed or for projects that applied for funding in the 2017 Active Transportation Program but that were not selected for funding. • June 2017 – Workshop to develop guidelines • June 28-29, 2017 - Adopt guidelines • August 2017 – Applications due • October 18-19, 2017 – Adopt statewide & small urban and rural components • December 6-7, 2017 – Adopt MPO component To recognize the benefits of a competitive program while still providing incentives to counties to enact taxes and fees to fund transportation needs, staff recommends implementing the Local Partnership Program as a 75% competitive program, 25% formulaic program. Due to the concerns raised by a number of regional transportation planning agencies regarding the implementation of the program as a mainly competitive program, the Commission directed staff to work with the Self- Help Counties Coalition to reach a compromise on the portion of the program to be competitive versus formulaic. • June through September 2017 – Workshops to develop guidelines • August 16-17, 2017 – Presentation of draft guidelines • October 18-19, 2017 – Adoption of guidelines • March 2018 – Applications due • June 2018 – Program adoption State Highway Operation And Protection Program (SHOPP) (Approximately $1.9B per year) Along with a significant expansion of the Commission’s oversight responsibilities. SB 1 requires additional Commission oversight of the development and management of the SHOPP, including allocating support staff, project review and approval, and convening public hearings prior to adopting the SHOPP. The Commission is also responsible for monitoring Caltrans’ performance and progress toward accomplishing the specific goals set out in SB 1 and other targets or performance measures adopted by the Commission. • May 17, 2017 - Presentation of draft interim guidelines • June 28-29, 2017 - Adoption of interim SHOPP guidelines and Asset Management Plan Guidelines State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) SB 1 stabilizes funding for the STIP. The impact of the stabilization of STIP funding will be included in the 2018 STIP Fund Estimate and incorporated in the 2018 STIP. SB 1 sets the price-based excise tax rate for 2019-20 at 17.3 cents comparable to a 16 cent rate assumed in the 2016 STIP Fund Estimate. • May 17, 2017 - Approval of fund estimate assumptions • June 28, 2017 - Presentation of draft guidelines and draft fund estimate • August 16-17, 2017 - Adoption of guidelines and fund estimate • October 15, 2017 - Submittal of draft Interregional Transportation Improvement Program • November 2017 - Interregional Transportation Improvement Program Hearings • December 15, 2017 - Submittal of Regional Transportation Improvement Programs and the final Interregional Transportation Improvement Programs • January-February 2018 – STIP Hearings • March 2018 – Program Adoption July 6, 2017 TC Agenda - Page 152 of 153 SENATE BILL 1 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN OVERVIEW California Transportation Commission Page 2 of 2 NEW SB 1 PROGRAMS Local Streets & Roads (Approximately $1.5B per year) SB 1 creates new responsibilities for the Commission relative to this funding, including development of guidelines, review of project lists submitted by cities and counties, reporting to the State Controller, and receiving reports on completed projects. • June and July 2017 – Workshops to develop guidelines • August 16-17, 2017 – Presentation of draft guidelines • October 18-19, 2017 – Adoption of guidelines Solutions for Congested Corridors Program ($250M per year) Key issues to be addressed in the guidelines include the definition of a corridor, the definition of a highly congested corridor, the key elements of a comprehensive corridor plan, and the scoring criteria weighting. • June through October 2017 – Workshops to develop guidelines • October 18-19, 2017 – Presentation of draft guidelines • December 6-7, 2017 – Adoption of guidelines • February 2018 – Applications due • May 2018 – Program adoption Trade Corridor Enhancement Account ($300M per year) Trailer bill language was recently released to incorporate the SB 1 funding and federal freight funding into a single program. Because these changes would significantly impact the guidelines for the California Freight Investment Program (CFIP) that are on the Commission May agenda, staff will withdraw the CFIP guidelines and initiate additional workshops to revise the guidelines before bringing them to the Commission for approval. • June through November - Workshops to develop guidelines • December 6-7, 2017 - Presentation of draft guidelines • January 2018 – Adoption of guidelines • February 2018 –Applications due • May 2018 – Program adoption Office of Inspector General (Effective July 1, 2017) No Action Required. Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) SB 1 states “as of June 30, 2017, projects in… the Traffic Congestion Relief Program shall be deemed complete and final…” SB 1 directs the repayments due of all outstanding TCRP loans to other programs. Therefore, the only funding available to fund TCRP projects is approximately $90 million of savings attributable to specific projects. Staff recommends the following: • Only consider programming amendments and allocations prior to June 30, 2017. • Only consider programming amendments and allocations to shift identified savings to another TCRP project within the same county. • Allow savings to be transferred between counties only upon agreement of both applicants. • Programming amendments and allocations will not be considered if the project is already fully funded. July 6, 2017 TC Agenda - Page 153 of 153 Please note: Topics, dates and times for each workshops are subject to change June 27, 2017 SB 1 Workshop Schedule Date/Time Location Program(s) to be Covered Friday, June 23rd 10:00 AM - 1:00 PM Caltrans HQ Basement Board Room 1120 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814 2017 Active Transportation Program Augmentation Wednesday, June 28th 9:30 AM-11:30 AM CalPERS Auditorium 400 P Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Solutions for Congested Corridors Program Tuesday, July 11th 2:00 PM – 5:00 PM Caltrans HQ Basement Board Room 1120 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Local Partnership Program Monday July 17th 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Caltrans HQ Basement Board Room 1120 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Trade Corridors Enhancement Program 9:00 AM to 12:30 PM State Transportation Improvement Program 1:30 PM to 5:00 PM Tuesday, July 18th 9:00 AM - 12:00 PM Caltrans HQ Conference Room 2116 1120 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Local Streets and Roads Program Friday, July 21st 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012 Solutions for Congested Corridors Program 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM Local Partnership Program 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM Monday, August 7th 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM Caltrans District 4 Auditorium 111 Grand Ave Oakland, CA 94612 Solutions for Congested Corridors Program 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM Local Partnership Program 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM Tuesday, August 8th 9:00 AM - 12:00 PM Caltrans District 4 Auditorium 111 Grand Ave Oakland, CA 94612 Trade Corridors Enhancement Program 9:00 AM to 12:30 PM Tab 14 Please note: Topics, dates and times for each workshops are subject to change June 27, 2017 SB 1 Workshop Schedule Date/Time Location Program(s) to be Covered Friday, September 8th 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM Caltrans HQ Basement Board Room 1120 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Local Partnership Program 9:00 AM to 12:30 PM Solutions for Congested Corridors Program 1:30 PM to 5:00 PM Monday, September 25th 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM Caltrans HQ Basement Board Room 1120 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Trade Corridors Enhancement Program 9:00 AM to 12:30 PM Local Partnership Program 1:30 PM to 5:00 PM Thursday, October 19th 1:00 PM - 4:00 PM Stanislaus County Administration Building Chambers 1010 10th Street Modesto, CA 95354 Interregional Transportation Improvement Program 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM Tuesday, October 24th 9:00 AM – 4:00 PM Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012 Interregional Transportation Improvement Program 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM Trade Corridors Enhancement Program 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM Friday, November 17th San Joaquin Council of Governments 555 E. Weber Avenue Stockton, CA 95202 Solutions for Congested Corridors Wednesday, December 6th At Commission Meeting Riverside County Administration Building Supervisors' Chambers 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Solutions for Congested Corridors .. SENATE BILL 1 Programs, Funding, and Implementation Senate Bill l: Programs. Funding, and Implementation State Transit ASSIStance $15M (Formulo to transit agencieS) Caltrons [STA) State H~~ ····~fi6~ stat~.' !~.?~~rt MantenM<:e (SHOP,P} . .. . . . . Transit & Intercity Roi! Capital Program {TIRCP) . ~!J~~;;;tJr Trade Corridors ~t:~:!:~. Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) local Sfreds & 11oqds State Transportallon $250M stolev.fde (Competitive} ·~l4! $l.2M" {FormulaJ v $$4.1 M (Form!llu lo Cffles) CalSTA TBD Improvement rrogram $4.7M (Formula) CTC/RCTC (STll'} local r~rtnerst\ip tl•1te1p $200M statewide {803 Folmt.il<!I'i m~tt} y;~:>/;:L ·• ·· $03.ComP~lve) · ••:;'; '· Active Tronsportatlon (ATP) $100M statewide (CompetHive} CTC/SCAG =:~;~~;"11e~~·$r}fJ5~~~~· canmm ... 7/17/2017 a~ ;;0-U- ~).L ~ 1 Senate Bill l: Programs, Funding, and Implementation State Transit Assistance Funding: $250 million annually statewide $15.2 million annually in Riverside County Formula to transit agencies • SB 1 for capital improvements only • Transit agencies to submit to Caltrans a list of projects to be funded Transit Agency SB 1 annual Bonning $ 153,944 Beaumont Corona Riverside RTA RCTC Roil Sun line Polo Verde 202.646 Senate Bill l: Programs, Funding, and Implementation Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) Funding: Draft Guidelines: Final Guidelines: Program Adoption: $323 million annually statewide Competitive June -August 2017 September 2017 Spring 2018 7 /17 /2017 2 Senate Bill 1: Programs. Funding, and Implementation Trade Corridor Enhancement Account Funding: Next Workshop: Draft Guidelines: Adopt Guidelines: Applications Due: Program Adoption: $300 million annually statewide Competitive Tuesday, August 8@ 9:00 -12:00 Caltrans District 4 Senate Bill 1: Programs. Funding, and Implementation Local Streets and Roads Funding: Next Workshop: Draft Guidelines for Public Review: Adopt Guidelines: Call for Project Lists: Project Lists due to CT $1.5 billion annually statewide $84.1 million annually Riverside County Formula to Cities Tuesday, July 18 @ 9:00 -12:00 Caltrans HQ 7 /17 /2017 3 Senate Bill I: Programs, Funding, and Implementation Local Streets and Roads Requirements: • Create separate budgetary account to track revenues and expenditures for the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) LSR Program. • Establish MOE based on average discretionary general fund expenditures from FY2010-2012 for transpqrtqtion , related construction and maintenance a.·• · '' • Submit RMRA LSR CIP listing starting in the CTC on September 15, 2017. Senate Bill I: Programs, Funding, and Implementation Local Streets and Roads • Proof of budgetary approval for FY2018 RMRA CIP (i.e. Council resolution, excerpt of RMRA CIP budget) • State Department of Finance revenue projections for FY2018 can be utilized to prepare the CIP - https://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Policy-Advocacy- Section/Hot-lssues/Transportation-Fundinq/LSR-FY 17-18-May.asox 7/17/2017 4 Senate Bill I: Programs, Funding, and Implementation Local Streets and Roads • Annual reporting on completed and/or fully operational projects is due on October l, 2018 and every year thereafter. • Flexibility to change projects after CIP submittal .but does require justification through the annual reporting. • Construction Project signs are encouraged. wfi~f~.: ' feasible to make the public know the pro· ··• ~,.,, through the increase in transportation t · • Apprenticeship program for RMRA encouraged. Senate Bill I: Programs, Funding, and Implementation State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Funding: Next Workshop: Draft Guidelines: Adopt Guidelines: Program Adoption: $82.5 million annually statewide $47 million annually Riverside County Formula by County Shares Monday, July 17@ 1 :30-5:00. Caltrans HQ 7/17/2017 5 Senate Bill l: Programs, Funding, and Implementation 2018 STIP Intra-County Share • Commission approved the 2018 STIP Fund Estimate (includes SB 1 Augmentation) Intra-County Share - based on most recent FY taxable sales by geographic area: Senate Bill I: Programs, Funding, and Implementation Local Partnership Program Funding: Next Workshop: Draft Guidelines: Adopt Guidelines: Applications Due: Program Adoption: $200 million annually statewide 50/50 (Competitive/Formula) Friday, July 21 @ 1 :00 -4:00 LA Metro August 16 -17, 2017 7/17/2017 6 Senate Bill I: Programs. Funding. and Implementation Local Partnership Program • Guidelines currently under development. • Program is to reward cities and counties with voter approved taxes and fees dedicated to transportation. • Agencies with transportation authority to impose, collect, and administer transportation taxes and fees would nominate projects for the LPP. • Project categories include: sound wall maintenance and rehab, and othe improvements. Senate Bill I: Programs. Funding, and Implementation Local Partnership Program • Upcoming Workshops for development of guidelines: -Friday, July 21, 2017 at LA Metro -Competitive Program Parameters -Tuesday, August 7, 2017 in Oakland-Formula Program Parameters -Friday, September 8, 2017 in Sacramento~ Review Preliminary Guidelines -Monday, September 25, 2017 in Sacf Review Draft Guidelines > 7/17/2017 7 Senate Bill 1: Programs, Funding, and Implementation Active Transportation Program Funding: Adopt Guidelines: Call for Projects: Applications Due: Program Adoption: $100 million annually statewide Competitive June 29, 2017 June 30, 2017 -August 1, 2017 August l, 2017 Senate Bill 1: Programs, Funding, and Implementation Recap of 2017 ATP (Cycle 3) Call for Projects Awordees: Moreno Valley La Quinta Desert Hot Springs I ~ $,5;3.2M (953) $2.BM (53) idn:l~iil,llQO!t: Planning/Non-. I · ' Infrastructure . + ?ther local $ 7/17/2017 8 Senate Bill l: Programs, Funding, and Implementation 2017 ATP SB 1 Augmentation Call for Projects .! Must have applied in Cycle 3 $200M* FY2018 FY2019 ./ CTC supplemental application due August 1'1 .! All applicants must submit supplemental application to be considered even if there is no change to the schedule Priority Order: ./ Projects that can advance all phases to FY18. FY19 .t Projects that can advance one or more phases to FY 18. FY 19 ./ Capacity may become available in FY20 and FY21 Senate Bill l: Programs, Funding, and Implementation '$8M to CA Conservation Corps 2017 ATP Augmentation Call for Projects CTC Required Supplemental Application Materials: Updated Project Programming Request (PPR) Form to reflect updated schedule and funding plan Authorization letter from CEO/authorized staff One-page application update that explains any significant changes (optional) Copy of the original application • Send 5 hard copies and one electronic c~~',{,Jo CT · ,,,,,1'f0~ ... ,"" ' ' ' email copy to RCTC and SCAG Applications due August 151 ! 7/17/2017 9 SCAG 2017 Sustainability Planning Grants Southern Cal!forma Association of Govemmen!s ::!!Lii' -"*··~-~· MEETiNG AGENDA --.. -·-------·-·---·---···-· .. ··--·-............... _ .. .._ __ ! ..... -.---- Web Conference Workshop on July 20, 2017 at l:OOpm Applic;afions due to.scAGby 1 ~-., __ m_<J1:..,. .. w1"'°""'''-™'°"°'" ...... _ . August ···· · ..,.._ ~. 00...-illl!f-Tf--~-­~~fitfm •. Gollumimc.mp.j ... -· ..... ....,.._ s------............. ··==- Senate Bill 1: Programs. Funding, and Implementation Sustainable Communities & Adaptation Planning Grants Funding: Draft Guidelines: Adopt Guidelines: Applications Due: Program Adoption: Sustainable Communities $25 million annually Adaptation Planning $7 million annually (3 years) July 2017 7 /17 /2017 10 For more information on the CTC-administered programs, please sign-up to be added onto their distribution list .... {¥«~~~.W-tw...WW~ o~~~~ o~~.w:~~l 0~-Wt"~~~ 0"'""'*"'~­o~we'f>·~11holf<~~ ~whldo:~~)>lll!lllllM"'---!ll#IWfl'I<­ ~·~~ QAA'M!~~ o~"",..~~­ Ol..<l><is.~·~~~,,.,._. C)<J.:k<t-t .... ~..iit~~­ Ot~~>Jffl. o ... -1(>~""'~~~ Forms are in the back of the room. 7 /17 /2017 11 AGENDA ITEM 8 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 8. CTC, SB 1 IMPLEMENTATION DRAFT GUIDELINESWednesday, July 12, 2017 10am-11:30am1Agenda•Introduction•California Transportation Commission Draft Guidelines•The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 – Local Streets and Roads Funding Draft Guidelines •Questions & Answers•Wrap-Up2 How to Ask a Question•All phone lines have been muted•For written questions – use the Q&A window to the right side of your screen. Please enter your name, title and city•For verbal questions, raise your hand by clicking on the icon3INTRODUCTION4 Speakers•Randy Breault – City of Brisbane•Rony Berdugo – Transportation Lobbyist, LOCC•Derek Dolfie – Transportation Policy Analyst, LOCC 5Funding Estimates for Cities FY 2017-18 & 2018-19•Local Streets and Roads Funding: FY 2017-18 (Updated)•Local Streets and Roads Funding: FY 2018-19 (Updated)•Californiacityfinance.com6 CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DRAFT GUIDELINES7Submitting Formal Comments to CTC•Please submit your city’s formal comments to Associate Deputy Director/Program Manager, Laura Pennybaker by Friday, July 14th•Laura.Pennebaker@dot.ca.gov8 Section I: Introduction1.Background and Purpose of Reporting Guidelines2.Program Objectives and Statutory Requirements3.Program Roles•Cities will develop and submit a list of projects to the Commission each fiscal year4.Program Schedule•Call for Project Lists: August 18th2017•Project Lists due to Commission: September 15th20179Section II: Funding5.Source6.Disbursement of Funds•Eligible cities and counties will receive monthly Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) apportionments from the State Controllers Office (SCO)•SCO has indicated apportionments will begin in mid-late January 201810 Example of Estimated RMRA Funds•City of Fremont is estimated to receive $1,295,702 in RMRA funds in FY 2017-18•This is a separate revenue source from HUTA•Total column includes both the HUTA and RMRA11Section III: Eligibility and Program Priorities7.Eligible Recipients8.Program Priorities and Example Projects12 Section IV: Project List Submittal (1)9.Content and Format of Project List•Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) can be used to generate project lists if they are an appropriating part of your budget•You do not need to submit your entire budget to verify, just the appropriate excerpts•Cities must make a good faith effort to document the project description that contains “a minimum level of detail needed for the public to understand what is being done and why it is a critical or high-priority need.” This includes the location of projects•A standard excel format for project submittal is being developed by the CTC, and will be released mid-August13Section IV: Project List Submittal (2)10.Process and Schedule for Project List Submittal•Project lists are due to the CTC by September 15th2017•League staff has been working with CTC staff to push back this date. Will keep cities informed11.Commission Submittal of Eligible Entities to the State Controller’s Office•CTC, SCO, CSAC and the League are all working together to explore options for cities or counties who do not submit their project lists on time•Currently, the SCO does not have the statutory authority to hold funds14 Section V: Project Expenditure Reporting and Auditing (1)12.Scope of Completed Project Expenditure Report•The completed project expenditure report must cover the full fiscal year and should include projects that have completed construction and are fully operational•League staff has discussed including phases of projects in this list, however, statute states “completed” projects.•Cities will have the option to include qualitative data that is pertinent to project description, necessity, or success13.Process and Schedule for Project Report Submittal14.Commission Reporting of Project Information Received15Section V: Project Expenditure Reporting and Auditing (2)15.State Controller Expenditure Reporting and Maintenance of Effort Monitoring•SCO is still updating their guidelines, but will be consist with CTC guidelines16.Workforce Development Requirements and Project Signage•Cities are encouraged to include project signage for RMRA funded projects, where feasible and cost-effective•This is to help show the public where and how SB 1 monies are being spent 16 Appendix A - C•Local Streets and Roads Project List Form•Local Streets and Roads Completed Project Expenditure Report Form•Can include multi-year projects•Local Streets and Roads Program Schedule17CTC Guidelines - FAQ•How should cities reflect/describe RMRA funds in their budgets?•Can cities use RMRA funds in conjunction with other funds for a project?•How long do cities have to expend funds once they are allocated?•Can cities save up RMRA funds for larger projects?•For Maintenance of Effort – what revenues qualify as “one-time allocations” that are excluded?•Can RMRA funds be used for project design and planning? Buying equipment? Road Crew salaries?18 QUESTIONS & ANSWERSQuestions About the CTC Guidelines or SB 1 in General19WRAP UP20 Helpful Links•For MOE calculations:•State Controller’s Office Website•City Finance and Estimated RMRA Revenues•Local Streets and Roads Funding for Cities: FY 2017-18 (Updated)•Local Streets and Roads Funding for Cities: FY 2018-19 (Updated)•Californiacityfinance.com•California Transportation Commission Draft Guidelines•The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 – Local Streets and Roads Funding Draft Guidelines 21Thank you!Please contact Rony Berdugo or Derek Dolfie for additional questions22 Useful Links: • For MOE calculations: State Controller’s Office Website • City Finance and Estimated RMRA Revenues Local Streets and Roads Funding for Cities: FY 2017-18 (Updated) Local Streets and Roads Funding for Cities: FY 2018-19 (Updated) Californiacityfinance.com • California Transportation Commission Draft Guidelines The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 – Local Streets and Roads Funding Draft Guidelines NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017 - LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FUNDING DRAFT REPORTING GUIDELINES June 30, 2017 California Transportation Commission i CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017 REPORTING GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FUNDING TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 1. Background and Purpose of Reporting Guidelines .................................................. 