consent calendar · 2016. 9. 21. · rod attebery (neumiller and beardslee); cindy malekos, isael...

CONSENT CALENDAR

.. StanCOG ~ Stanislaus Council of Governments

PRESENT:

ALSO PRESENT:

1. CALL TO ORDER

SPECIAL MEETING POLICY BOARD

DoubleTree, Ballroom 1150 9th Street Modesto, CA

Minutes of August 11, 2016 (Thursday) 3:30pm

Chair Vito Chiesa, Bill O'Brien, Terry Withrow (Stanislaus County); Jill Silva (City of Hughson); Mani Grewal, Jenny Kenoyer, Bill Zoslocki (City of Modesto); Nick Candea (arrived during Item 5) (City ofNewman); Ken Irwin (City of Patterson); Cal Campbell (City of Riverbank); Gary Soiseth (City of

Turlock); Jose Aldaco (City of Waterford)

Rod Attebery (Neumiller and Beardslee); Cindy Malekos, Isael Ojeda, Rosa Park (StanCOG); Kendall Flint (RGS); Cecil Russell (Modesto Chamber of Commerce); Scott Calkins, Paul Van Konyenburg, Patterson City Councilmember Peter La Torre, Edgar Garibay, Sandra de Alcuaz, Modesto City Councilmember

Doug Ridenour, Harpreet Singh (Members of the Public)

Chair Vito Chiesa called the meeting to order at 3:38pm.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLLCALL

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS- NONE

5. PRESENTATION

A. Overview of Measure L/Transportation Expenditure Plan for the Stanislaus Region Rosa Park thanked the Policy Board and the public for attending. She introduced Kendall Flint who provided an educational overview of the Measure L Transportation Expenditure Plan. Ms. Flint reviewed some ofthe projects that the jurisdictions identified in the Expenditure Plan. She said more information could also be found at www.stanislaus-localroadsfirst.com in English and in Spanish. Scott Calkins said he was opposed to the measure. Paul Van Konynenburg said he was a proponent of Measure L and announced that he wanted to meet with anyone who was a supporter. He read portions of a letter of support from the Stanislaus County Farm Bureau Board of Directors. Peter La Torre said he was a supporter and asked about the Oversight Committee. Chair Chiesa explained that

Page 1 of2

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 5A

each jurisdiction would have a member on the Oversight Committee. Edgar Garibay asked about the distribution of funding. Sandra de Alcuaz said she strongly supported the measure. Cecil Russell said the Modesto Chamber of Commerce Board voted to support the measure. Jenny Kenoyer complimented Stan COG on the development of the Expenditure Plan. Doug Ridenour said it was important that the funding would be under local control. Harpreet Singh thought it was important to educate people about the measure. Cal Campbell said the Riverbank City Council was supportive.

6. ADJOURNMENT Chair Vito Chiesa adjourned the meeting at 4:26 pm.

Next Regularly Scheduled Policy Board Meeting: August 17,2016 0\'ednesday) @ 6:00 m StanCOG Board Room 1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA 95354

Cindy le os Manager of Administrative Services

Page 2 of2

• stanCOG ~ Stanislaus Council of Governments

PRESENT:

ALSO PRESENT:

1. CALL TO ORDER

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

Modesto, CA

Minutes of August 17, 2016 (Wednesday) 6:00pm

Chair Vito Chiesa, Jim DeMartini, Bill O'Brien, Teny Withrow (Stanislaus County); Mike Kline (City of Ceres); Jill Silva (City ofHughson); Mani Grewal, Jenny Kenoyer, Vice-Chair Bill Zoslocki (City of Modesto); Nick Candea (City ofNewman); Deborah Novelli (City of Patterson); Richard O'Brien (City of Riverbank); Gary Soiseth (City of Turlock); Mike Van Winkle (City of

Waterford)

Tom Dumas (Caltrans, District 10); Monica Streeter (Neumiller and Beardslee);

Elisabeth Hahn, Cindy Malekos, Isael Ojeda, Rosa Park, Dave Reed (StanCOG); Cody Naylor (State of California Public Utilities Commission); Scott Calkins

(Member of the Public)

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

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLLCALL

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Cody Naylor introduced himself as the liaison for the California Public Utilities Commission. Scott Calkins thought the educational presentations regarding the Expenditure Plan should mention that the projects included will affect future land use.