1 2. Program Objectives and Statutory Requirements .................................................... 1 3. Program Roles and Responsibilities ......................................................................... 2 4. Program Schedule ...................................................................................................... 3 II. Funding ............................................................................................................................. 4 5. Source ......................................................................................................................... 4 6. Disbursement of Funds .............................................................................................. 4 III. Eligibility and Program Priorities .................................................................................... 5 7. Eligible Recipients ...................................................................................................... 5 8. Program Priorities and Example Projects ................................................................. 5 IV. Project List Submittal....................................................................................................... 6 9. Content and Format of Project List ........................................................................... 6 10. Process and Schedule for Project List Submittal ..................................................... 9 11. Commission Submittal of Eligible Entities to the State Controller’s Office ............ 9 V. Project Expenditure Reporting and Auditing ................................................................10 12. Scope of Completed Project Expenditure Report ....................................................10 13. Process and Schedule for Project Report Submittal ...............................................12 14. Commission Reporting of Project Information Received ........................................12 15. State Controller Expenditure Reporting and Maintenance of Effort Monitoring ....13 16. Workforce Development Requirements and Project Signage.................................14 Appendix A – Local Streets and Roads Project List Form ...................................................15 Appendix B - Local Streets and Roads Completed Project Expenditure Report Form ......17 Appendix C – Local Streets and Roads Program Schedule .................................................18 California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 1 I. Introduction 1. Background and Purpose of Reporting Guidelines On April 28, 2017 the Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 1 (Beall, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017), which is known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. To address basic road maintenance, rehabilitation and critical safety needs on both the state highway and local streets and road system, SB 1: increases per gallon fuel excise taxes; increases diesel fuel sales taxes and vehicle registration fees; and provides for inflationary adjustments to tax rates in future years. Beginning November 1, 2017, the State Controller (Controller) will deposit various portions of this new funding into the newly created Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA). A percentage of this new RMRA funding will be apportioned by formula to eligible cities and counties pursuant to Streets and Highways Code (SHC) Section 2032(h) for basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety projects on the local streets and roads system. For a detailed breakdown of RMRA funding sources and the disbursement of funding please see Sections 5 and 6 of these guidelines. SB 1 emphasizes the importance of accountability and transparency in the delivery of California’s transportation programs. Therefore, in order to be eligible for RMRA funding, statute requires cities and counties to provide basic RMRA project reporting to the California Transportation Commission (Commission). These guidelines describe the general policies and procedures for carrying out the RMRA project reporting requirements for cities and counties and other statutory objectives as outlined in Section 2 below. The guidelines were developed in consultation with state, regional, and local government entities and other transportation stakeholders. The Commission may amend these guidelines after first giving notice of the proposed amendments. In order to provide clear and timely guidance, it is the Commission’s policy that a reasonable effort be made to amend the guidelines prior to a call for project lists or the Commission may extend the deadline for project list submission in order to facilitate compliance with the amended guidelines. 2. Program Objectives and Statutory Requirements Streets and Highways Code (SHC) Section 2032.5(a) articulates the general intent of the legislature that recipients of RMRA funding be held accountable for the efficient investment of public funds to maintain local streets and roads and are accountable to the people through performance goals that are tracked and reported. Pursuant to SHC Section 2030(a), the objective of the Local Streets and Roads Program is to address deferred maintenance on the local streets and roads system through the prioritization and delivery of basic road maintenance and rehabilitation projects as well as critical safety projects. Cities and counties receiving RMRA funds must comply with all relevant federal and state laws, regulations, policies, and procedures. The main requirements for the program are codified in SHC Sections 2034, 2036, 2037, and 2038 and include the following: California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 2 • Prior to receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds from the Controller in a fiscal year, a city or county must submit to the Commission a list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds. All projects proposed to receive funding must be included in a city or county budget that is adopted by the applicable city council or county board of supervisors at a regular public meeting [SHC 2034(a)(1)]. • The list of projects must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement [SHC 2034(a)(1)]. Further guidance regarding the scope, content, and submittal process for project lists prepared by cities and counties is provided in Sections 9-10. • The project list does not limit the flexibility of an eligible city or county to fund projects in accordance with local needs and priorities so long as the projects are consistent with RMRA priorities as outlined in SHC 2030(b) [SHC 2034(a)(1)]. • The Commission will report to the Controller the cities and counties that have submitted a list of projects as described in SHC 2034(a)(1) and that are therefore eligible to receive an apportionment of RMRA funds for the applicable fiscal year [SHC 2034(a)(2)]. • The Controller, upon receipt of the report from the Commission, shall apportion RMRA funds to eligible cities and counties pursuant to SHC 2032(h) [SHC 2034(a)(2)]. • For each fiscal year in which RMRA funds are received and expended, cities and counties must submit documentation to the Commission that includes a description and location of each completed project, the amount of funds expended on the project, the completion date, and the estimated useful life of the improvement [SHC 2034(b)]. Further guidance regarding the scope, content, and submittal process for program expenditure reports is provided in Sections 12-13. • A city or county receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds is required to sustain a maintenance of effort (MOE) by spending at least the annual average of its general fund expenditures during the 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–12 fiscal years for street, road, and highway purposes from the city’s or county’s general fund [SHC 2036]. Monitoring and enforcement of the maintenance of effort requirement for RMRA funds will be carried out by the Controller and is addressed in more detail in Section 15. • A city or county may spend its apportionment of RMRA funds on transportation priorities other than priorities outlined in SHC 2030(b) if the city or county’s average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) meets or exceeds 80 [SHC 2037]. • By July 1, 2023, cities and counties receiving RMRA funds must follow guidelines developed by the California Workforce Development Board (Board) that address participation and investment in, or partnership with, new or existing pre-apprenticeship training programs [SHC 2038]. Further information regarding the forthcoming Board Guidelines and future Board-sponsored grant opportunities is available in Section 14. 3. Program Roles and Responsibilities Below is a general outline of the roles and responsibilities of recipient cities/counties, the Commission, and the Controller in carrying out the program’s statutory requirements, as well as activities the Commission will undertake to meet the legislative intent of SB 1: California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 3 Recipient Cities/Counties: • Develop and submit a list of projects to the Commission each fiscal year. • Develop and submit a project expenditure report to the Commission each fiscal year. • Comply with all requirements including reporting requirements for RMRA funding. Commission (with assistance from Caltrans as needed pursuant to Government Code Section 14512): • Provide technical assistance to cities and counties in the preparation of project lists and reports. • Receive project lists from cities and counties each fiscal year. • Provide a comprehensive list to the Controller each fiscal year of cities and counties eligible to receive RMRA apportionments. • Receive program expenditure reports from cities and counties each fiscal year and provide aggregated statewide information regarding use of RMRA funds to the Legislature and the public (e.g. the Commission’s Annual Report to the Legislature and a SB 1 Accountability Website). Controller: • Receive list of cities and counties eligible for RMRA apportionments each fiscal year from the Commission. • Apportion RMRA funds to cities and counties. • Oversee Maintenance of Effort and other requirements for RMRA funds including reporting required pursuant to SHC 2151. 4. Program Schedule The following schedule lists the major milestones for the development of the 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines, initial submittal of project lists, and transmittal of eligibility list to the Controller. See Appendix C for a more detailed program schedule. Draft Guidelines Circulated for Public Review June 19 – July 10, 2017 Commission Adoption of Guidelines August 16-17, 2017 Call for Project Lists August 18, 2017 Project Lists due to Commission September 15, 2017 Commission Adopts List of Eligible Cities and Counties October 18-19, 2017 Commission Submits List to Controller November 1, 2017 California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 4 II. Funding 5. Source The State of California imposes per-gallon excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, sales taxes on diesel fuel, and registration taxes on motor vehicles and dedicates these revenues to transportation purposes. Portions of these revenues flow to cities and counties through the Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) and the newly established RMRA created by SB 1. The Local Streets and Roads Funding Program administered by the Commission in partnership with the Controller is supported by RMRA funding which includes portions of revenues pursuant to SHC 2031 from the following sources 1: • An additional 12 cent per gallon increase to the gasoline excise tax effective November 1, 2017. • An additional 20 cent per gallon increase to the diesel fuel excise tax effective November 1, 2017. • An additional vehicle registration tax called the “Transportation Improvement Fee” with rates based on the value of the motor vehicle effective January 1, 2018. • An additional $100 vehicle registration tax on zero emissions (ZEV) vehicles of model year 2020 or later effective July 1, 2020. • Annual rate increases to these taxes beginning on July 1, 2020 (July 1, 2021 for the ZEV fee) and every July 1st thereafter equal to the change in the California Consumer Price Index (CPI). SHC 2032(h)(2) specifies that 50 percent of the balance of revenues deposited into the RMRA, after certain funding is set aside for various programs, will be continuously appropriated for apportionment to cities and counties by the Controller pursuant to the formula in SHC Section 2103(a)(3)(C)(i) and (ii). 6. Disbursement of Funds Each fiscal year, upon receipt of a list of cities and counties that are eligible to receive an apportionment of RMRA funds pursuant to SHC 2032(h)(2) from the Commission, the Controller is required to apportion RMRA funds to eligible cities and counties consistent with the formula outlined in SHC Section 2103(a)(3)(C)(i) and (ii). It is expected that the Controller will apportion RMRA funds on a monthly basis to eligible cities and counties using a process and system similar to that of HUTA apportionments. 2 1 The California Local Government Finance Almanac. Updated May 11, 2017. Page 7. Accessed at: http://www.californiacityfinance.com/LSR1704.pdf 2 Please note that the language in this section is still under development. Commission staff is currently working with staff from the Controller’s office to determine the exact process and timing for the disbursement of funds. California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 5 III. Eligibility and Program Priorities 7. Eligible Recipients Eligible recipients of RMRA funding apportionments include cities and counties that have prepared and submitted a project list to the Commission pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(1) and that have been included in a list of eligible entities submitted by the Commission to the Controller pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(2). Recipients of RMRA apportionments must comply with all relevant federal and state laws, regulations, policies, and procedures. 8. Program Priorities and Example Projects Pursuant to SHC Section 2030(a), RMRA funds made available for the Local Streets and Roads Funding Program shall be prioritized for expenditure on basic road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, and on critical safety projects. SHC Section 2030(b)(1) provides a number of example projects and uses for RMRA funding that include but are not limited to the following: • Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation • Safety Projects • Railroad Grade Separations • Complete Streets Components (including active transportation purposes, pedestrian and bicycle safety projects, transit facilities, and drainage and stormwater capture projects in conjunction with any other allowable project) • Traffic Control Devices SHC Section 2030(b)(2) states that funds made available by the program may also be used to satisfy a match requirement in order to obtain state or federal funds for projects authorized by this subdivision. SHC Section 2030(c)-(f) specifies additional project elements that will be incorporated into RMRA- funded projects by cities and counties to the extent possible and cost effective, and where feasible (as deemed by cities and counties). These elements are: • Technologies and material recycling techniques that lower greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the cost of maintaining local streets and roads through material choice and construction method. • Systems and components in transportation infrastructure that recognize and accommodate technologies including but not limited to ZEV fueling or charging and infrastructure-vehicles communications for transitional or fully autonomous vehicles. • Project features to better adapt the transportation asset to withstand the negative effects of climate change and promote resiliency to impacts such as fires, floods, and sea level rise (where appropriate given a project’s scope and risk level for asset damage due to climate change). • Complete Streets Elements (such as project features that improve the quality of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and that improve safety for all users of transportation California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 6 facilities) are expected to be incorporated into RMRA funded projects to the extent (as deemed by cities and counties) beneficial, cost-effective, and practicable in the context of facility type, right-of-way, project scope, and quality of nearby facilities. Pursuant to SHC Section 2037, a city or county may spend its apportionment of RMRA funds on transportation priorities other than those outlined in SHC Section 2030 if the city or county’s average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) meets or exceeds 80. IV. Project List Submittal 9. Content and Format of Project List Pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(1), prior to receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds from the State Controller in a fiscal year, a city or county must submit to the Commission a list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds pursuant to an adopted city or county budget. Listed below are the specific statutory criteria for the content of the project list along with additional guidance provided to help ensure a consistent statewide format and to facilitate accountability and transparency within the Local Streets and Roads Program. a.) Included in an Adopted Budget All proposed projects must be included in a city or county budget that is adopted by the applicable city council or county board of supervisors at a regular public meeting. To ensure transparency and to meet the intent of SHC Section 2034(a)(1) “included in a city or county budget” can mean either of the following: a.) A specific list of projects proposed for RMRA funding adopted as part of the city/county’s regular operating or capital improvement budget, at a regular public meeting; or b.) A specific list of projects proposed for RMRA funding amended into the city/county’s regular operating or capital improvement budget, at a regular public meeting. Documentation of Inclusion in an Adopted Budget A city or county must provide with a project list a public record that projects proposed for RMRA funding through the Local Streets and Roads Program have been included in an adopted city or county operating budget. Examples of an acceptable public record include: a.) An excerpt from the city/county’s regular operating or capital improvement budget including the relevant list of projects and an adopting resolution; b.) An excerpt from the city/county’s regular operating or capital improvement budget including the relevant list of projects and meeting minutes documenting approval at a regular public meeting. c.) An excerpt from the city/county’s amended operating or capital improvement budget including the relevant list of projects, or the staff report specifying the projects to be included, as well as an adopting resolution or meeting minutes documenting approval at a regular public meeting. California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 7 Submittal of electronic copies of the relevant excerpts from an operating budget (or amendment) and support documentation (i.e. resolution or minutes) is encouraged. Support documentation requirements are further discussed in Appendix A. b.) List of Projects – Content Pursuant to SHC 2034(a)(1), the project list must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for each project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement. Development and Content The Commission recognizes the inherent diversity of road maintenance and rehabilitation needs among the approximately 540 jurisdictions across the state that may utilize Local Streets and Roads Program funding. Given the emphasis SB 1 places on accountability and transparency in delivering California’s transportation programs, cities and counties are encouraged to clearly articulate how these funds are being utilized through the development of a robust project list. To promote statewide consistency in the content and format of project information submitted to the Commission, and to facilitate transparency within the Local Streets and Roads Funding Program, the following guidance is provided regarding the key components of the project list. Please note that projects lists included in a city or county budget may only include the elements mandated by statute: description, location, schedule for completion and useful life elements. Cities and counties should include more detailed project information in the project list submitted to the Commission. For further assistance, Appendix A has been developed to specify project list content and format. Project Description The list must include a project description for each proposed project. The city/county is encouraged to provide a brief non-technical description (up to 5 sentences) written so that the main objectives of the project can be clearly and easily understood by the public. The level of detail provided will vary depending upon the nature of the project; however, it is highly encouraged that the project description contain a minimum level of detail needed for the public to understand what is being done and why it is a critical or high-priority need. Project Location The list must include a project location for each proposed project. The city/county is encouraged to provide project location information that, at a minimum, would allow the public to clearly understand where within the community the project is being undertaken. For example, providing specific street names where improvements are being undertaken and specifying project termini when possible are preferable to more general information such as “various” or “south-west side of city/county”. If project-specific geolocation data is available, it is highly encouraged to be included in the project list submitted to the