5. CONSENT CALLENDAR

A. Motion to Approve Policy Board Minutes of 6/15/16 and 6/22/16

B. Motion to Adopt Resolution 16-01 to Authorize the Policy Board Chair to Execute Master Agreements and the Executive Director to Execute Program Supplemental Agreements with Cal trans Scott Calkins asked for clarification on this item. Dave Reed explained that it was a necessary

Page 1 of 4

administrative document between Caltrans and StanCOG in order to administer federal-aid projects.

C. Motion to Adopt Resolution 16-02 to Approve Transportation Expenditure Plan Expense Allocations as Modified

*By Motion (Member Bill Zoslocki/Member Gary Soiseth), and a unanimous vote, the Policy Board approved the Consent Calendar.

6. PUBLIC HEARING

A. StanCOG Draft 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) and Draft "Exempt Project" 2017 FTIP Elisabeth Hahn said the purpose of the public hearing was to provide an opportunity for the public to provide comments on the 2017 FTIP. The Public Hearing was opened at 6:12pm. There were no comments. The Public Hearing was closed at 6:13pm.

7. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS

A. Senate Bill375-Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets Elisabeth Hahn provided background information on Senate Bil1375, also known as the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, which set regional targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from passenger vehicle use. She said that SB 375 requires the Air Resources Board.(ARB) to update targets a minimum of every eight years, new targets will be established and effective starting in 2018, and that StanCOG's next RTP/SCS update will be subject to these updated targets. She reported that a recent Executive Order by the governor in April established a more aggressive statewide GHG reduction goal, and that ARB was asking the MPOs for input on new targets, with the expectation that MPOs will reduce GHG emissions even more than what was attained in the 2014 RTP/SCS. She said that staff was coordinating with the Valley Air Quality liaison and other San Joaquin Valley MPOs to address ARB' s request for MPO input on new targets.

B. Motion to Submit ~etter Opposing Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordination and Planning Area Reform Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Elisabeth Hahn reported that in June, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) jointly released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would result in potentially significant changes to the structure and functioning of a large number of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). She reviewed some of the potential impacts to StanCOG and suggested that a letter be submitted to oppose the NPRM.

*By Motion (Member Richard O'Brien/Member Jenny Kenoyer), and a unanimous vote, the Policy Board moved to submit a letter opposing the Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordination Planning Area Reform Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

C. Measure L/Transportation Expenditure Plan for the Stanislaus Region Update Rosa Park provided an update on the education being conducted. She said that educational materials had been mailed and that presentations continued to be made to community organizations.

Page 2 of4

D. Motion to Adopt Resolution 16-03 to Authorize Executive Director to Execute Amendment 2 to the Communications and Community Outreach Services Contract with Regional Government Services/Flint Strategies Rosa Park indicated that $200,000 for public outreach and materials expenses for the Expenditure Plan was amended into the FY 2015/16 Overall Work Program by the Policy Board in April. She said that this item would amend those funds into the contract with RGS to conduct those services.

*By Motion (Member Mani Grewal/Member Richard O'Brien), and a unanimous vote, the Policy Board adopted Resolution 16-03 to authorize the Executive Director to execute Amendment 2 to the Communications and Community Outreach Services Contract with Regional Government Services/Flint Strategies.

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

A. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's 2015 PM2.5 Plan Member Bill O'Brien said that the EPA had notified the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District that they chose not to act to approve the District's 2015 PM2.5 Plan or the accompanying extension request. He discussed some of the potential ramifications for the Valley, and said that he would be making a presentation at each of the city councils about this in the next few months.