Commission. California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 8 Proposed Schedule for Completion The list must include a completion schedule for each proposed project. The city/county is encouraged to provide a high-level timeline that provides a clear picture to the public of when a project is reasonably expected to be completed. Estimated Useful Life The list must include an estimated useful life for each proposed project. The city/county is encouraged to provide information regarding the estimated useful life of the project that is clear, understandable, and based on industry-standards for the project materials and design. Technology, Climate Change, and Complete Streets Considerations SHC Section 2030(c)-(f) specifies additional project elements that will be incorporated into RMRA-funded projects by cities and counties to the extent possible and cost effective, and where feasible. These elements are: • Technologies and material recycling techniques that lower greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the cost of maintaining local streets and roads through material choice and construction method. • Systems and components in transportation infrastructure that recognize and accommodate technologies including but not limited to ZEV fueling or charging and infrastructure-vehicles communications for transitional or fully autonomous vehicles. • Project features to better adapt the transportation asset to withstand the negative effects of climate change and promote resiliency to impacts such as fires, floods, and sea level rise (where appropriate given a project’s scope and risk level for asset damage due to climate change). • Complete Streets Elements (such as project features that improve the quality of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and that improve safety for all users of transportation facilities) are expected to be incorporated into RMRA funded projects to the extent (as deemed by cities and counties) beneficial, cost-effective, and practicable in the context of facility type, right-of-way, project scope, and quality of nearby facilities. Cities and counties are encouraged to consider all of the above for implementation, to the extent possible, cost-effective, and feasible, in the design and development of projects for RMRA funding. To meet the intent of SHC 2032.5(a) as outlined in Section 2 of these Guidelines, in addition to the statutory requirements outlined in Section 10, the standard forms developed by the Commission will allow cities and counties to report on the inclusion of these elements. Other Statutory Considerations for Project Lists Pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(1), the project list shall not limit the flexibility of an eligible city or county to fund projects in accordance with local needs and priorities, so long as the projects are consistent with SHC Section 2030(b). California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 9 Pursuant to SHC Section 2037, a city or county may spend its apportionment of RMRA funds on transportation priorities other than those outlined in SHC 2030(b) if the city or county’s average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) meets or exceeds 80. c.) List of Projects – Standard Format Please note that projects lists included in a city or county budget may only include the elements mandated by statute: description, location, schedule for completion and useful life elements. Cities and counties should include more detailed project information in the project list submitted to the Commission. To promote statewide consistency of project information submitted to the Commission, a standard project list format using Microsoft Excel has been developed and is further explained in Appendix A. For the initial submittal of project lists in 2017, cities and counties are required to use the standard form available here [hyperlink to excel form]. In future fiscal years, the Commission intends to make available an online platform so that cities and counties can quickly and easily enter project list information and upload support documentation online. 10. Process and Schedule for Project List Submittal A city or county must submit a project list and support documentation by September 15, 2017 to the Commission. All materials should be provided electronically. In the event a jurisdiction wishes to submit a hard copy please contact the program manager at the number below. Project lists, support documentation, and any questions can be remitted to: Laura Pennebaker, Associate Deputy Director Program Manager California Transportation Commission Laura.Pennebaker@dot.ca.gov (916) 653-7121 11. Commission Submittal of Eligible Entities to the State Controller’s Office Pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a), a city or county must submit a project list to the Commission to be eligible for the receipt of RMRA funds, and the Commission must report to the Controller the jurisdictions that are eligible to receive funding. Upon receipt of project lists and support documentation, Commission staff will review submittals to ensure they are complete. Once a project list submittal has been received and deemed complete by staff, the city or county will be added to a list of jurisdictions eligible to receive RMRA funding as required by SHC Section 2034(a)(2). All project lists and support documentation submitted by cities and counties will be posted to the Commission’s website. The list of eligible cities and counties will be brought forward for Commission consideration at a regularly scheduled meeting where staff will request Commission direction to transmit the list to the Controller. Upon direction of the Commission, staff will transmit the list to the Controller pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(2) and the cities and counties included on the list will be deemed eligible to receive RMRA apportionments pursuant to SHC Section 2034 (a)(1). Upon receipt of the list from the Commission, the Controller is expected to apportion funds to the cities and counties included on the list pursuant to SHC Sections 2034(a)(2) and 2032(h). California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 10 In the event a city or county does not provide a complete project list and support documentation for Commission consideration and eligibility designation pursuant to deadlines established by these guidelines, cities and counties are expected to work cooperatively with Commission staff to provide any missing information as soon as possible. Once completed information is provided, Commission action to establish eligibility will be taken at the next earliest opportunity.3 V. Project Expenditure Reporting and Auditing 12. Scope of Completed Project Expenditure Report Pursuant to SHC Section 2034(b), for each fiscal year in which an apportionment of RMRA funds is received and upon expenditure of funds, cities and counties must submit documentation to the Commission pertaining to the expenditure of those funds that includes: a description and location of each completed project, the amount of funds expended on the project, the completion date, and the estimated useful life of the improvement. Listed below are the specific statutory criteria for the content of the completed project expenditure report along with additional guidance provided to help ensure a consistent statewide format and to facilitate accountability and transparency within the Local Streets and Roads Program. a.) Completed Project Expenditure Report – Content Development and Content Given the emphasis SB 1 places on accountability and transparency in delivering California’s transportation programs, it is vitally important that cities and counties clearly articulate the public benefit of these funds through the development of a robust Completed Project Report. To promote statewide consistency in the content and format of completed project expenditure information submitted and to facilitate transparency and robust reporting within the Local Streets and Roads Funding Program, the following guidance is provided regarding the key components of the completed projects expenditure report. Additionally, Appendix B has been developed to provide an example of completed project expenditure report content and format. The completed project expenditure report must cover the full fiscal year and should include projects that have completed construction and are fully operational. Completed Project Description The report must include a project description for each completed project. The city/county is encouraged to provide a brief non-technical description (up to 5 sentences) written so that the main objectives of the project can be clearly and easily understood by the public. The level of detail provided will vary depending upon the nature of the project; however, it is highly encouraged that the project description contain a minimum level of detail needed for the public to understand exactly what work was completed. 3 Please note that the language in this section is still under development. Commission staff is currently working with staff from the Controller’s office to determine the exact process and timing of how eligibility will be communicated to the Controller to allow for the apportionment of RMRA funds. California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 11 Completed Project Location The report must include a project location for each completed project. The city/county is required to provide completed project location information that, at a minimum, would allow the public to clearly understand where within the community the project was constructed. For example, specific street names where improvements were undertaken and project termini should be specified. If project-specific geolocation data is available, it is highly encouraged to be included. The Amount of Funds Expended and the Project Completion Date The report must include the amount of RMRA funds expended on the project and its date of completion. Estimated Useful Life The report must include an estimated useful life for each completed project. The city/county is encouraged to provide information regarding the estimated useful life of the completed project that is clear, understandable, and based on industry-standards for the project materials and design. Technology, Climate Change, and Complete Streets Considerations SHC Section 2030(c)-(f) specifies additional project elements that will be incorporated into RMRA-funded projects by cities and counties to the extent possible and cost effective, and where feasible. These elements are: • Technologies and material recycling techniques that lower greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the cost of maintaining local streets and roads through material choice and construction method. • Systems and components in transportation infrastructure that recognize and accommodate technologies including but not limited to ZEV fueling or charging and infrastructure-vehicles communications for transitional or fully autonomous vehicles. • Project features to better adapt the transportation asset to withstand the negative effects of climate change and promote resiliency to impacts such as fires, floods, and sea level rise (where appropriate given a project’s scope and risk level for asset damage due to climate change). • Complete Streets Elements (such as project features that improve the quality of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and that improve safety for all users of transportation facilities) are expected to be incorporated into RMRA funded projects to the extent (as deemed by cities and counties) beneficial, cost-effective, and practicable in the context of facility type, right-of-way, project scope, and quality of nearby facilities. Cities and counties are encouraged to consider all of the above for implementation, to the extent possible, cost-effective and feasible, in the design and development of projects for RMRA funding. In the event that completed projects contain technology, climate change, and complete streets considerations pursuant to SHC 2030(c)-(f). Standard reporting forms developed by the Commission will allow, cities and counties to report on the inclusion of these elements in RMRA-funded projects. Standard reporting forms developed by the Commission will also provide space for supplementary information to be provided regarding the benefits of RMRA funded projects. Cities and counties should consider providing additional information in the California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 12 proposed project list as appropriate in order to clearly communicate how RMRA funding is being effectively put to use. Other Statutory Considerations for Completed Project Reports Pursuant to SHC Section 2037, a city or county may spend its apportionment of RMRA funds on transportation priorities other than those outlined in SHC Section 2030(b) if the city or county’s average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) meets or exceeds 80. This provision however, does not eliminate the requirement for cities and counties to prepare and submit a completed project expenditure report or the requirement to consider technology, climate change, and complete streets elements to the extent possible, cost- effective and feasible, in the design and development of projects for RMRA funding. b.) Completed Project Expenditure Report – Standard Format To promote statewide consistency of project information submitted, a standard completed project expenditure report format using Microsoft Excel has been developed and is further explained in Appendix B. For the initial submittal of project expenditure reports in 2017, cities and counties are required to use the standard form available here [hyperlink to excel form]. In the future, an online platform will be available so that cities and counties can quickly and easily enter completed project information online. 13. Process and Schedule for Project Report Submittal Completed Project Reports must be developed and submitted to the Commission according to the statutory requirements of SHC Section 2034(b) as outlined above in Section 12. A city or county must submit a Completed Project Report by October 1, 2018 to the Commission. All materials should be provided electronically. In the event a jurisdiction wishes to submit a hard copy please contact the program manager at the number below. Reports and any questions can be remitted to: Laura Pennebaker, Associate Deputy Director Program Manager California Transportation Commission Laura.Pennebaker@dot.ca.gov (916) 653-7121 14. Commission Reporting of Project Information Received In order to meet the requirements of SB 1 which include accountability and transparency in the delivery of California’s transportation programs, it is vitally important that the Commission clearly communicate the public benefits achieved by RMRA funds. The Commission intends to articulate these benefits through the development of an SB 1 accountability website and through other reporting mechanisms such as the Commission’s Annual Report to the Legislature. Upon receipt of completed project expenditure reports, Commission staff will review submittals to ensure they are complete. If any critical project information is missing (i.e. SHC 2034(b) requirements such as project description, location, date of completion, expenditures, and useful life of improvement) Commission staff will notify city/county staff to complete for resubmittal within 10 working days. California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 13 All completed project expenditure reports submitted by cities and counties will be posted to the Commission’s SB 1 Accountability website. The Commission will also analyze the completed project expenditure reports provided by cities and counties and aggregate the project information to provide both statewide and city/county level summary information such as the number, type, and location of RMRA funded projects. This information will also be provided on the Commission’s SB 1 Accountability website by December 1st each year, and included in the Commission’s Annual Report to the Legislature which is delivered to the Legislature by December 15th each year. In the event a city or county does not provide a completed project expenditure report by the deadline requested (October 1st each year) to allow for Commission analysis and inclusion on the SB 1 accountability website and in the Annual Report to the Legislature, absence of the report will be noted on the website, in the Annual Report, and may be reported to the State Controller. 15. State Controller Expenditure Reporting and Maintenance of Effort Monitoring In addition to the RMRA completed project reporting requirements outlined in SHC Section 2034(b), SHC Section 2151 requires each city and county to file an annual report of expenditures for street or road purposes with the State Controller’s Office. SHC Section 2153 imposes a mandatory duty on the State Controller’s Office to ensure that the annual streets and roads expenditure reports are adequate and accurate. Additional information regarding the preparation of the annual streets and roads expenditure report is available online in the Guidelines Relating to Gas Tax Expenditures for Cities and Counties prepared and maintained by the State Controller’s Office. These Guidelines were last updated in August 2015 and are anticipated to be updated again to address new accountability provisions of SB 1. Expenditure authority for RMRA funding is governed by Article XIX of the California Constitution as well as Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2030) of Division 3 of the California Streets and Highways Code (SHC). RMRA funds received should be deposited as follows in order to avoid the commingling of those funds with other local funds: a.) In the case of a city, into the city account that is designated for the receipt of state funds allocated for local streets and roads. b.) In the case of a county, into the county road fund. c.) In the case of a city and county, into a local account that is designated for the receipt of state funds allocated for local streets and roads. RMRA funds are subject to audit by the Controller pursuant to Government Code Section 12410 and SHC Section 2153. Pursuant to SHC 2036, a city or county receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds is required to sustain a maintenance of effort (MOE) by spending at least the annual average of its general fund expenditures during the 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–12 fiscal years for street, road, and highway purposes from the city’s or county’s general fund, Monitoring and enforcement of the MOE requirement for RMRA funds will be carried out by the Controller. California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 14 MOE requirements are fully articulated in statute as articulated below: Streets and Highways Code Section 2036 (a) cities and counties shall maintain their existing commitment of local funds for street, road, and highway purposes in order to remain eligible for RMRA funding apportionment. (b) In order to receive an allocation or apportionment pursuant to Section 2032, the city or county shall annually expend from its general fund for street, road, and highway purposes an amount not less than the annual average of its expenditures from its general fund during the 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–12 fiscal years, as reported to the Controller pursuant to Section 2151. For purposes of this subdivision, in calculating a city’s or county’s annual general fund expenditures and its average general fund expenditures for the 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011– 12 fiscal years, any unrestricted funds that the city or county may expend at its discretion, including vehicle in-lieu tax revenues and revenues from fines and forfeitures, expended for street, road, and highway purposes shall be considered expenditures from the general fund. One-time allocations that have been expended for street and highway purposes, but which may not be available on an ongoing basis, including revenue provided under the Teeter Plan Bond Law of 1994 (Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section 54773) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code), may not be considered when calculating a city’s or county’s annual general fund expenditures. (c) For any city incorporated after July 1, 2009, the Controller shall calculate an annual average expenditure for the period between July 1, 2009, and December 31, 2015, inclusive, that the city was incorporated. (d) For purposes of subdivision (b), the Controller may request fiscal data from cities and counties in addition to data provided pursuant to Section 2151, for the 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–12 fiscal years. Each city and county shall furnish the data to the Controller not later than 120 days after receiving the request. The Controller may withhold payment to cities and counties that do not comply with the request for information or that provide incomplete data. (e) The Controller may perform audits to ensure compliance with subdivision (b) when deemed necessary. Any city or county that has not complied with subdivision (b) shall reimburse the state for the funds it received during that fiscal year. Any funds withheld or returned as a result of a failure to comply with subdivision (b) shall be reapportioned to the other counties and cities whose expenditures are in compliance. (f) If a city or county fails to comply with the requirements of subdivision (b) in a particular fiscal year, the city or county may expend during that fiscal year and the following fiscal year a total amount that is not less than the total amount required to be expended for those fiscal years for purposes of complying with subdivision (b). 16. Workforce Development Requirements and Project Signage Pursuant to SHC Section 2038, by July 1, 2023, cities and counties receiving RMRA funds must follow guidelines developed by the California Workforce Development Board that address participation & investment in, or partnership with, new or existing pre-apprenticeship training programs. Upon California Workforce Development Board adoption of guidelines and grant funding opportunities in this area, the Commission will update the Local Streets and Roads Program Guidelines to incorporate this information by reference. To demonstrate to the public that RMRA funds are being put to work, cities and counties should consider including project funding information signage, where feasible and cost-effective, stating that the project was made possible by SB 1 – The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 15 Appendix A – Local Streets and Roads Project List Form To promote statewide consistency in the content and format of project information submitted to the Commission, and to facilitate transparency within the Local Streets and Roads Funding Program, Appendix A provides a standard form for cities and counties to use in submitting the proposed list of projects to the Commission. Please note that project lists included in a city or county budget may only include the elements mandated by statute: description, location, schedule for completion and useful life elements, while the form below includes more detailed project information. This will be an electronic form with drop down menus for certain fields to ensure accuracy of information provided. Eventually we hope to have an online platform and underlying data base through which cities and counties can enter project information online. For discussion purposes, examples of the nature/type of information that would be asked for is compiled below: General Info: • City/County Name • Point of Contact • Legislative District(s) • Jurisdiction’s Average Network PCI and date/year of measurement • Fiscal Year • Supplementary Information 4 (a place for the city/county to report how RMRA projects were identified as a priority, how they demonstrate an efficient investment of public funds, and any additional benefits of the projects). Proposed Project A Description: • Brief description (up to 5 sentences) written in a non-technical way that is understandable to the public and which includes some quantifiable measurement about the project (e.g. replace 5 culverts, repave/resurface 2 miles of road, restripe 1 mile of bike lanes, etc.) • Have city/county check boxes specifying the type of project it is based on RMRA priorities or “other” and the inclusion of additional Technology, Climate Change and Complete Streets elements (SHC 2034) Location: • Should be as specific as possible (i.e. street names and project termini) and geolocation information should be provided if available 5 Proposed Schedule for Completion: • Anticipated construction year Estimated Useful Life: • Should be clear, understandable, and based on industry-standards 2,3 Supplementary and location information can be used to demonstrate a variety of benefits of RMRA projects including effective prioritization of funds, equitable distribution, and efficient utilization of funding. California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 16 Support Documentation • Electronic Copy of excerpt from City/County’s Adopted Budget or Budget Amendment including proposed list of projects, or the staff report specifying the projects to be included in a budget amendment • Adopting resolution or meeting minutes to document budget/amendment approval • Additional information regarding support documentation is available in Section 10 of the guidelines Project Flexibility Pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(1), this project list shall not limit the flexibility of an eligible city or county to fund projects in accordance with local needs and priorities, so long as the projects are consistent with SHC Section 2030(b). California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 17 Appendix B - Local Streets and Roads Completed Project Expenditure Report Form This will be an electronic form with drop down menus for certain fields to ensure accuracy of information provided. Eventually we hope to have an online platform and underlying data base through which cities and counties can enter project information online. For discussion purposes, examples of the nature/type of information that would be asked for is compiled below: General Info: • City/County Name • Point of Contact • Legislative District(s) • Jurisdiction’s Average Network PCI and year/date of measurement. • Supplementary Information 6 (a spot for the city/county to report how RMRA projects were identified as a priority, how they demonstrate an efficient investment of public funds, and any additional benefits of the projects). Completed Project A Description: • Brief description (up to 5 sentences) written in a non-technical manner that is understandable to the public and which includes some quantifiable measurement about the project (e.g. replace 5 culverts, repave/resurface 2 miles of road, restripe 1 mile of bike lanes, etc.) • Have city/county check boxes specifying the type of project it is based on RMRA priorities or “other” and the inclusion of additional Technology, Climate Change and Complete Streets elements (SHC 2034) Location: • Must be as specific as possible (i.e. street names and project termini) and geolocation information should be provided if available7 Amount of Funds Expended: • Enter the amount of RMRA funds expended on the project and the total project cost • Enter the amount and type of other funds expended on the project Completion Date: • Drop down menu to select the month and year that the project is complete/operational etc. • Place to enter status update on multi-year projects and expected completion date Estimated Useful Life: • Should be clear, understandable, and based on industry-standards Signage: provide a place to report on the inclusion of project funding information signage 4,5 Supplementary and location information can be used to demonstrate a variety of benefits of RMRA projects including effective prioritization of funds, equitable distribution, and efficient utilization of funding. NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017 - LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FUNDING DRAFT REPORTING GUIDELINES June 30, 2017 California Transportation Commission i CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017 REPORTING GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FUNDING TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 1. Background and Purpose of Reporting Guidelines .................................................. 1 2. Program Objectives and Statutory Requirements .................................................... 1 3. Program Roles and Responsibilities ......................................................................... 2 4. Program Schedule ...................................................................................................... 3 II. Funding ............................................................................................................................. 4 5. Source ......................................................................................................................... 4 6. Disbursement of Funds .............................................................................................. 4 III. Eligibility and Program Priorities .................................................................................... 5 7. Eligible Recipients ...................................................................................................... 5 8. Program Priorities and Example Projects ................................................................. 5 IV. Project List Submittal....................................................................................................... 6 9. Content and Format of Project List ........................................................................... 6 10. Process and Schedule for Project List Submittal ..................................................... 9 11. Commission Submittal of Eligible Entities to the State Controller’s Office ............ 9 V. Project Expenditure Reporting and Auditing ................................................................10 12. Scope of Completed Project Expenditure Report ....................................................10 13. Process and Schedule for Project Report Submittal ...............................................12 14. Commission Reporting of Project Information Received ........................................12 15. State Controller Expenditure Reporting and Maintenance of Effort Monitoring ....13 16. Workforce Development Requirements and Project Signage.................................14 Appendix A – Local Streets and Roads Project List Form ...................................................15 Appendix B - Local Streets and Roads Completed Project Expenditure Report Form ......17 Appendix C – Local Streets and Roads Program Schedule .................................................18 California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 1 I. Introduction 1. Background and Purpose of Reporting Guidelines On April 28, 2017 the Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 1 (Beall, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017), which is known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. To address basic road maintenance, rehabilitation and critical safety needs on both the state highway and local streets and road system, SB 1: increases per gallon fuel excise taxes; increases diesel fuel sales taxes and vehicle registration fees; and provides for inflationary adjustments to tax rates in future years. Beginning November 1, 2017, the State Controller (Controller) will deposit various portions of this new funding into the newly created Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA). A percentage of this new RMRA funding will be apportioned by formula to eligible cities and counties pursuant to Streets and Highways Code (SHC) Section 2032(h) for basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety projects on the local streets and roads system. For a detailed breakdown of RMRA funding sources and the disbursement of funding please see Sections 5 and 6 of these guidelines. SB 1 emphasizes the importance of accountability and transparency in the delivery of California’s transportation programs. Therefore, in order to be eligible for RMRA funding, statute requires cities and counties to provide basic RMRA project reporting to the California Transportation Commission (Commission). These guidelines describe the general policies and procedures for carrying out the RMRA project reporting requirements for cities and counties and other statutory objectives as outlined in Section 2 below. The guidelines were developed in consultation with state, regional, and local government entities and other transportation stakeholders. The Commission may amend these guidelines after first giving notice of the proposed amendments. In order to provide clear and timely guidance, it is the Commission’s policy that a reasonable effort be made to amend the guidelines prior to a call for project lists or the Commission may extend the deadline for project list submission in order to facilitate compliance with the amended guidelines. 2. Program Objectives and Statutory Requirements Streets and Highways Code (SHC) Section 2032.5(a) articulates the general intent of the legislature that recipients of RMRA funding be held accountable for the efficient investment of public funds to maintain local streets and roads and are accountable to the people through performance goals that are tracked and reported. Pursuant to SHC Section 2030(a), the objective of the Local Streets and Roads Program is to address deferred maintenance on the local streets and roads system through the prioritization and delivery of basic road maintenance and rehabilitation projects as well as critical safety projects. Cities and counties receiving RMRA funds must comply with all relevant federal and state laws, regulations, policies, and procedures. The main requirements for the program are codified in SHC Sections 2034, 2036, 2037, and 2038 and include the following: California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 2 • Prior to receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds from the Controller in a fiscal year, a city or county must submit to the Commission a list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds. All projects proposed to receive funding must be included in a city or county budget that is adopted by the applicable city council or county board of supervisors at a regular public meeting [SHC 2034(a)(1)]. • The list of projects must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement [SHC 2034(a)(1)]. Further guidance regarding the scope, content, and submittal process for project lists prepared by cities and counties is provided in Sections 9-10. • The project list does not limit the flexibility of an eligible city or county to fund projects in accordance with local needs and priorities so long as the projects are consistent with RMRA priorities as outlined in SHC 2030(b) [SHC 2034(a)(1)]. • The Commission will report to the Controller the cities and counties that have submitted a list of projects as described in SHC 2034(a)(1) and that are therefore eligible to receive an apportionment of RMRA funds for the applicable fiscal year [SHC 2034(a)(2)]. • The Controller, upon receipt of the report from the Commission, shall apportion RMRA funds to eligible cities and counties pursuant to SHC 2032(h) [SHC 2034(a)(2)]. • For each fiscal year in which RMRA funds are received and expended, cities and counties must submit documentation to the Commission that includes a description and location of each completed project, the amount of funds expended on the project, the completion date, and the estimated useful life of the improvement [SHC 2034(b)]. Further guidance regarding the scope, content, and submittal process for program expenditure reports is provided in Sections 12-13. • A city or county receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds is required to sustain a maintenance of effort (MOE) by spending at least the annual average of its general fund expenditures during the 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–12 fiscal years for street, road, and highway purposes from the city’s or county’s general fund [SHC 2036]. Monitoring and enforcement of the maintenance of effort requirement for RMRA funds will be carried out by the Controller and is addressed in more detail in Section 15. • A city or county may spend its apportionment of RMRA funds on transportation priorities other than priorities outlined in SHC 2030(b) if the city or county’s average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) meets or exceeds 80 [SHC 2037]. • By July 1, 2023, cities and counties receiving RMRA funds must follow guidelines developed by the California Workforce Development Board (Board) that address participation and investment in, or partnership with, new or existing pre-apprenticeship training programs [SHC 2038]. Further information regarding the forthcoming Board Guidelines and future Board-sponsored grant opportunities is available in Section 14. 3. Program Roles and Responsibilities Below is a general outline of the roles and responsibilities of recipient cities/counties, the Commission, and the Controller in carrying out the program’s statutory requirements, as well as activities the Commission will undertake to meet the legislative intent of SB 1: California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 3 Recipient Cities/Counties: • Develop and submit a list of projects to the Commission each fiscal year. • Develop and submit a project expenditure report to the Commission each fiscal year. • Comply with all requirements including reporting requirements for RMRA funding. Commission (with assistance from Caltrans as needed pursuant to Government Code Section 14512): • Provide technical assistance to cities and counties in the preparation of project lists and reports. • Receive project lists from cities and counties each fiscal year. • Provide a comprehensive list to the Controller each fiscal year of cities and counties eligible to receive RMRA apportionments. • Receive program expenditure reports from cities and counties each fiscal year and provide aggregated statewide information regarding use of RMRA funds to the Legislature and the public (e.g. the Commission’s Annual Report to the Legislature and a SB 1 Accountability Website). Controller: • Receive list of cities and counties eligible for RMRA apportionments each fiscal year from the Commission. • Apportion RMRA funds to cities and counties. • Oversee Maintenance of Effort and other requirements for RMRA funds including reporting required pursuant to SHC 2151. 4. Program Schedule The following schedule lists the major milestones for the development of the 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines, initial submittal of project lists, and transmittal of eligibility list to the Controller. See Appendix C for a more detailed program schedule. Draft Guidelines Circulated for Public Review June 19 – July 10, 2017 Commission Adoption of Guidelines August 16-17, 2017 Call for Project Lists August 18, 2017 Project Lists due to Commission September 15, 2017 Commission Adopts List of Eligible Cities and Counties October 18-19, 2017 Commission Submits List to Controller November 1, 2017 California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 4 II. Funding 5. Source The State of California imposes per-gallon excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, sales taxes on diesel fuel, and registration taxes on motor vehicles and dedicates these revenues to transportation purposes. Portions of these revenues flow to cities and counties through the Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) and the newly established RMRA created by SB 1. The Local Streets and Roads Funding Program administered by the Commission in partnership with the Controller is supported by RMRA funding which includes portions of revenues pursuant to SHC 2031 from the following sources 1: • An additional 12 cent per gallon increase to the gasoline excise tax effective November 1, 2017. • An additional 20 cent per gallon increase to the diesel fuel excise tax effective November 1, 2017. • An additional vehicle registration tax called the “Transportation Improvement Fee” with rates based on the value of the motor vehicle effective January 1, 2018. • An additional $100 vehicle registration tax on zero emissions (ZEV) vehicles of model year 2020 or later effective July 1, 2020. • Annual rate increases to these taxes beginning on July 1, 2020 (July 1, 2021 for the ZEV fee) and every July 1st thereafter equal to the change in the California Consumer Price Index (CPI). SHC 2032(h)(2) specifies that 50 percent of the balance of revenues deposited into the RMRA, after certain funding is set aside for various programs, will be continuously appropriated for apportionment to cities and counties by the Controller pursuant to the formula in SHC Section 2103(a)(3)(C)(i) and (ii). 6. Disbursement of Funds Each fiscal year, upon receipt of a list of cities and counties that are eligible to receive an apportionment of RMRA funds pursuant to SHC 2032(h)(2) from the Commission, the Controller is required to apportion RMRA funds to eligible cities and counties consistent with the formula outlined in SHC Section 2103(a)(3)(C)(i) and (ii). It is expected that the Controller will apportion RMRA funds on a monthly basis to eligible cities and counties using a process and system similar to that of HUTA apportionments. 2 1 The California Local Government Finance Almanac. Updated May 11, 2017. Page 7. Accessed at: http://www.californiacityfinance.com/LSR1704.pdf 2 Please note that the language in this section is still under development. Commission staff is currently working with staff from the Controller’s office to determine the exact process and timing for the disbursement of funds. California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 5 III. Eligibility and Program Priorities 7. Eligible Recipients Eligible recipients of RMRA funding apportionments include cities and counties that have prepared and submitted a project list to the Commission pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(1) and that have been included in a list of eligible entities submitted by the Commission to the Controller pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(2). Recipients of RMRA apportionments must comply with all relevant federal and state laws, regulations, policies, and procedures. 