B. Bike to Work Month 2016 Results

C. Administrative Modification #11 to the 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) and Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP) - Type 1 Administrative Modification

D. 2015 FTIP Monthly Project Status Report FFY 2015/16

E. Executive Committee Minutes of 8/8/16

F. Management and Finance Committee Minutes of 8/3/16

G. Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes of 8/3/16

H. Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) Minutes of 8/2/16

I. Valley Vision Stanislaus (VVS) Steering Committee Minutes of 8/2/16

J. Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BP AC) Minutes of 8/3/16

9. CAL TRANS REPORT Tom Dumas provided members with the California Transportation Plan CTP 2040 and the latest issue of the Mile Marker.

10. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Rosa Park reminded members that StanCOG was on social media.

11. MEMBER REPORTS- NONE

Page 3 of4

12. ADJOURNMENT Chair Vito Chiesa adjourned the meeting at 6:34pm.

Next Regularly Scheduled Policy Board Meeting: September 21,2016 (Wednesday)@ 6:00 m StanCOG Board Room 1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA 95354

Minutes Prepared By:

cos of Administrative Services

Page 4 of4

TO: Policy Board Staff Report Resolution THROUGH: Rosa De León Park, Executive Director

FROM: David E. Reed, Finance Director Karen Kincy, Senior Financial Services Assistant

DATE: August 23, 2016

SUBJECT: Annual Amount of the Extension of the Brown Armstrong Contract for Financial Auditing Services

Recommendation Adopt Resolution 16-04 to authorize the Executive Director to approve an annual amount not-to-exceed $35,000 for the two-year extension of the Brown Armstrong contract. Background On August 21, 2013, Resolution 13-04 was adopted by the Policy Board to authorize the Executive Director to execute a three-year professional services agreement, between Brown Armstrong and StanCOG, with an option to extend the contract for an additional two years, for an amount not to exceed $33,000 for each of the first three years of the audit. The contract amount for the extensions was implied but not clearly specified. Discussion The accounting firm of Brown Armstrong has successfully performed the financial audits of StanCOG for the first three years of the audit covered under the existing contract Per resolution 13-04, the Executive Director has executed the extension, however the dollar amount for the two subsequent years was implied but not specific. In order to meet criteria required to execute the contract, it is necessary to amend the resolution to include the amount for the time extended. Advisory Committee Action This item was presented to the Executive Committee as a motion to recommend adopting the resolution. They concurred with staff’s recommendation. Should you have any questions regarding this staff report, please contact Rosa De Leon Park, Executive Director, at 209-525-4600 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Attachment:

1. Resolution

mailto:[email protected]

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 5B

calviso

Typewritten Text

STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

RESOLUTION 16-04 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO APPROVE AN AMOUNT NOT TO

EXCEED $35,000 FOR EACH YEAR OF THE TWO YEAR EXTENSION OF THE BROWN ARMSTRONG CONTRACT

WHEREAS, the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) is a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), pursuant to State and Federal designation; and WHEREAS, by law StanCOG is required to issue annual financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting procedures and the Governmental Accounting Standards Board requirements. WHERAS, these financial statements must be audited. WHERAS, for the previous three years, the accounting firm of Brown Armstrong has performed the financial audit for StanCOG. WHERAS, the StanCOG Policy Board authorized the Executive Director to execute a three-year professional services agreement, with a StanCOG option to extend the contract for an additional two years, with Brown Armstrong for an amount not to exceed $33,000 for each of the first three years of the audit. WHERAS, the amount for the contract extensions was implied but not clearly specified. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Executive Director is authorized to approve an annual amount not to exceed $35,000 for the two-year extension of the Brown Armstrong contract.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Executive Director is authorized to make administrative changes to the scope or budget of the executed contract, as needed, to ensure that the project is implemented in the most efficient and cost effective manner possible.

The foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Stanislaus Council of

Governments, on the 21st day of September, 2016. A motion was made and seconded to adopt the foregoing Resolution. Motion carried and the Resolution was adopted. MEETING DATE: September 21, 2016

VITO CHIESA, CHAIR ATTEST:

ROSA DE LEÓN PARK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR


FROM: Dave Reed, Finance Director

DATE: September 2, 2016

SUBJECT: Neumiller and Beardslee Annual Professional Services Agreement for Legal Services

Recommendation Adopt Resolution 16-05 to authorize the Executive Director to execute a one-year term Professional Services Agreement with Neumiller and Beardslee for FY 2016/17 legal services, for an amount not to exceed $87,500; and amend the scope and contract amount as long as it does not exceed the FY 2016/17 line item budget. Background The firm of Neumiller and Beardslee has been in existence since 1903 and their goal is to provide high quality legal services to its clients and the community. They have provided timely and quality legal advice to StanCOG for more than 10 years. Their assistance with the Measure L helped considerably to get the measure on the ballot. Discussion They perform all the normal and usual duties of Attorney and General Council for StanCOG and serve as chief legal advisor to StanCOG, except:

A. When, in the opinion of StanCOG, it would be more appropriate to hire outside specialist counsel. In such event, attorney shall assist StanCOG in selecting such outside specialist counsel. Such outside specialist counsel may serve in lieu of Attorney on any particular matter, or may assist Attorney; or

B. When counsel for StanCOG is otherwise provided, as in the case of council provided by insurers in connection with various insurance policies held by StanCOG; or

C. When a conflict exists such that Attorney is prohibited by law or rules of professional conflict from representing or advising StanCOG.

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 5C

Advisory Committee Action This item was presented to the Executive Committee as a motion to recommend adopting the resolution. The Executive Committee recommended that the StanCOG Policy Board authorize the Executive Director to execute a one year term professional services agreement with Neumiller & Beardslee for the provision of FY 2016/17 legal services for an amount not to exceed $87,500. It was also recommended that the Executive Director be authorized to amend the scope and contract amount as long as it does not exceed the FY 2016/17 line item budget amount contained in the adopted Overall Work Program. Should you have any questions regarding this staff report, please contact Rosa De León Park, Executive Director, at 209-525-4600 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Attachment:

1. Resolution


1070686-2


RESOLUTION 16-05 APPROVING NEUMILLER & BEARDSLEE ANNUAL CONTRACT

FOR LEGAL SERVICES WHEREAS, the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) is a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), pursuant to State and Federal designation; and WHEREAS, StanCOG performs numerous activities that require legal counsel; and WHEREAS, Neumiller & Beardslee has served as general counsel to StanCOG since 1994 and both parties desire to continue the relationship. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the StanCOG Policy Board authorizes the Executive Director to execute a one year term professional services agreement with Neumiller & Beardslee for the provision of FY 2016/17 legal services for an amount not to exceed $87,500. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Executive Director is authorized to amend the scope and contract amount as long as it does not exceed the FY 2016/17 line item budget amount contained in the adopted Overall Work Program.

The foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Stanislaus Council of Governments, on the 21st day of September, 2016. A motion was made and seconded to adopt the foregoing Resolution. Motion carried and the Resolution was adopted. MEETING DATE: September 21, 2016




FROM: Dave Reed, Finance Director Karen Kincy, Senior Financial Services Assistant


SUBJECT: FY 2015/16 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Supplemental Apportionment

Recommendation Adopt by Resolution 16-06 the FY 2015/16 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Supplemental Apportionment in the amount of $760,586, in accordance with StanCOG’s adopted Transit Cost Sharing Procedures. Background As the regional transportation planning agency, StanCOG administers and distributes LTF funds to the jurisdictions in accordance with the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and StanCOG’s adopted Transit Cost Sharing Procedures. For FY 2015/16, the County Auditor-Controller provided the Policy Board with an LTF estimate of $19,900,000. As of June 30, 2016, StanCOG has recorded $20,660,586 in LTF receipts, resulting in a balance of $760,586 that is available for a supplemental apportionment. According to the Transit Cost Sharing Procedures, a supplemental LTF apportionment occurs when more funds are received than originally anticipated. Supplemental apportionments increase the level of LTF funds previously apportioned for the fiscal year just ending, by the amount of surplus funds which were actually collected for that year. Discussion Staff recommends distributing the $760,586 supplemental apportionment, in accordance with Section 7 of the Transit Cost Sharing Procedures, as shown in the table below.