8. Program Priorities and Example Projects Pursuant to SHC Section 2030(a), RMRA funds made available for the Local Streets and Roads Funding Program shall be prioritized for expenditure on basic road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, and on critical safety projects. SHC Section 2030(b)(1) provides a number of example projects and uses for RMRA funding that include but are not limited to the following: • Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation • Safety Projects • Railroad Grade Separations • Complete Streets Components (including active transportation purposes, pedestrian and bicycle safety projects, transit facilities, and drainage and stormwater capture projects in conjunction with any other allowable project) • Traffic Control Devices SHC Section 2030(b)(2) states that funds made available by the program may also be used to satisfy a match requirement in order to obtain state or federal funds for projects authorized by this subdivision. SHC Section 2030(c)-(f) specifies additional project elements that will be incorporated into RMRA- funded projects by cities and counties to the extent possible and cost effective, and where feasible (as deemed by cities and counties). These elements are: • Technologies and material recycling techniques that lower greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the cost of maintaining local streets and roads through material choice and construction method. • Systems and components in transportation infrastructure that recognize and accommodate technologies including but not limited to ZEV fueling or charging and infrastructure-vehicles communications for transitional or fully autonomous vehicles. • Project features to better adapt the transportation asset to withstand the negative effects of climate change and promote resiliency to impacts such as fires, floods, and sea level rise (where appropriate given a project’s scope and risk level for asset damage due to climate change). • Complete Streets Elements (such as project features that improve the quality of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and that improve safety for all users of transportation California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 6 facilities) are expected to be incorporated into RMRA funded projects to the extent (as deemed by cities and counties) beneficial, cost-effective, and practicable in the context of facility type, right-of-way, project scope, and quality of nearby facilities. Pursuant to SHC Section 2037, a city or county may spend its apportionment of RMRA funds on transportation priorities other than those outlined in SHC Section 2030 if the city or county’s average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) meets or exceeds 80. IV. Project List Submittal 9. Content and Format of Project List Pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(1), prior to receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds from the State Controller in a fiscal year, a city or county must submit to the Commission a list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds pursuant to an adopted city or county budget. Listed below are the specific statutory criteria for the content of the project list along with additional guidance provided to help ensure a consistent statewide format and to facilitate accountability and transparency within the Local Streets and Roads Program. a.) Included in an Adopted Budget All proposed projects must be included in a city or county budget that is adopted by the applicable city council or county board of supervisors at a regular public meeting. To ensure transparency and to meet the intent of SHC Section 2034(a)(1) “included in a city or county budget” can mean either of the following: a.) A specific list of projects proposed for RMRA funding adopted as part of the city/county’s regular operating or capital improvement budget, at a regular public meeting; or b.) A specific list of projects proposed for RMRA funding amended into the city/county’s regular operating or capital improvement budget, at a regular public meeting. Documentation of Inclusion in an Adopted Budget A city or county must provide with a project list a public record that projects proposed for RMRA funding through the Local Streets and Roads Program have been included in an adopted city or county operating budget. Examples of an acceptable public record include: a.) An excerpt from the city/county’s regular operating or capital improvement budget including the relevant list of projects and an adopting resolution; b.) An excerpt from the city/county’s regular operating or capital improvement budget including the relevant list of projects and meeting minutes documenting approval at a regular public meeting. c.) An excerpt from the city/county’s amended operating or capital improvement budget including the relevant list of projects, or the staff report specifying the projects to be included, as well as an adopting resolution or meeting minutes documenting approval at a regular public meeting. California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 7 Submittal of electronic copies of the relevant excerpts from an operating budget (or amendment) and support documentation (i.e. resolution or minutes) is encouraged. Support documentation requirements are further discussed in Appendix A. b.) List of Projects – Content Pursuant to SHC 2034(a)(1), the project list must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for each project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement. Development and Content The Commission recognizes the inherent diversity of road maintenance and rehabilitation needs among the approximately 540 jurisdictions across the state that may utilize Local Streets and Roads Program funding. Given the emphasis SB 1 places on accountability and transparency in delivering California’s transportation programs, cities and counties are encouraged to clearly articulate how these funds are being utilized through the development of a robust project list. To promote statewide consistency in the content and format of project information submitted to the Commission, and to facilitate transparency within the Local Streets and Roads Funding Program, the following guidance is provided regarding the key components of the project list. Please note that projects lists included in a city or county budget may only include the elements mandated by statute: description, location, schedule for completion and useful life elements. Cities and counties should include more detailed project information in the project list submitted to the Commission. For further assistance, Appendix A has been developed to specify project list content and format. Project Description The list must include a project description for each proposed project. The city/county is encouraged to provide a brief non-technical description (up to 5 sentences) written so that the main objectives of the project can be clearly and easily understood by the public. The level of detail provided will vary depending upon the nature of the project; however, it is highly encouraged that the project description contain a minimum level of detail needed for the public to understand what is being done and why it is a critical or high-priority need. Project Location The list must include a project location for each proposed project. The city/county is encouraged to provide project location information that, at a minimum, would allow the public to clearly understand where within the community the project is being undertaken. For example, providing specific street names where improvements are being undertaken and specifying project termini when possible are preferable to more general information such as “various” or “south-west side of city/county”. If project-specific geolocation data is available, it is highly encouraged to be included in the project list submitted to the Commission. California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 8 Proposed Schedule for Completion The list must include a completion schedule for each proposed project. The city/county is encouraged to provide a high-level timeline that provides a clear picture to the public of when a project is reasonably expected to be completed. Estimated Useful Life The list must include an estimated useful life for each proposed project. The city/county is encouraged to provide information regarding the estimated useful life of the project that is clear, understandable, and based on industry-standards for the project materials and design. Technology, Climate Change, and Complete Streets Considerations SHC Section 2030(c)-(f) specifies additional project elements that will be incorporated into RMRA-funded projects by cities and counties to the extent possible and cost effective, and where feasible. These elements are: • Technologies and material recycling techniques that lower greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the cost of maintaining local streets and roads through material choice and construction method. • Systems and components in transportation infrastructure that recognize and accommodate technologies including but not limited to ZEV fueling or charging and infrastructure-vehicles communications for transitional or fully autonomous vehicles. • Project features to better adapt the transportation asset to withstand the negative effects of climate change and promote resiliency to impacts such as fires, floods, and sea level rise (where appropriate given a project’s scope and risk level for asset damage due to climate change). • Complete Streets Elements (such as project features that improve the quality of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and that improve safety for all users of transportation facilities) are expected to be incorporated into RMRA funded projects to the extent (as deemed by cities and counties) beneficial, cost-effective, and practicable in the context of facility type, right-of-way, project scope, and quality of nearby facilities. Cities and counties are encouraged to consider all of the above for implementation, to the extent possible, cost-effective, and feasible, in the design and development of projects for RMRA funding. To meet the intent of SHC 2032.5(a) as outlined in Section 2 of these Guidelines, in addition to the statutory requirements outlined in Section 10, the standard forms developed by the Commission will allow cities and counties to report on the inclusion of these elements. Other Statutory Considerations for Project Lists Pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(1), the project list shall not limit the flexibility of an eligible city or county to fund projects in accordance with local needs and priorities, so long as the projects are consistent with SHC Section 2030(b). California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 9 Pursuant to SHC Section 2037, a city or county may spend its apportionment of RMRA funds on transportation priorities other than those outlined in SHC 2030(b) if the city or county’s average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) meets or exceeds 80. c.) List of Projects – Standard Format Please note that projects lists included in a city or county budget may only include the elements mandated by statute: description, location, schedule for completion and useful life elements. Cities and counties should include more detailed project information in the project list submitted to the Commission. To promote statewide consistency of project information submitted to the Commission, a standard project list format using Microsoft Excel has been developed and is further explained in Appendix A. For the initial submittal of project lists in 2017, cities and counties are required to use the standard form available here [hyperlink to excel form]. In future fiscal years, the Commission intends to make available an online platform so that cities and counties can quickly and easily enter project list information and upload support documentation online. 10. Process and Schedule for Project List Submittal A city or county must submit a project list and support documentation by September 15, 2017 to the Commission. All materials should be provided electronically. In the event a jurisdiction wishes to submit a hard copy please contact the program manager at the number below. Project lists, support documentation, and any questions can be remitted to: Laura Pennebaker, Associate Deputy Director Program Manager California Transportation Commission Laura.Pennebaker@dot.ca.gov (916) 653-7121 11. Commission Submittal of Eligible Entities to the State Controller’s Office Pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a), a city or county must submit a project list to the Commission to be eligible for the receipt of RMRA funds, and the Commission must report to the Controller the jurisdictions that are eligible to receive funding. Upon receipt of project lists and support documentation, Commission staff will review submittals to ensure they are complete. Once a project list submittal has been received and deemed complete by staff, the city or county will be added to a list of jurisdictions eligible to receive RMRA funding as required by SHC Section 2034(a)(2). All project lists and support documentation submitted by cities and counties will be posted to the Commission’s website. The list of eligible cities and counties will be brought forward for Commission consideration at a regularly scheduled meeting where staff will request Commission direction to transmit the list to the Controller. Upon direction of the Commission, staff will transmit the list to the Controller pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(2) and the cities and counties included on the list will be deemed eligible to receive RMRA apportionments pursuant to SHC Section 2034 (a)(1). Upon receipt of the list from the Commission, the Controller is expected to apportion funds to the cities and counties included on the list pursuant to SHC Sections 2034(a)(2) and 2032(h). California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 10 In the event a city or county does not provide a complete project list and support documentation for Commission consideration and eligibility designation pursuant to deadlines established by these guidelines, cities and counties are expected to work cooperatively with Commission staff to provide any missing information as soon as possible. Once completed information is provided, Commission action to establish eligibility will be taken at the next earliest opportunity.3 V. Project Expenditure Reporting and Auditing 12. Scope of Completed Project Expenditure Report Pursuant to SHC Section 2034(b), for each fiscal year in which an apportionment of RMRA funds is received and upon expenditure of funds, cities and counties must submit documentation to the Commission pertaining to the expenditure of those funds that includes: a description and location of each completed project, the amount of funds expended on the project, the completion date, and the estimated useful life of the improvement. Listed below are the specific statutory criteria for the content of the completed project expenditure report along with additional guidance provided to help ensure a consistent statewide format and to facilitate accountability and transparency within the Local Streets and Roads Program. a.) Completed Project Expenditure Report – Content Development and Content Given the emphasis SB 1 places on accountability and transparency in delivering California’s transportation programs, it is vitally important that cities and counties clearly articulate the public benefit of these funds through the development of a robust Completed Project Report. To promote statewide consistency in the content and format of completed project expenditure information submitted and to facilitate transparency and robust reporting within the Local Streets and Roads Funding Program, the following guidance is provided regarding the key components of the completed projects expenditure report. Additionally, Appendix B has been developed to provide an example of completed project expenditure report content and format. The completed project expenditure report must cover the full fiscal year and should include projects that have completed construction and are fully operational. Completed Project Description The report must include a project description for each completed project. The city/county is encouraged to provide a brief non-technical description (up to 5 sentences) written so that the main objectives of the project can be clearly and easily understood by the public. The level of detail provided will vary depending upon the nature of the project; however, it is highly encouraged that the project description contain a minimum level of detail needed for the public to understand exactly what work was completed. 3 Please note that the language in this section is still under development. Commission staff is currently working with staff from the Controller’s office to determine the exact process and timing of how eligibility will be communicated to the Controller to allow for the apportionment of RMRA funds. California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 11 Completed Project Location The report must include a project location for each completed project. The city/county is required to provide completed project location information that, at a minimum, would allow the public to clearly understand where within the community the project was constructed. For example, specific street names where improvements were undertaken and project termini should be specified. If project-specific geolocation data is available, it is highly encouraged to be included. The Amount of Funds Expended and the Project Completion Date The report must include the amount of RMRA funds expended on the project and its date of completion. Estimated Useful Life The report must include an estimated useful life for each completed project. The city/county is encouraged to provide information regarding the estimated useful life of the completed project that is clear, understandable, and based on industry-standards for the project materials and design. Technology, Climate Change, and Complete Streets Considerations SHC Section 2030(c)-(f) specifies additional project elements that will be incorporated into RMRA-funded projects by cities and counties to the extent possible and cost effective, and where feasible. These elements are: • Technologies and material recycling techniques that lower greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the cost of maintaining local streets and roads through material choice and construction method. • Systems and components in transportation infrastructure that recognize and accommodate technologies including but not limited to ZEV fueling or charging and infrastructure-vehicles communications for transitional or fully autonomous vehicles. • Project features to better adapt the transportation asset to withstand the negative effects of climate change and promote resiliency to impacts such as fires, floods, and sea level rise (where appropriate given a project’s scope and risk level for asset damage due to climate change). • Complete Streets Elements (such as project features that improve the quality of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and that improve safety for all users of transportation facilities) are expected to be incorporated into RMRA funded projects to the extent (as deemed by cities and counties) beneficial, cost-effective, and practicable in the context of facility type, right-of-way, project scope, and quality of nearby facilities. Cities and counties are encouraged to consider all of the above for implementation, to the extent possible, cost-effective and feasible, in the design and development of projects for RMRA funding. In the event that completed projects contain technology, climate change, and complete streets considerations pursuant to SHC 2030(c)-(f). Standard reporting forms developed by the Commission will allow, cities and counties to report on the inclusion of these elements in RMRA-funded projects. Standard reporting forms developed by the Commission will also provide space for supplementary information to be provided regarding the benefits of RMRA funded projects. Cities and counties should consider providing additional information in the California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 12 proposed project list as appropriate in order to clearly communicate how RMRA funding is being effectively put to use. Other Statutory Considerations for Completed Project Reports Pursuant to SHC Section 2037, a city or county may spend its apportionment of RMRA funds on transportation priorities other than those outlined in SHC Section 2030(b) if the city or county’s average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) meets or exceeds 80. This provision however, does not eliminate the requirement for cities and counties to prepare and submit a completed project expenditure report or the requirement to consider technology, climate change, and complete streets elements to the extent possible, cost- effective and feasible, in the design and development of projects for RMRA funding. b.) Completed Project Expenditure Report – Standard Format To promote statewide consistency of project information submitted, a standard completed project expenditure report format using Microsoft Excel has been developed and is further explained in Appendix B. For the initial submittal of project expenditure reports in 2017, cities and counties are required to use the standard form available here [hyperlink to excel form]. In the future, an online platform will be available so that cities and counties can quickly and easily enter completed project information online. 13. Process and Schedule for Project Report Submittal Completed Project Reports must be developed and submitted to the Commission according to the statutory requirements of SHC Section 2034(b) as outlined above in Section 12. A city or county must submit a Completed Project Report by October 1, 2018 to the Commission. All materials should be provided electronically. In the event a jurisdiction wishes to submit a hard copy please contact the program manager at the number below. Reports and any questions can be remitted to: Laura Pennebaker, Associate Deputy Director Program Manager California Transportation Commission Laura.Pennebaker@dot.ca.gov (916) 653-7121 14. Commission Reporting of Project Information Received In order to meet the requirements of SB 1 which include accountability and transparency in the delivery of California’s transportation programs, it is vitally important that the Commission clearly communicate the public benefits achieved by RMRA funds. The Commission intends to articulate these benefits through the development of an SB 1 accountability website and through other reporting mechanisms such as the Commission’s Annual Report to the Legislature. Upon receipt of completed project expenditure reports, Commission staff will review submittals to ensure they are complete. If any critical project information is missing (i.e. SHC 2034(b) requirements such as project description, location, date of completion, expenditures, and useful life of improvement) Commission staff will notify city/county staff to complete for resubmittal within 10 working days. California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 13 All completed project expenditure reports submitted by cities and counties will be posted to the Commission’s SB 1 Accountability website. The Commission will also analyze the completed project expenditure reports provided by cities and counties and aggregate the project information to provide both statewide and city/county level summary information such as the number, type, and location of RMRA funded projects. This information will also be provided on the Commission’s SB 1 Accountability website by December 1st each year, and included in the Commission’s Annual Report to the Legislature which is delivered to the Legislature by December 15th each year. In the event a city or county does not provide a completed project expenditure report by the deadline requested (October 1st each year) to allow for Commission analysis and inclusion on the SB 1 accountability website and in the Annual Report to the Legislature, absence of the report will be noted on the website, in the Annual Report, and may be reported to the State Controller. 