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 5D

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

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

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

purposes using the distribution formula in effect for FY 2015/16. Please note that for FY 2015/16 apportionments, the distribution formula for Other Purposes was changed, as described on page 17 of the February 20, 2013, amended Transit Cost Sharing Procedures.

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

(TDA) apportionments to the jurisdictions based on the actual LTF receipts of $20,660,587.

Jurisdiction StanCOG Planning Nonmotorized Other Purposes Total

StanCOG $ 22,818 $ 22,818 Ceres $ 1,303 $ 86,132 $ 87,435 County $ 3,104 $ 320,348 $ 323,452 Hughson $ 200 $ 14,359 $ 14,559 Modesto $ 5,800 $ 5,800 Newman $ 299 $ 21,613 $ 21,912 Oakdale $ 601 $ 43,194 $ 43,795 Patterson $ 587 $ 41,438 $ 42,025 Riverbank $ 652 $ 43,871 $ 44,523 Turlock $ 1,967 $ 136,023 $ 137,990 Waterford $ 242 $ 16,035 $ 16,277 Total $ 22,818 $ 14,755 $ 723,013 $ 760,586

FY 2015/16 Proposed Supplemental Apportionments

Advisory Committee Action This item was presented to the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and Technical Advisory Committee as a discussion item. It was presented to the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) and Management and Finance Committee as a motion to recommend adopting the resolution. Both committees concurred with staff’s recommendation. SSTAC requested a revisit to the Transit Cost Sharing procedures as part of their motion. Should you have any questions regarding this staff report, please contact Rosa De León Park, Executive Director, at 209-525-4600 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Attachments:

1. Resolution 2. LTF Supplemental Apportionment for Planning and Nonmotorized Funds

3. Step 3 Supplemental Apportionment for Other Purposes 4. TDA Apportionments with Supplemental for FY 2015/16



RESOLUTION 16-06 APPROVING THE FY 2015/16

LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND SUPPLEMENTAL APPORTIONMENT

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

WHEREAS, the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG), as the RTPA, is responsible for administering the Transportation Development Act, including the apportionment and allocation of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF); and

WHEREAS, StanCOG approved an LTF funding apportionment for FY 2015/16 of $19,900,000; and

WHEREAS, LTF funds of $20,660,586 were received for FY 2015/16; and WHEREAS, the excess LTF funds of $760,586 are available for a supplemental

apportionment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based on the Rules and Regulations

governing the Local Transportation Fund, the Stanislaus Council of Governments approves the FY 2015/16 Local Transportation Fund supplemental apportionment as shown in the table below.

Jurisdiction StanCOG Planning Nonmotorized Other Purposes Total

StanCOG $ 22,818 $ 22,818 Ceres $ 1,303 $ 86,132 $ 87,435 County $ 3,104 $ 320,348 $ 323,452 Hughson $ 200 $ 14,359 $ 14,559 Modesto $ 5,800 $ 5,800 Newman $ 299 $ 21,613 $ 21,912 Oakdale $ 601 $ 43,194 $ 43,795 Patterson $ 587 $ 41,438 $ 42,025 Riverbank $ 652 $ 43,871 $ 44,523 Turlock $ 1,967 $ 136,023 $ 137,990 Waterford $ 242 $ 16,035 $ 16,277 Total $ 22,818 $ 14,755 $ 723,013 $ 760,586

FY 2015/16 Proposed Supplemental Apportionments

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Executive Director, or the Policy Board Chair of StanCOG, or his/her designee, is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of Stanislaus Council of Governments all necessary administrative changes to implement and carry out the purposes specified in this resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Executive Director, or

his/her designee, is authorized to issue an allocation instruction to the County Auditor and issue disbursement instructions to honor claimant invoices as funds become available.

The foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Stanislaus Council of Governments, on the 21st day of September, 2016. A motion was made and seconded to adopt the foregoing Resolution. Motion carried and the Resolution was adopted. MEETING DATE: September 21, 2016




FY 2015/16 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND SUPPLEMENTAL APPORTIONMENT

CALCULATION FOR STANCOG PLANNING AND NONMOTORIZED FUNDS

PROPOSED FOR SEPTEMBER 21, 2016

Supplemental apportionment 760,586

StanCOG 3% planning allocation apportionment - Proposed (22,818)

Subtotal 737,769

Nonmotorized 2% (apportionment based on population) - Proposed (14,755)

Amount for Other purposes ( See Attachment 2 for distribution calculation) - Proposed 723,014

LTF NONMOTORIZED SUPPLEMENTAL APPORTIONMENT BASED ON POPULATION

Jurisdiction Population * Population %

Nonmotorized

Supplemental

Apportionment

Ceres 46,463 8.833% 1,303$

County 110,650 21.034% 3,104$

Hughson 7,118 1.353% 200$

Modesto 206,785 39.310% 5,800$

Newman 10,668 2.028% 299$

Oakdale 21,442 4.076% 601$

Patterson 20,922 3.977% 587$

Riverbank 23,243 4.418% 652$

Turlock 70,132 13.332% 1,967$

Waterford 8,619 1.638% 242$

Total 526,042 100.000% 14,755$

V:\STANCOG\TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA)\Trancost\15-16\FY2015-16 Supplemental\2015-16 Supplemental ApportionmentsLTF Sup Non-Motorized

ATTACHMENT 1


DISTRIBUTION METHODOLOGY FOR "OTHER" LTF FUNDS

FY 2015/16

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

CITIES (INCLUDES THE CITY OF MODESTO)

Jurisdiction Population Population % Road Miles (RM) RM % Pop 30% + RM 70%Split of all Cities vs.

County

Ceres 46,463 8.8326% 133.00 4.7063% 5.9442%

Hughson 7,118 1.3531% 27.00 0.9554% 1.0747%

Modesto 206,785 39.3096% 604.00 21.3730% 26.7540%

Newman 10,668 2.0280% 41.00 1.4508% 1.6240%

Oakdale 21,442 4.0761% 81.00 2.8662% 3.2292%

Patterson 20,922 3.9772% 75.00 2.6539% 3.0509%

Riverbank 23,243 4.4185% 71.00 2.5124% 3.0842%

Turlock 70,132 13.3320% 235.00 8.3156% 9.8206%

Waterford 8,619 1.6385% 25.00 0.8846% 1.1108% 55.6925%

Stan County 110,650 21.0344% 1,534.00 54.2817% 44.3075% 44.3075%

Totals 526,042 100.0000% 2,826.00 100.0000% 100.0000% 100.0000%

Notes:

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

and a 70% road miles. The County's share is determined to be 44.3075%. The cities will share the

remaining 55.6925%.

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

(EXCLUDES THE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MODESTO)

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

Ceres 46,463 22.2730% 133.00 19.3314% 11.9129%

Hughson 7,118 3.4122% 27.00 3.9244% 1.9859%

Modesto

Newman 10,668 5.1139% 41.00 5.9593% 2.9893%

Oakdale 21,442 10.2787% 81.00 11.7733% 5.9742%

Patterson 20,922 10.0294% 75.00 10.9012% 5.7313%

Riverbank 23,243 11.1420% 71.00 10.3198% 6.0679%

Turlock 70,132 33.6192% 235.00 34.1570% 18.8132%

Waterford 8,619 4.1317% 25.00 3.6337% 2.2178%

Totals 208,607 100.0000% 688.00 100.0000% 55.6925%

Notes:

The methodology for determining each city's share of the remaining (55.6925%) utilizes a weighted

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

calculation.

SCHEDULE 2A

ATTACHMENT 2Page 1 of 3



FY 2015/16

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

1,000,000$

Jurisdiction Pop% + RM%

Amount Unadjusted for

FloorsFloor Contribution

RateFloor

Contributors Floor Beneficiaries Net Amount% of First

$1,000,000

Ceres 11.9129% 119,129.00 15.8768% (12,394.00) 106,735.00 10.6735%

Hughson 1.9859% 19,859.00 30,141.00 50,000.00 5.0000%

Modesto 0.0000% - - 0.0000%

Newman 2.9893% 29,893.00 20,107.00 50,000.00 5.0000%

Oakdale 5.9742% 59,742.00 59,742.00 5.9742%

Patterson 5.7313% 57,313.00 57,313.00 5.7313%

Riverbank 6.0679% 60,679.00 60,679.00 6.0679%

Turlock 18.8132% 188,132.00 25.0730% (19,575.00) 168,557.00 16.8557%

Waterford 2.2178% 22,178.00 - 27,822.00 50,000.00 5.0000%

County 44.3075% 443,075.00 59.0502% (46,101.00) 396,974.00 39.6974%

Totals 100.0000% 1,000,000.00$ 100.0000% (78,070.00)$ 78,070.00$ 1,000,000.00$ 100.0000%