15. State Controller Expenditure Reporting and Maintenance of Effort Monitoring In addition to the RMRA completed project reporting requirements outlined in SHC Section 2034(b), SHC Section 2151 requires each city and county to file an annual report of expenditures for street or road purposes with the State Controller’s Office. SHC Section 2153 imposes a mandatory duty on the State Controller’s Office to ensure that the annual streets and roads expenditure reports are adequate and accurate. Additional information regarding the preparation of the annual streets and roads expenditure report is available online in the Guidelines Relating to Gas Tax Expenditures for Cities and Counties prepared and maintained by the State Controller’s Office. These Guidelines were last updated in August 2015 and are anticipated to be updated again to address new accountability provisions of SB 1. Expenditure authority for RMRA funding is governed by Article XIX of the California Constitution as well as Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2030) of Division 3 of the California Streets and Highways Code (SHC). RMRA funds received should be deposited as follows in order to avoid the commingling of those funds with other local funds: a.) In the case of a city, into the city account that is designated for the receipt of state funds allocated for local streets and roads. b.) In the case of a county, into the county road fund. c.) In the case of a city and county, into a local account that is designated for the receipt of state funds allocated for local streets and roads. RMRA funds are subject to audit by the Controller pursuant to Government Code Section 12410 and SHC Section 2153. Pursuant to SHC 2036, a city or county receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds is required to sustain a maintenance of effort (MOE) by spending at least the annual average of its general fund expenditures during the 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–12 fiscal years for street, road, and highway purposes from the city’s or county’s general fund, Monitoring and enforcement of the MOE requirement for RMRA funds will be carried out by the Controller. California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 14 MOE requirements are fully articulated in statute as articulated below: Streets and Highways Code Section 2036 (a) cities and counties shall maintain their existing commitment of local funds for street, road, and highway purposes in order to remain eligible for RMRA funding apportionment. (b) In order to receive an allocation or apportionment pursuant to Section 2032, the city or county shall annually expend from its general fund for street, road, and highway purposes an amount not less than the annual average of its expenditures from its general fund during the 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–12 fiscal years, as reported to the Controller pursuant to Section 2151. For purposes of this subdivision, in calculating a city’s or county’s annual general fund expenditures and its average general fund expenditures for the 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011– 12 fiscal years, any unrestricted funds that the city or county may expend at its discretion, including vehicle in-lieu tax revenues and revenues from fines and forfeitures, expended for street, road, and highway purposes shall be considered expenditures from the general fund. One-time allocations that have been expended for street and highway purposes, but which may not be available on an ongoing basis, including revenue provided under the Teeter Plan Bond Law of 1994 (Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section 54773) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code), may not be considered when calculating a city’s or county’s annual general fund expenditures. (c) For any city incorporated after July 1, 2009, the Controller shall calculate an annual average expenditure for the period between July 1, 2009, and December 31, 2015, inclusive, that the city was incorporated. (d) For purposes of subdivision (b), the Controller may request fiscal data from cities and counties in addition to data provided pursuant to Section 2151, for the 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–12 fiscal years. Each city and county shall furnish the data to the Controller not later than 120 days after receiving the request. The Controller may withhold payment to cities and counties that do not comply with the request for information or that provide incomplete data. (e) The Controller may perform audits to ensure compliance with subdivision (b) when deemed necessary. Any city or county that has not complied with subdivision (b) shall reimburse the state for the funds it received during that fiscal year. Any funds withheld or returned as a result of a failure to comply with subdivision (b) shall be reapportioned to the other counties and cities whose expenditures are in compliance. (f) If a city or county fails to comply with the requirements of subdivision (b) in a particular fiscal year, the city or county may expend during that fiscal year and the following fiscal year a total amount that is not less than the total amount required to be expended for those fiscal years for purposes of complying with subdivision (b). 16. Workforce Development Requirements and Project Signage Pursuant to SHC Section 2038, by July 1, 2023, cities and counties receiving RMRA funds must follow guidelines developed by the California Workforce Development Board that address participation & investment in, or partnership with, new or existing pre-apprenticeship training programs. Upon California Workforce Development Board adoption of guidelines and grant funding opportunities in this area, the Commission will update the Local Streets and Roads Program Guidelines to incorporate this information by reference. To demonstrate to the public that RMRA funds are being put to work, cities and counties should consider including project funding information signage, where feasible and cost-effective, stating that the project was made possible by SB 1 – The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 15 Appendix A – Local Streets and Roads Project List Form To promote statewide consistency in the content and format of project information submitted to the Commission, and to facilitate transparency within the Local Streets and Roads Funding Program, Appendix A provides a standard form for cities and counties to use in submitting the proposed list of projects to the Commission. Please note that project lists included in a city or county budget may only include the elements mandated by statute: description, location, schedule for completion and useful life elements, while the form below includes more detailed project information. This will be an electronic form with drop down menus for certain fields to ensure accuracy of information provided. Eventually we hope to have an online platform and underlying data base through which cities and counties can enter project information online. For discussion purposes, examples of the nature/type of information that would be asked for is compiled below: General Info: • City/County Name • Point of Contact • Legislative District(s) • Jurisdiction’s Average Network PCI and date/year of measurement • Fiscal Year • Supplementary Information 4 (a place for the city/county to report how RMRA projects were identified as a priority, how they demonstrate an efficient investment of public funds, and any additional benefits of the projects). Proposed Project A Description: • Brief description (up to 5 sentences) written in a non-technical way that is understandable to the public and which includes some quantifiable measurement about the project (e.g. replace 5 culverts, repave/resurface 2 miles of road, restripe 1 mile of bike lanes, etc.) • Have city/county check boxes specifying the type of project it is based on RMRA priorities or “other” and the inclusion of additional Technology, Climate Change and Complete Streets elements (SHC 2034) Location: • Should be as specific as possible (i.e. street names and project termini) and geolocation information should be provided if available 5 Proposed Schedule for Completion: • Anticipated construction year Estimated Useful Life: • Should be clear, understandable, and based on industry-standards 2,3 Supplementary and location information can be used to demonstrate a variety of benefits of RMRA projects including effective prioritization of funds, equitable distribution, and efficient utilization of funding. California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 16 Support Documentation • Electronic Copy of excerpt from City/County’s Adopted Budget or Budget Amendment including proposed list of projects, or the staff report specifying the projects to be included in a budget amendment • Adopting resolution or meeting minutes to document budget/amendment approval • Additional information regarding support documentation is available in Section 10 of the guidelines Project Flexibility Pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(1), this project list shall not limit the flexibility of an eligible city or county to fund projects in accordance with local needs and priorities, so long as the projects are consistent with SHC Section 2030(b). California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 17 Appendix B - Local Streets and Roads Completed Project Expenditure Report Form This will be an electronic form with drop down menus for certain fields to ensure accuracy of information provided. Eventually we hope to have an online platform and underlying data base through which cities and counties can enter project information online. For discussion purposes, examples of the nature/type of information that would be asked for is compiled below: General Info: • City/County Name • Point of Contact • Legislative District(s) • Jurisdiction’s Average Network PCI and year/date of measurement. • Supplementary Information 6 (a spot for the city/county to report how RMRA projects were identified as a priority, how they demonstrate an efficient investment of public funds, and any additional benefits of the projects). Completed Project A Description: • Brief description (up to 5 sentences) written in a non-technical manner that is understandable to the public and which includes some quantifiable measurement about the project (e.g. replace 5 culverts, repave/resurface 2 miles of road, restripe 1 mile of bike lanes, etc.) • Have city/county check boxes specifying the type of project it is based on RMRA priorities or “other” and the inclusion of additional Technology, Climate Change and Complete Streets elements (SHC 2034) Location: • Must be as specific as possible (i.e. street names and project termini) and geolocation information should be provided if available7 Amount of Funds Expended: • Enter the amount of RMRA funds expended on the project and the total project cost • Enter the amount and type of other funds expended on the project Completion Date: • Drop down menu to select the month and year that the project is complete/operational etc. • Place to enter status update on multi-year projects and expected completion date Estimated Useful Life: • Should be clear, understandable, and based on industry-standards Signage: provide a place to report on the inclusion of project funding information signage 4,5 Supplementary and location information can be used to demonstrate a variety of benefits of RMRA projects including effective prioritization of funds, equitable distribution, and efficient utilization of funding. California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 18 Appendix C – Local Streets and Roads Program Schedule FY 17-18 Adoption of Final Guidelines Call for Project Lists August 16-17, 2017 Technical Assistance and Outreach to Cities/Counties August 18 – September 15, 2017 Project Lists due to Commission September 15, 2017 Commission Adopts List of Eligible Cities and Counties October 18-19, 2017 Commission Submits List to Controller November 1, 2017 Controller FY 17-18 Apportionments Begin TBD Completed Project Report Submitted to Commission for 2017 - 2018 Fiscal Year October 1, 2018 Commission Posts Statewide LSR Program Accountability Information Online December 1, 2018 FY 18-19 Guidelines Update as Needed TBD Call for Project Lists March - May 2018 Commission Review, Approval & Adoption of List of Eligible Cities and Counties March - May 2018 Commission Submits Final List to Controller July 1, 2018 Controller FY 18-19 Apportionments Begin Mid-August 2018 Completed Project Report Submitted to Commission for 2018 - 2019 Fiscal Year October 1, 2019 Commission Posts Statewide LSR Program Accountability Information Online December 1, 2019 California Transportation Commission 2017 Local Streets and Roads Funding Program DRAFT Reporting Guidelines June 30, 2017 NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Funding Reporting Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form, and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines. 18 Appendix C – Local Streets and Roads Program Schedule FY 17-18 Adoption of Final Guidelines Call for Project Lists August 16-17, 2017 Technical Assistance and Outreach to Cities/Counties August 18 – September 15, 2017 Project Lists due to Commission September 15, 2017 Commission Adopts List of Eligible Cities and Counties October 18-19, 2017 Commission Submits List to Controller November 1, 2017 Controller FY 17-18 Apportionments Begin TBD Completed Project Report Submitted to Commission for 2017 - 2018 Fiscal Year October 1, 2018 Commission Posts Statewide LSR Program Accountability Information Online December 1, 2018 FY 18-19 Guidelines Update as Needed TBD Call for Project Lists March - May 2018 Commission Review, Approval & Adoption of List of Eligible Cities and Counties March - May 2018 Commission Submits Final List to Controller July 1, 2018 Controller FY 18-19 Apportionments Begin Mid-August 2018 Completed Project Report Submitted to Commission for 2018 - 2019 Fiscal Year October 1, 2019 Commission Posts Statewide LSR Program Accountability Information Online December 1, 2019 AGENDA ITEM 9 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 9. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 17, 2017  TO: Technical Advisory Committee  FROM: Lorelle Moe‐Luna, Senior Management Analyst  SUBJECT: Senate Bill 1 – Active Transportation Program Update      STAFF RECOMMENDATION:    Receive and file.    BACKGROUND INFORMATION:    The California Transportation Commission (CTC) awarded projects for the 2017 Active Transportation  Program (ATP) Cycle 3 for the statewide/rural and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)  components in December 2016 and March 2017, respectively.  Approximately $264 million was  available for programming in Fiscal Years (FY) 2019/20 and 2020/21 and nearly $977 million was  received in funding requests.  A total of 26 projects were submitted from local agencies in Riverside  County, requesting approximately $66 million in ATP funds; and a total of 7 projects, totaling about $18  million in ATP funds, were awarded.  Applicants who applied for funds in the 2017 (Cycle 3) Call for  Projects now have another opportunity to receive an award with additional funding from Senate Bill  (SB) 1.      SB 1, which was signed by the Governor on April 28, will provide an increase of $100 million annually  through the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account for ATP.  A total of $200 million for  programming in FY 2017/18 and 2018/19 will be awarded through the CTC’s 2017 ATP Augmentation  Call for Projects, which opened June 30, 2017 (see attached CTC Augmentation Guidelines).   Applications for these funds are due August 1, 2017.      Consideration for funding will be made available to projects awarded in the original 2017 ATP Cycle 3  Call for Projects who can advance project delivery and to projects that applied for funding in the original  2017 ATP Cycle 3 but were not selected (see attached list of projects from Riverside County).  Priority  of funds will be based on the project’s 2017 ATP score and the following priority order:    o Projects that can deliver all phases in FYs 2017/18 and 2018/19;   o Projects that can deliver one or more of the project phases in FYs 2017/18 and 2018/19; and  o Some FYs 2019/20 and 2020/21 programming capacity may become available as previously  programmed projects request advancement into FYs 2017/18 and 2018/19.     The CTC is requiring that all projects, including projects with no change to the schedule or funding plan,  submit the following supplemental application materials:    1. Updated Schedule and Funding Plan via the Project Programming Request (PPR) Form.  A  template of this form can be found at www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ocip/2016stip.htm.   2. Authorization Letter signed by the Chief Executive Officer or other officer authorized by the  applicant’s governing board, confirming that the project can be delivered in the time frame  proposed in the updated PPR and that the project is still fully funded.  3. Applicants may also submit a one‐page application update that explains any significant changes  to the project since the original application submittal.    Five hard copies and one electronic copy of the supplemental materials are required to be submitted  (postmarked) by the application deadline to the CTC.  By the same date, an additional copy must also  be sent to RCTC and SCAG.  Electronic copies of these materials may be submitted to RCTC and SCAG  by email to Lorelle Moe‐Luna at lmoe‐luna@rctc.org and Stephen Patchan at patchan@scag.ca.gov.   Please ensure that the CTC guidelines are reviewed and submittal instructions are reviewed carefully.       The following table summarizes the funds available from the original 2017 ATP Cycle 3 Program and  the new funds available from SB 1:    CTC 2017 ATP Call for Projects Funding Availability ($ in thousands)    Distribution  Original 2017  ATP Cycle 31  SB 1 ATP  Augmentation2  Statewide Competitive 50% 131,763 96,000 Rural Competitive 10% 26,333 19,200 MPO Competitive3 40% 105,430 76,800 Total 100% 263,526 196,000 1 For programming in FYs 2019/20 and 2020/21. 2 For programming in FYs 2017/18 and 2018/19.  Per legislation, $4 million per year is allocated to the  California Conservation Corps.  3 The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) receives about half of the MPO component  for its six‐county region.    The ATP process allows applicants two rounds of opportunity to be awarded – the statewide and MPO  level.  As part of the sequential project selection, projects are first evaluated statewide and those that  are not ranked high enough for statewide funding are automatically provided a second opportunity for  funding through the MPO share.  An MPO has the opportunity to hold a supplemental call for projects,  if approved by the CTC, and award funding to projects that did not initially apply in the statewide call  for projects.  In this region, SCAG has approved supplemental guidelines for a separate call for projects  for Planning and Non‐Infrastructure projects only.    Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) MPO Component for SB 1   SCAG announced on July 6, 2017 at its Transportation Committee meeting that approximately $40  million will be available in its region under the ATP SB 1 MPO component.  This includes $38 million  (95%) for Implementation (infrastructure) projects and $2 million (5%) for Planning and Non‐ Infrastructure projects.  The table below identifies the funding targets for the Implementation funds  by county.    SB 1 Implementation Targets for SCAG Region   County Population % Funding Target ($)*  Imperial 1% 363,357  Los Angeles 54% 20,525,763  Orange 17% 6,381,929  Riverside 12% 4,725,853  San Bernardino 11% 4,286,289  Ventura 5% 1,716,809  Total 100% 38,000,000  *Funding targets are subject to change once the CTC releases the final  program funding estimates.    The approximate $2 million set aside for Planning and Non‐Infrastructure projects will be selected from  those ATP eligible projects approved on SCAG’s 2016 Sustainable Planning Grant (SPG) unfunded  project list (see attached SCAG SPG Phase 2 Future Funding List).  Planning projects on this list must  also meet ATP requirements such as qualification as a disadvantaged community.  In addition, SCAG  has also re‐issued the regional 2017 supplemental call for projects as the Sustainability Planning  Grants: 2017 Active Transportation Call for Proposals for planning and non‐infrastructure projects to  fund new project proposals that are aimed at building capacity for future ATP funding cycles.  Please  note that in order to receive ATP planning funds, the project must qualify as a disadvantaged  community (DAC).  The DAC requirement does not apply to Non‐Infrastructure programs.  SCAG will  host an informational workshop for potential applicants on July 20, 2017.  Applications for this program  are due on August 31, 2017.  See attached workshop agenda and SCAG SPG Call for Projects Guidelines.      Awards for the SB 1 ATP Augmentation Call for Projects are expected to be adopted by the CTC in  October 2017 for the statewide and rural components and December 2017 for the MPO component.      