Amount to the three largest agencies - Unadjusted for Floors 750,336.00 75.0336%

Amount to the three largest agencies - Adjusted for Floors 672,266.00 67.2266%

Notes:

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

and Waterford. Prior to the floor adjustment, the three largest jurisdictions receive 75.0336% of the "Other" LTF funds

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

1,169,128$ <‐‐‐‐‐ Amount remaining over $1,000,000

Jurisdiction% of First

$1,000,000 First $1,000,000% After First $1,000,000

Additional $1,169,128

Total "Other" LTF Funds

Percentage of "Other"

Population % Comparison

Ceres 10.6735% 106,735.00 11.9129% 139,277.00 246,012.00 11.3415% 8.8326%

Hughson 5.0000% 50,000.00 1.9859% 23,218.00 73,218.00 3.3755% 1.3531%

Modesto 0.0000% - 0.0000% - - 0.0000% 39.3096%

Newman 5.0000% 50,000.00 2.9893% 34,949.00 84,949.00 3.9163% 2.0280%

Oakdale 5.9742% 59,742.00 5.9742% 69,846.00 129,588.00 5.9742% 4.0761%

Patterson 5.7313% 57,313.00 5.7313% 67,006.00 124,319.00 5.7313% 3.9772%

Riverbank 6.0679% 60,679.00 6.0679% 70,941.00 131,620.00 6.0679% 4.4185%

Turlock 16.8557% 168,557.00 18.8132% 219,951.00 388,508.00 17.9108% 13.3320%

Waterford 5.0000% 50,000.00 2.2178% 25,929.00 75,929.00 3.5004% 1.6385%

County 39.6974% 396,974.00 44.3075% 518,011.00 914,985.00 42.1822% 21.0344%

Totals 100.0000% 1,000,000.00$ 100.0000% 1,169,128.00$ 2,169,128.00$ 100.0000% 100.0000%

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

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

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

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

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




FY 2015/16

Jurisdiction

Total LTF for FY

2015/16 Other

Purposes

Minus 6/17/15 Apportionment

for Other Purposes

9/21/16 Proposed

Supplemental for Other

Purposes

Ceres 246,012 159,880 86,132

Hughson 73,218 58,859 14,359

Modesto ‐ ‐ ‐

Newman 84,949 63,336 21,613

Oakdale 129,588 86,394 43,194

Patterson 124,319 82,881 41,438

Riverbank 131,620 87,749 43,871

Turlock 388,508 252,485 136,023

Waterford 75,929 59,894 16,035

County 914,985 594,636 320,349

2,169,128 1,446,114 723,014

Proposed Supplemental Apportionments for Other Purposes


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

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

Admin Planning Ped Transit Purposes LTF STA TDA

Projects

StanCOG 269,000 619,818 36,000 924,818 + = 924,818

CTSA 200,000 200,000 + = 200,000

Ceres 34,927 917,446 246,012 1,198,385 + = 1,198,385

County 83,178 6,856,640 914,985 7,854,803 + 26,816 = 7,881,619

Hughson 5,351 73,218 78,569 + = 78,569

Modesto 155,444 7,977,298 8,132,742 + 2,818,947 = 10,951,689

Newman 8,019 84,949 92,968 + = 92,968

Oakdale 16,118 129,588 145,706 + = 145,706

Patterson 15,728 124,319 140,047 + = 140,047

Riverbank 17,472 131,620 149,092 + = 149,092

Turlock 52,719 1,219,822 388,508 1,661,049 + 8,171 = 1,669,220

Waterford 6,479 75,929 82,408 + = 82,408

Total 269,000 619,818 395,435 17,171,206 36,000 2,169,128 20,660,587 + 2,853,934 = 23,514,521