Attachments: ATP Cycle 3 List of Projects from Riverside County    CTC 2017 ATP SB 1 Augmentation Call for Projects Guidelines    SCAG SPG Phase 2 (Unfunded) Future Funding List    SCAG SPG Application Workshop Agenda for July 20, 2017    SCAG SB 1 ATP Sustainable Planning Grants Call for Projects Guidelines  2017 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (ATP) CYCLE 3 LIST OF PROJECTS FROM RIVERSIDE COUNTY Applicant Project Title DAC Total Project Cost (000's) Total Fund Request (000's) FY 19-20 FY 20-21 Plan SRTS SRTS NI CTC Final Score RCTC Score AWARDED - STATE/MPO 1 Moreno Valley Juan Bautista De Anza Trail Gap Closure X 3,149 2,849 90 2,759 X 94.00 n/a Statewide 2 La Quinta La Quinta Village Complete Streets - A Road Diet Project X 9,533 7,313 7,313 0 X 90.00 n/a Statewide 3 Desert Hot Springs Palm Drive Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project X 965 772 772 0 X 89.50 n/a Statewide 4 Wildomar City of Wildomar Active Transportation Plan 375 300 300 0 X 88.00 98.00 SCAG SPG 5 Riverside County Dept. of Public Health Riverside County Safe Routes to School Program, Cabazon/Banning X 625 500 500 0 X 87.00 97.00 SCAG MPO 6 Jurupa Valley Pacific Avenue Safe Route to School and Road Diet Project X 2,638 607 154 453 X 86.00 96.00 SCAG MPO 7 CVAG CVLink X 99,997 5,584 5,584 0 85.50 95.50 SCAG MPO* 8 Riverside County Dept. of Public Health (Injury Prevention Services) Riverside County Safe Routes to Schools Program, Eastern Coachella Valley X 625 500 500 0 X 85.00 95.00 SCAG MPO 9 Riverside County Transportation Department Cabazon Safe Routes to School Sidewalk Safety Improvements X 1,120 1,070 282 788 X 85.00 95.00 10 Riverside County Transportation Department Clark Street SR2S Sidewalk and Intersection Safety Improvements X 2,945 684 684 0 X 84.00 94.00 11 Indio Herbert Hoover Elementary Pedestrian Improvements X 2,983 2,983 340 2,643 X X 83.00 93.00 12 Perris Perris Valley Storm Drain Channel Trail - Phase 2 X 3,204 3,004 237 2,767 83.00 93.00 13 Hemet Hemet Valley Bikeway Connect X 2,288 2,288 200 2,088 X X 83.00 93.00 14 Riverside County Dept. of Public Health (Injury Prevention Services) Riverside County Safe Routes to Schools Program, Lake Elsinore X 625 500 500 0 X 80.00 90.00 15 Temecula Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian and Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect X 4,761 3,759 3,759 0 80.00 90.00 16 Riverside La Sierra Neighborhood Sidewalk Improvements X 1,215 999 0 999 79.00 89.00 17 Riverside County Transportation Department Lakeview Avenue Safe Routes to School Sidewalk Safety Improvements X 1,349 1,269 180 1,089 X 75.00 85.00 18 Eastvale Road Diet, Bike Lanes, Education, Encouragement and Enforcement Program 1,510 1,208 175 1,033 X X 74.00 84.00 19 Cathedral City Cathedral City Pedestrian Safety Improvements X 573 419 419 0 X 71.00 81.00 20 Calimesa County Line Road Active Transportation Program – Cycle 3 X 1,342 1,005 48 957 X X 67.00 77.00 21 Palm Springs Citywide Sidewalk Gap Closures, Safety Lighting, and ADA-Compliant Upgrades X 2,855 2,425 2,425 0 X 58.00 68.00 22 Coachella Coachella - Grapefruit Avenue Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Roadway Safety Improvement Project X 2,209 2,209 275 1,934 58.00 68.00 23 Perris Multi-modal SRTS & Metrolink to Metrolink Stations Connectivity Project X 2,000 950 950 0 X 54.00 64.00 2017 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (ATP) CYCLE 3 LIST OF PROJECTS FROM RIVERSIDE COUNTY Applicant Project Title DAC Total Project Cost (000's) Total Fund Request (000's) FY 19-20 FY 20-21 Plan SRTS SRTS NI CTC Final Score RCTC Score AWARDED - STATE/MPO 24 Riverside County Transportation Department Dillon Road Bike Lane Improvements X 3,280 3,200 350 2,850 45.00 55.00 25 Riverside Riverside Recreational Trail (PA&ED)X 750 750 750 0 39.00 49.00 26 Riverside Traffic Circle Installation to Encourage Increased Biking and Walking 242 242 242 0 8.00 18.00 Grand Total 153,158 47,389 *Project received partial funding in the amount of $5.584 million, total request was $24.307 million. June 29, 2017 Page 1 of 4 Final 2017 Active Transportation Program Augmentation Guidelines These guidelines are the policies and procedures specific to the use of 2017-18 and 2018-19 fiscal year funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account for the Active Transportation Program (ATP) – hereby known as the 2017 ATP Augmentation. The California Transportation Commission (Commission) is statutorily required to adopt the guidelines and selection criteria for and define the types of projects eligible to be funded through the ATP. I. Authority and Purpose Senate Bill (SB) 1, signed by the Governor on April 28, 2017, directs $100 million annually from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to the ATP beginning in the 2017-18 fiscal year. The following policies and procedures address the use of 2017-18 and 2018-19 fiscal year funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account for the ATP. Unless otherwise expressly modified by statute or these guidelines, the Commission will follow the 2017 ATP Guidelines at http://catc.ca.gov/programs/ATP/2017/Final_Adopted_2017_ATP_Guidelines.pdf. II. Funding and Programming Years The 2017 ATP Augmentation is funded from the approximately $200 million allocated from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to the ATP in fiscal years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account funds are state funds. Therefore, projects funded in the 2017 ATP Augmentation do not need to be federal-aid eligible. The initial programming capacity for the 2017 ATP Augmentation program is in fiscal years 2017-18 and 2018-19. Some fiscal year 2019-20 and 2020-21 programming capacity may become available as previously programmed projects request advancement into fiscal years 2017-18 and 2018-19. III. Distribution The funding available for the 2017 ATP Augmentation will be distributed into the Statewide Component, the Small Urban & Rural Component, and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Component, in the same manner as specified in Section II (5) of the 2017 ATP Guidelines. The 2017 ATP Augmentation Fund Estimate must indicate the funds available for each of the program components. The Budget Act of 2017 appropriates no less than $4 million a year to the Commission for allocation to the California Conservation Corps for active transportation projects to be developed and implemented by the California Conservation Corps and certified community conservation corps. Commission staff is consulting with the California Conservation Corps to develop specific provisions for the use of these funds. Once these provisions have been developed, they will be incorporated into these guidelines by addendum and adopted by the Commission. IV. Schedule The following schedule lists the major milestones for the development and adoption of the 2017 ATP Augmentation: Guidelines Development Workshop June 9, 2017 2017 ATP Augmentation Guidelines presented to Commission June 28, 2017 Commission hearing and adoption of 2017 ATP Augmentation Guidelines June 28, 2017 Call for Projects June 30, 2017 Project submittals to Commission (postmark date) August 1, 2017 Staff recommendation for Statewide and Small Urban & Rural Components posted August 31, 2017 MPO project programming recommendations to Commission October 19, 2017 June 29, 2017 Page 2 of 4 Commission adopts 2017 ATP Augmentation - Statewide and Small Urban & Rural Components October 18-19, 2017 Commission adopts 2017 ATP Augmentation - MPO Component December 6-7, 2017 V. Project Eligibility Funding for the 2017 ATP Augmentation will only be available to: • Projects programmed in the adopted 2017 ATP that can be delivered earlier than currently programmed • Projects that applied for funding in the 2017 ATP but were not selected for funding Projects that were awarded funds in 2017 ATP will remain in the component from which they were originally funded. In other words, a 2017 ATP project awarded funding from the Small Urban & Rural Component will remain in that component and a 2017 ATP project awarded funding from the MPO Component will remain in that component. The only exceptions to this policy will apply to projects that received funding for only one of the phases that were originally requested due to insufficient funds in the MPO Component of the program, an applicant may request funding for the other phases in the Statewide Component. Applicants may not request more ATP funding than was requested in the original application, however, applicants may shift requested funding amounts between components as long as there is no net increase in requested funds. Applicants may request less than their original funding request if the full scope of the project will still be delivered. In other words, some project elements may have been funded from other sources. Applicants may add scope to their original project if no increase in ATP funds is requested for the scope increase. Projects must deliver the same or greater benefits than what was proposed in the original application. A. Statewide and Small Urban & Rural Components 1) Projects that were awarded funds in the 2017 ATP Statewide and Small Urban & Rural Components may apply to advance one or more of their project components into the 2017- 18 and/or 2018-19 programming years. 2) Projects that applied for funding in the 2017 ATP but were not selected for funding. Scores can be found at the following link: http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/ATP/2017/Final_Scores_2017/2017_ATP_All_Score_Score_Order _rev.pdf. In the Statewide and Small Urban & Rural Components, the 2017 ATP Augmentation funds will not be used to supplant already committed project funding. In the event Commission staff determines that there are not enough viable projects submitted in the 2017 ATP to fully utilize the funds available in the Statewide and/or Small Urban & Rural Components of the 2017 ATP Augmentation, the Commission may elect to hold a 2017 ATP Augmentation supplemental call for projects. June 29, 2017 Page 3 of 4 MPO Component 1) Projects that were awarded funds in the 2017 ATP MPO Component may apply to advance one or more of their project components into the 2017-18 and/or 2018-19 programming years. 2) Projects on the MPO 2017 ATP contingency list. The following policies will apply only for the MPO Component: • For the 2017 ATP Augmentation MPO Component, the Commission will allow the supplanting of funds at the MPO’s discretion. The supplanting of funds only applies to projects that received less ATP funding than requested in the 2017 ATP. • Projects that applied for funding through construction in the Statewide Component but which received only preconstruction funding through the MPO Component may apply for funding through construction (the unfunded phases) in the Statewide Component. The funds distributed to the Lake Tahoe MPO in the MPO Component can only be used to fund projects located entirely within California. In the event an MPO determines that there are not enough viable projects from their 2017 ATP MPO contingency list to fully utilize the funds available in their 2017 ATP Augmentation component, the MPO may hold a 2017 ATP Augmentation supplemental call for projects. An MPO making such a determination must, by August 31, 2017 submit a letter signed by the Chief Executive Officer explaining the basis for the determination. A supplemental MPO call for projects must utilize the MPO’s 2017 ATP guidelines. Recommendations for funding, along with copies of all applications received, must be submitted to the Commission by October19, 2017. VI. Project Selection Process All projects applying for funding in the 2017 ATP Augmentation, including projects with no change to the schedule or funding plan, must submit the following supplemental application material. A. Supplemental Application Material 1) Updated Schedule and Funding Plan Each applicant must submit a Project Programming Request Form. A template of this form in Excel may be found at www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ocip/2016stip.htm. The Project Programming Request Form must list Federal, State, and local funding categories by fiscal year, and must include an updated schedule (project milestones) and updated cost information if necessary. The applicant must also include documentation that the availability of all other funds committed to the project are consistent with the updated schedule, i.e. the project must still be fully funded. 2) Authorization Letter Each applicant must submit a letter, signed by the Chief Executive Officer or other officer authorized by the applicant’s governing board, confirming that the project can be delivered in the time frame proposed in the updated Project Programming Request and that the project is still fully funded. In addition to the two required documents above, applicants may submit a one-page application update that explains any significant changes to the project since the original application submittal. This updated information will be used for project scope clarifications only and not June 29, 2017 Page 4 of 4 result in a revised score. Project must deliver the same or greater benefits than proposed in the original application. B. Criteria and Evaluation 1) Projects will be selected for the 2017 ATP Augmentation based on the project’s 2017 ATP score and project deliverability according to the following priority order. a. Projects that can deliver all components in 2017-18 and 2018-19. b. Projects that can deliver one or more but not all of their components in 2017-18 and 2018-19. The capacity to program all components of these projects will depend on fiscal year 2019-20 and 2020-21 programming capacity becoming available as previously programmed projects are advanced. c. Some fiscal year 2019-20 and 2020-21 programming capacity may become available as previously programmed projects request advancement into fiscal years 2017-18 and 2018-19. Therefore, other projects that applied for funding in the 2017 ATP (those that cannot deliver one or more of their project components in the 2017-18 or 2018-19 programming years) may compete for funding in the 2017 Augmentation. 2) As potential applicants review their projects schedules when they consider applying for the 2017 ATP Augmentation they should keep in mind that most of the available funding will be in fiscal years 2017-18 and 2018-19. Therefore, projects that can be delivered using these earlier year funds are more likely to be successful in the 2017 ATP Augmentation. C. Submittal of Supplemental Application Material Supplemental application material must include the signature of the Chief Executive Officer or other officer authorized by the applicant’s governing board. Project applications should be addressed or delivered to: Susan Bransen, Executive Director California Transportation Commission 1120 N Street, Mail Station 52 Sacramento, CA 95814 The Commission will consider only projects for which five hard copies and one electronic copy of the aforementioned supplemental material are submitted postmarked by the appropriate deadline. Applicants are encouraged to submit a hard copy of their original application. By the same date, an additional copy must also be sent to the Regional Transportation Planning Agency or County Transportation Commission within which the project is located and to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (a contact list can be found at www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/orip/). VII. SB 1 Accountability Implementing agencies receiving ATP funds through the RMRA must follow the project reporting requirements detailed in Section 24 of the 2017 ATP Guidelines. In addition, implementing agencies must include project information signage stating that the project was made possible by SB 1 – The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. SCAG Sustainability Planning Grant Program Award RecommendationsPhase 2 Future Funding April 2017County Project Type Subregion ApplicantProjectRecommended AwardFocused Plan GCCOG ParamountNorth Paramount Blvd Gateway Plan150,000$Focused Plan SBCCOG Torrance  Signage and Wayfinding Plan150,000$Focused Plan SBCCOG Rolling Hills Estates General Plan Update‐Sustainability Element50,000$Non‐InfrastructureSGVCOG CovinaFirst/Last Mile Transit Station Planning50,000$Non‐Infrastructure WSCCOG Santa MonicaActive Aging ‐ Safe Routes for Seniors150,000$Active Trans Plan OCCOG Costa MesaEast‐West Connector Trail Implementation Plan125,000$Active Trans Plan OCCOG FullertonDowntown Fullerton Complete Streets Plan150,000$Active Trans Plan OCCOG IrvineStrategic Plan for Active Transportation150,000$Active Trans Plan OCCOG Los AlamitosLos Alamitos Active Transportation Plan150,000$Focused Plan OCCOG WestministerCivic Center Specific Plan150,000$Mini Grant OCCOG Huntington BeachOrange County Recycling Market Development Zone 30,000$Active Trans Plan CVAG IndioBike Share Plan25,000$Active Trans Plan WRCOG RiversideCity of Riverside Active Transportation Plan150,000$Focused Plan WRCOG BanningPaseo San Gorgonio Feasibility Analysis150,000$Active Trans Plan SANBAG RedlandsSustainable Mobility Plan125,000$Focused Plan SANBAG Big Bear LakeMountain Moblity Analysis50,000$Focused Plan SANBAG YucaipaFreeway Corridor Specific Plan Update125,000$Total1,930,000$Los AngelesOrangeRiversideSan BernardinoATTACHMENT RC Packet Page 28 of 372 Southern California Association of Government s Sustainability Planning Grant Application Workshop & Active Transportation Working Group MEETING Day: July 20, 2017 Time: 1:00 pm – 3:00 pm SCAG Los Angeles Office: 818 West 7th Street, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017 The Active Transportation Working Group provides a forum for Active Transportation stakeholders throughout the region to convene and provide comments and recommendations for the promotion of Active Transportation in transportation and land use planning. The working group will serve as a platform for SCAG to receive feedback related to the implementation of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS and prepare for the 2020 RTP/SCS. Meetings occur on a quarterly basis and are open to agency staff, elect ed officials and the public. AGENDA 1. Introductions Alan Thompson 2. Application Workshop: Sustainability Planning Grants – 2017 Active Transportation Call for Proposals Rye Baerg 3. Other Senate Bill 1 Active Transportation Funding Opportunities Stephen Patchan /Annie Nam 4. Go Human Campaign Update Julia Lippe -Klein 5. 2020 Regional Active Transportation Plan Development Alan Thompson 6. Safety Target Setting Courtney Aguirre TO PARTICIPATE VIA WEB CONFERENCING: To join the meeting: http://scag.adobeconnect.com/atp Conference Number: 1-800-832-0736 MeetingOne Conference Room Number: 7334636 TO PARTICIPATE VIA VIDEOCONFERENCING: Video conferencing will be available at SCAG’s regional offices in Imperial, Orange, Riverside counties. Space is limited so, RSVP is required to thompson@scag.ca.gov. An alternative to attending the Videoconference site is to participate via webinar. SCAG, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, is committed to providing special accommodations to those who are interested in participating in the workshop. SCAG is also committed to helping those with limited proficiency in the English language by providing translation services at the workshop in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. We ask that you provide your request for special accommodations or translation services at least 72 hours prior to the meeting so that SCAG has sufficient time to make arrangements. Please contact Alan Thompson, Senior Regional Planner, at thompson@scag.ca.gov or by calling (213) 236-1940. 1 Southern California Association of Governments Sustainability Planning Grants: 2017 Active Transportation Call for Proposals (AT CFP) Overview The Southern California Association of Governments is accepting applications through August 31, 2017 for the Sustainability Planning Grants: 2017 Active Transportation Call for Proposals. Since 2005, the Sustainability Planning Grants Program (formerly known as Compass Blueprint) has strengthened partnerships with cities and local municipalities by providing consultant services as well as financial and technical resources to selected projects. This program recognizes sustainable solutions to local growth challenges, and has resulted in local plans that promote sustainability through the integration of transportation and land use. The previous call for proposals in 2016 resulted in 65 funded projects, ranging from Bicycle Master Plans to Urban Forestry Initiatives. The 2017 Active Transportation Call for Proposals is limited to the active transportation category and will fund planning and non‐infrastructure projects or programs that promote safety and encourage people to walk and bicycle. These projects will be designed to enhance local interest and/or capacity to build safe, efficient active transportation networks. Only applicants that have not previously received ATP funding will be eligible for funding through this solicitation. A list of previously successful applicants is available on the program website. Goals The AT CFP seeks to implement SCAG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and fulfill SCAG’s responsibilities to implement the planning element of the Regional Program of the California Active Transportation Program (ATP). The 2016 RTP/SCS was adopted on April 7, 2016 and is a long range vision for transportation and land use planning for the region. The 2016 RTP/SCS outlines recommended strategies for increasing rates of active transportation in the Active Transportation Appendix. The goals of the 2017 Active Transportation Call for Proposals are to: • Increase the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and walking • Increase safety and mobility of non‐motorized users • Continue to foster jurisdictional support and promote implementation of the goals, objectives, and strategies of the 2016 RTP/SCS. • Seed active transportation concepts and produce plans that provide a preliminary step for future ATP applications. 2 Funding & Grant Management Selected projects and programs will receive state funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account as part of SCAG’s 2017 Regional ATP Augmentation Program. SCAG’s Regional ATP Augmentation Program is subject to the requirements of the California Transportation Commissions 2017 ATP Augmentation Guidelines, which direct SCAG to use the policies and selection criteria established in its 2017 Regional Active Transportation Guidelines (item 7) for programming SCAG’s share of fiscal year (FY) 17‐18, FY 18‐19 augmentation funds, approximately $40 million. SCAG’s 2017 Regional Active Transportation Guidelines allocate five percent (5%) of SCAG’s Regional ATP, approximately $2 million for the 2017 Regional ATP Augmentation, for Planning and Capacity Building Projects. The 2017 AT CFP serves as the primary vehicle for selecting Planning and Capacity Building Projects included in SCAG’s 2017 Regional ATP Augmentation Program. Grants will be managed by SCAG and implemented through its consultants for a five percent fee which will be deducted from the grant award, unless the applicant chooses to opt out of this service. As part of the grant management, SCAG will assume responsibility for procuring consultant support, and provide all necessary reporting and documentation required to funding partners. The Sponsoring Agency will assign a project manager and assume responsibility for the timely use of funds. Grantees not wishing to use SCAG’s grant administration services will be required to complete all Caltrans allocation and contractual paperwork and be responsible for hiring their own consultants. Timely Use of Funds/Time Extensions All project sponsors must be prepared to initiate their projects in Spring 2018. All work must be completed within 12 to 36 months of project initiation. A more exact period of performance will be determined at the time of project initiation based on project complexity. Time extensions will be considered on a case‐by‐case basis. Extensions and scope changes must be in letter format. All requests must include an explanation of the issues and actions the agency has taken to correct the issues. All extensions will be contingent on funding availability and approval of the California Transportation Commission, if called for by the ATP Guidelines. SCAG intends all selected projects to be completed in a timely manner and requires that applicants coordinate internal resources to ensure timely completion of the projects. Regional Equity Funding to be programmed through the 2017 AT Call for Proposals is constrained based on county and geographic equity requirements established by the funding guidelines for ATP. To ensure compliance with funding guidelines, minimum funding targets will be established for each county and project proposals will be evaluated against other proposals received in their respective county. Eligible Applicants Only eligible agencies (as listed below) that have not previously been awarded a California Active Transportation Program grant are eligible for the 2017 AT CFP. A list of previous awardees can be found on the program website. • Local or Regional Agency ‐ Examples include cities, counties, councils of government, Regional Transportation Planning Agency and County Public Health Departments. 3 • Transit Agencies ‐ Any agency responsible for public transportation that is eligible for funds under the Federal Transit Administration. • Natural Resources or Public Land Agencies ‐ Federal, Tribal, State, or local agency responsible for natural resources or public land administration. • Public schools or School districts • Tribal Governments ‐ Federally‐recognized Native American Tribes. Eligible Project Types/Maximum Awards The AT CFP will fund two types of projects 1) Community or Area ‐Wide Active Transportation Plans (including First‐Last Mile Plans) and 2) Non‐Infrastructure Projects. Projects should advance one or more program goals by enhancing community support for active transportation, increasing local capacity to implement active transportation infrastructure improvements and/or improving a local agency’s competitiveness for future state and federal funding opportunities. Community or Area-Wide Active Transportation Plans in Disadvantaged Communities (maximum award: $200,000) Planning proposals must meet the requirements of the Active Transportation Program, as described in the 2017 Statewide ATP Guidelines. Project Sponsors that intend to apply for multi‐jurisdictional efforts that will exceed the funding cap are encouraged to apply separately and reference project coordination in their respective applications. These projects may be combined for administrative purposes after awards are announced. A list of the components that must be included in an active transportation plan can be found in Section 13, subsection E of the 2017 ATP Guidelines. Examples of eligible plans include but are not limited to: • Community‐wide Active Transportation Master Plan • Community‐wide Bicycle or Pedestrian Master Plan • Safe Routes to School Master Plan • First‐Last Mile Plans (active transportation improvements only) • Neighborhood Mobility Area (NMA) Plan (active transportation only). See RTP/SCS for description of NMAs Non-Infrastructure Projects (maximum award: $200,000) Non‐infrastructure proposals must meet the requirements of the Active Transportation Program as described the 2017 Statewide ATP Guidelines. Non‐infrastructure projects with permanent infrastructure components are not eligible. Project Sponsors that intend to apply for multi‐jurisdictional efforts that will exceed the funding cap are encouraged to apply separately and reference project coordination in their respective applications. These projects may be combined for administrative purposes after awards are announced. Project sponsors are encouraged to apply for activities that extend the reach and impact of the region’s successful Go Human Campaign, including through implementation of Go Human demonstration projects in new communities, expansion of the advertising campaign and collateral, and/or use of the Go Human branding in other activities. Examples of eligible projects include but are not limited to: • Open Streets Event or demonstration projects (pop‐ups) directly linked to the promotion of a new infrastructure project or designed to promote walking and biking on a daily basis 4 • Conducting pedestrian and bicycle safety education programs, including community‐wide advertising campaigns • Development and implementation of bike‐to‐work or walk‐to‐work school day/month programs. • Conducting bicycle and/or pedestrian counts, walkability and/or bicycle friendly assessments or audits, or pedestrian and/or bicycle safety analysis as part of a larger project • Development and publishing of community walking and biking maps, including school route/travel plans as part of a larger project • Development and implementation of walking school bus or bike train programs Match Requirements Project sponsors are not required to provide match to receive funding through the AT CFP. However, project proposals that include a hard match or leveraging through in‐kind efforts will be prioritized in the scoring criteria. Scoring Criteria The scoring criteria across both project types funded through the AT CFP will be the same. For each category, the application includes 3 main focus areas. The potential points to be awarded for responses to each area are noted in the application. The question topics and their relationship to the scoring criteria are outlined below. Further clarification regarding how points are awarded will be provided in the project application forms. Scoring Criteria Topic 1: Project Need 50 Points Mobility 15 Safety 20 Public Health 5 Disadvantaged Communities (Plans and NI)/ Community Need (Capacity Building Mini‐Grants) 10 Topic 2: Goals, Objectives and Outcomes 35 Points Mobility 20 Safety 5 Public Health 5 Public Participation 5 Topic 3: Partnerships and Leveraging 15 Points Leveraging 5 Cost Effectiveness 5 Public Participation 5 Application Process Eligible applicants are encouraged to apply to the AT CFP by completing an application specific to one the two Project Types, above. Please contact SCAG staff if the project includes multiple components, or if for any other reason, support is needed in identifying the proper application to use for a project 5 proposal. An application workshops has been scheduled for July 20 to address any questions related to the application process. For more information and details on the workshop see the program website. Applicants must complete and submit their application by 5:00pm, August 31, 2017. Evaluation Process Six (6) evaluation teams, one (1) per county, will be established to review, score and rank applications submitted to the AT CFP. Each team will be comprised of staff from the county transportation commissions and SCAG. Projects will compete and be ranked against other projects within their respective county, except as noted below. Final awards will be based on application score, regional equity targets and funding eligibility. Following grant award announcements, interested applicants are encouraged to meet with SCAG staff to obtain feedback on opportunities to improve their proposals for future grant cycles. Schedule SCAG Active Transportation Call for Proposals Released—Planning and Non‐Infrastructure Only July 6, 2017 Application Workshop July 20, 2017 Applications due to SCAG August 31, 2017 (by 5:00 pm) SCAG Regional Council reviews/adopts AT CFP Recommendations as part of SCAG’s 2017 Regional ATP Augmentation Program October 5, 2017 California Transportation Commission approves SCAG’s 2017 Regional ATP Augmentation Program December 6‐7, 2017 Project Initiation Spring 2018 Contact Information Questions regarding the SPG application or application process should be directed to: Call for Projects Questions Eligibility and ATP Related Questions Rye Baerg Senior Regional Planner Telephone: 213‐236‐1866 Email: baerg@scag.ca.gov Stephen Patchan Senior Regional Planner Telephone: 213.236.1923 Email: patchan@scag.ca.gov Submittal Information Applications are due August 31 by 5:00 pm using the instructions provided with the Application. Questions regarding submitting applications for each category should be emailed to Rye Baerg (baerg@scag.ca.gov). AGENDA ITEM 11 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 11. SB-1 Planning Grant Guides WorkshopsFiscal Years 2017-18 and beyondIntegrating Senate Bill 1 –The Road Repair & Accountability Act of 2017Division of Transportation PlanningSB-1 Planning Grant Guides Workshops Agenda•Introduction and Welcome•Overview of current Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program•Timeline for Grant Guides, applications, and award•Solicit input on the development of the Sustainable Communities and Adaptation Planning Grant Guides Current Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant ProgramSustainable Transportation Planning Funds-$9.3 million •Strategic Partnerships (FHWA State Planning and Research)- $1.5 million •Sustainable Communities for MPOs and RTPAs (FTA 5304)- $2.8 million•Sustainable Communities for cities, counties, tribal governments, transit operators (State Highway Account)-$5 millionCurrent Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant ProgramStrategic Partnershipsgp•Fund Source –Federal Highway Administration, State Planning & Research, Part I•Budget -$1.5 M Annually•Grant award min/max - $50,000/$500,000 (MPOs max $1 M)•Minimum Local Match Requirement – 20% •Eligible Applicants –Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs)•Purpose – Funds transportation planning studies of interregional and statewide significance, in partnership with Caltrans Current Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program•Strategic Partnerships Project Types:•Corridor Studies•Sustainable Freight Planning•Transportation Demand Management Plans•Modeling Requirements necessary for the development or implementation of SCS’•Enhances tools to capture GHG benefits of Operation and System Management type projectsCurrent Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant ProgramSustainable Communities•Fund Sources –•Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Section 5304 •State Highway Account (SHA)•Budget -$7.8 Total Annually [$2.8 M (FTA 5304); $5 M SHA]•Grant award min/max - $50,000/$500,000 (MPOs max $1 M)•Minimum Local Match Requirement – 11.47%•Eligible Applicants –MPOs, RTPAs, Cities, Counties, Transit Agencies, and Native American Tribal Governments•Purpose – Funds studies of multimodal transportation issues having statewide, interregional, regional or local significance to assist in achieving the Caltrans Mission and overarching objectives. Current Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program•Sustainable Communities Project Types:•Active Transportation Plans •Studies that advance a community’s effort to reduce transportation related greenhouse gases•Complete Streets Plans •First Mile/Last Mile project development planning•Jobs and affordable housing proximity studies•Studies that evaluate accessibility and connectivity of the multimodal transportation networkCurrent Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program Goals and Objectives •Caltrans Mission•California Transportation Plan 2040 Vision•State and Federal Transportation Planning Goals •Promoting Sustainable Communities in CA•Addressing Environmental Justice and Disadvantage Communities•Complete Streets and Smart Mobility Framework •Climate –Ready Transportation Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) –The Road Repair & Accountability Act of 2017•Adds $25 M Annually for Transportation Planning Grants •Adds Approximately $7 M Annually (for 3 years) for Adaptation Planning GrantsSB-1 State Agency Consultation Requirement •The Department shall develop a grant guide and shall consult with State Air Resources Board , the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development in the development of the grant guide. •The Strategic Growth Council and Department of Natural Resources is also being consulted with. Proposed Timeline for FY 2017-2018 Additional Sustainable Communities and Adaptation Planning GrantsJuly 2017 –Post draft discussion grant guide online for comment for 2 weeks. Incorporate comments.Late July –Send Final Draft of the Grant Guides to the financial and policy committees in the legislature. Post the Final Draft Grant Guide online for comment for 30 days. Late August 2017 – Hold 2 workshops and incorporate comments in to the guide.Early September 2017 – Release final Grant Guides and call for applicationsOctober 20, 2017 –Grant applications dueNovember 2017 – Evaluate and score the applicationsDecember 2017 –Management approval and grant announcements releasedProposed Timeline for FY 2017-2018 Additional Sustainable Communities and Adaptation Planning GrantsFebruary 1, 2018 – Non-MPO/RTPA final due date for contracts to be submitted to ensure the funds are encumbered May 1, 2018 – MPO/RTPA final due date for contracts to be submitted to ensure the funds are encumbered February 28, 2020 –ALL grant tasks must be completed*April 30, 2020 – ALL final invoices must be submitted**Revised June 28, 2017, based on State Budget constraints. Proposed Timeline for FY 2018-2019 Sustainable Transportation Planning and Adaptation Planning GrantsJanuary 2 2018 –Release Grant Guide and call for applicationsFebruary 23, 2018 –Grant applications dueMarch 2018 –HQ & District evaluation of applicationsMay 2018 –Management approval and grant announcements releasedFebruary 1, 2019 – Non-MPO/RTPA contracts final due dateMay 1, 2019 –MPO/RTPA contracts final due dateFebruary 28, 2021 –ALL grant tasks must be completed*April 30, 2021 – ALL final invoices must be submitted**Revised June 28, 2017, based on State Budget constraints.SB-1 Planning Grant Objective Section 2033.5 Allocate local planning grants to encourage local and regional planning that furthers state goals, including, but not limited to, the goals and best practices cited in the regional transportation plan guidelines adopted by the commission. Integrating SB 1 Planning Grant Funding withSustainable Communities GrantsWhat additional objectives or policies should be included for Sustainable Communities applicants to demonstrate how the proposed planning effort would further state goals?•Needs to be a nexus to transportation •Example: 2017 RTP Guidelines Appendix L – Planning Practice ExamplesIntegrating SB 1 Planning Grant Funding withSustainable Communities GrantsHow should the funds flow? •Competitive based grant program•Mixture of formula and competitive based grant program Integrating SB 1 Planning Grant Funding withSustainable Communities GrantsHow should the funds be distributed?Examples:•One pool for all applicants with special considerations for certain agencies•Two applicant pools to facilitate application evaluation:•MPOs/RTPAs•Cities, Counties, Transit Agencies, and Native American Tribal GovernmentsIntegrating SB 1 Planning Grant Funding withSustainable Communities GrantsWhat is the most effective minimum/maximum grant awards?Example: minimum of $100,000 and a maximum of $1,000,000 SB-1 Adaptation Planning Grant Guide Section 16321 (1) Up to $20,000,000 to local and regional agencies for climate change adaptation planning. SB-1 Adaptation Planning Grant Guide What agencies should be eligible to apply directly? What agencies should be eligible as a sub-recipient? SB-1 Adaptation Planning Grant Guide How should the funds be distributed?What is the most effective minimum and maximum award amounts?What should be included as objectives in the grant applications? Scoring criteria? Recommended best practices?Are there adaptation planning best practices or good examples to include for reference? Resources and ContactsGrant Website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/orip/Grants/grants.htmlTo participate, comment, or have questions, please email: Regional.Planning.Grants@dot.ca.govContacts:•Erin Thompson, Office Chief, Regional Planning (916) 654-2596•Rosie Flores, Branch Chief, Fiscal and Grant Management (916) 653-3957•Priscilla Martinez-Velez, Grant Lead, (916) 651-8196 AGENDA ITEM 12 Agenda Item RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 12, 2017 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2018 State Transportation Improvement Program Development BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Intracounty Formula percentage distribution among the three geographic areas in Riverside County (Western County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley) based on taxable sales per the STIP Intracounty Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for purposes of preparing the Commission’s 2018 STIP submittal as follows:  Western County 77.30 percent  Coachella Valley 22.11 percent  Palo Verde Valley 00.59 percent BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The STIP is a five-year program of projects that is updated every two years outlining the commitment of transportation funds for the multimodal transportation system including highways, rail, transit, local roads, and bike and pedestrian facilities, also known as Active Transportation. In June of every odd year, Caltrans is required to prepare a draft STIP Fund Estimate (FE) that estimates how much funding will be available for programming over the next five-year period, Fiscal Years 2018/19 – 2022/23. Since each STIP cycle adds on two years, most of the programming capacity is typically in the last two years. However, with passage of SB 1, there could be programming capacity available in each of the five years. In August, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) is scheduled to adopt the FE along with guidelines detailing how regional agencies are to prepare the STIP submittals. The 2018 STIP FE establishes funding levels for the STIP and also the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). STIP funds are allocated into two broad programs – the Regional Improvement Program (RIP) receives 75 percent of the total STIP funds, and the remaining 25 percent is directed to Caltrans for its Interregional Transportation Improvement Program. The 75 percent RIP funding is further subdivided by formula into county shares. County shares are available solely for projects nominated by regional agencies. Agenda Item At the June 28, 2017 CTC meeting, 2018 STIP Draft FE was released indicating the statewide programming capacity and county share targets. The statewide draft programming capacity is $2,259,000,000. The Riverside County share draft programming target is $104,585,000. The Final 2018 STIP FE will be approved at the CTC’s August 16-17, 2017 meeting. STIP Intracounty Formula Per the Commission’s STIP intracounty formula, STIP funds are allocated to Western County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley based on the most recent fiscal year taxable sales by geographic area used for Measure A allocations. In addition, STIP guidelines allow up to 5 percent of funding for planning, programming, and monitoring (PPM) activities. However, the Commission’s policy is to set aside 2 percent for PPM activities. The geographic area percentages of taxable sales used for the 2014 through 2018 STIPs demonstrates an increase in growth in Western County compared to Coachella and Palo Verde Valleys: Geographic Area 2014 STIP 2016 STIP 2018 STIP Western County 75.17% 75.76% 77.30% Coachella Valley 24.12% 23.54% 22.11% Palo Verde Valley 0.71% 0.70% 00.59% Based on the STIP Intracounty Formula, the 2018 STIP percentages will be applied to the county share target amount for Riverside County. Once the 2018 STIP FE’s county share target for Riverside County is available, the table below will reflect the 2 percent off the top for PPM activities, and the amounts for each geographic area. 2018 STIP (based on Draft FE) Total Riverside County Share $104,585,000 Less: 2 percent PPM 2,091,700 Total New Project Programming $102,493,300 Western County 77.30 percent $ 79,227,321 Coachella Valley 22.11 percent $ 22,661,269 Palo Verde Valley 00.59 percent $ 604,710 2018 STIP Proposed Project Programming Western Riverside County Western Riverside County projects are nominated by staff. Recommendations for new projects for STIP funds will be based on consistency with Measure A and high priority projects approved by the Commission. The 2016 STIP was a “negative” STIP cycle as regions were directed to reduce Agenda Item their respective STIP programming to align with lower STIP funding levels and reduced programming capacity. As a result, the Commission amended its STIP submittal as follows:  Reduced the amount of programming on the Interstate 15/French Valley Parkway interchange project from $41.5 million to $15.3 million, net of a $6.1 million reallocation from the deleted I-215 Southbound Connector project;  Deleted the I-215 Southbound Connector project programmed for $8.9 million; and  Removed the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange project, proposed as a new project, for $2.9 million in right of way funding (CTC did not allow any new projects for the 2016 STIP). Staff will evaluate the status of these projects for programming in the 2018 STIP along with other high priority projects in Western Riverside County. Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) nominates its projects and notifies Commission staff for final concurrence and submittal to the CTC. Palo Verde Valley projects are nominated by the city of Blythe (Blythe); however, given the minor amount of funding and complexity in processing these funds, the Commission and Blythe have executed MOUs in past STIP cycles trading Palo Verde Valley STIP funds with Measure A Western Riverside County Highway funds. Staff will meet with Blythe to discuss applying the MOU for 2018 STIP funds. The state’s priorities have shifted to meet the goals established in SB 375, which is to reduce greenhouse gases according to targets set by the California Air Resources Board. Therefore, multimodal projects should be considered in developing the 2018 STIP. Current 2016 STIP Programming The current 2016 STIP projects for Riverside County include the following preliminary engineering, right of way, and construction phases as follows: APPROVED 2016 STIP Agency Project Phase FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 FY 2018/19 FY 2019/20 FY 2020/21 Total STIP *Temecula I-15/French Valley IC C $15,346,000 $15,346,000 Caltrans/ RCTC SR-60 Truck Climbing/ Descending Lane ROW, C $550,000 $31,555,000 32,105,000 RCTC/CVAG PPM C 663,000 668,000 668,000 1,999,000 CVAG CV Link, Phase 1 C 2,000,000 2,000,000 Totals $1,213,000 $668,000 $32,223,000 $17,346,000 $51,450,000 *Reduced in 2016 STIP per negative cycle C=Construction IC=Interchange PPM=Planning, Programming, and Monitoring ROW=Right of Way Agenda Item 2018 STIP Submittal The 2018 STIP submittal is due to the CTC on December 15, 2017, unless the schedule is revised. The submittal requires various forms and reports that will involve Caltrans, project sponsors and consultants, and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The CTC is scheduled to adopt the 2018 STIP in March 2018. To accommodate the above schedule, staff plans on presenting its recommendations for 2018 STIP programming at the September 13 Commission meeting, unless the Final FE adoption scheduled in August is delayed by CTC. The proposed STIP projects will need to be submitted to SCAG by the end of September in order for SCAG to conduct performance measures analyses in accordance with STIP guidelines. There is no fiscal impact to the Commission. AGENDA ITEM 13 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 13. AGENDA ITEM 14 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 14.