NOTE: Revised numbers are in bold


TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) APPORTIONMENTS FOR FY 2015/16

INCLUDES SUPPLEMENTAL APPORTIONMENT PROPOSED FOR POLICY BOARD ADOPTION ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2016

V:\STANCOG\TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA)\Trancost\15-16\FY2015-16 Supplemental\2015-16 Supplemental ApportionmentsFY2015-16 APPORT FINAL

ATTACHMENT 3

DISCUSSION & ACTION ITEMS

TO: Policy Board Staff Report

Resolution THROUGH: Rosa De León Park, Executive Director

FROM: Elisabeth Hahn, Senior Planner Marcus Tucker, Associate Planner


SUBJECT: 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) and Corresponding Final Air Quality Conformity Analysis (AQCA)

Recommendation By Motion: Adopt by Resolution 16-07 the 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) and Corresponding Final Air Quality Conformity Analysis (AQCA). Background Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act was signed into law by President Obama on December 4, 2015. FAST requires each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to prepare a Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP).

The FTIP is a short range, four-year, program that implements the long-range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to accomplish improvements in mobility and air quality. According to federal legislation, no project may receive federal funding unless it is contained in an approved FTIP. Through collaboration with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the California Transportation Commission (CTC), StanCOG's member agencies, and the four public transit operators, the FTIP is updated every two years. The FTIP is a financially constrained program that identifies the current and pending uses of federal and state transportation funding. Discussion The Clean Air Act Section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR 93 Subpart A) require that each new FTIP demonstrate conformity to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) before the MPO considers it for adoption.

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 6A

As of July 5, 2016 the EPA had not yet finalized action to approve the revised Ozone and PM10 conformity budgets or the 2012 PM2.5 (2006 Standard) Plan. These conformity budgets are needed so that StanCOG Policy Board can approve a FTIP that demonstrates compliance with the transportation conformity regulations. Recognizing the potential situation that revised conformity budgets are not available, StanCOG simultaneously released the Draft 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) as well as a Draft 2017 “Exempt Project” FTIP and the Corresponding Draft Conformity Analysis for a 45-day public review and comment period. The “Exempt Project” FTIP included only those projects that were not regionally significant. Releasing a Draft 2017 “Exempt Project” FTIP provided StanCOG the ability to comply with federal regulations and adopt a FTIP without regionally significant projects to meet air quality and transportation planning requirements. The public review and comment period began on July 5, 2016 and ended on August 19, 2016. During the 45-day public review and comment period, a public hearing was held on August 17, 2016 to provide the public and other interested stakeholders with the opportunity to comment on the Draft 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) and the Draft 2017 “Exempt Project” FTIP and the Corresponding Draft Conformity Analysis. Recently, on August 16, 2016, the EPA approved the 2012 PM2.5 Plan (2006 Standard) which was the last approval needed to move forward with a full FTIP since the EPA approved the revised budgets for Ozone and PM10 on July 8, 2016. As a result, the StanCOG Policy Board will consider adoption of the Draft 2017 FTIP and the corresponding Draft Conformity Analysis at their meeting on September 21, 2016.

Following the 45-day comment period, StanCOG received four (4) comment letters on the Draft FTIP documents. Staff has reviewed and addressed all public comments received during the comment period. Response to comments are included in Appendix U of the 2017 FTIP document.

The 2017 FTIP and Air Quality Conformity documents are available on the StanCOG website at http://www.stancog.org/pdf/draft-2017-ftip.pdf. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Rosa De León Park, at 209.525.4600 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Advisory Committee Action: This staff report was presented to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee (SSTAC), Management and Finance Committee (MFC), and Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC). No comments were made. Attachment(s):

1. Resolution 16-07

http://www.stancog.org/pdf/draft-2017-ftip.pdf


STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION 16-07

ADOPTING THE 2017 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (FTIP) AND CORRESPONDING AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY

ANALYSIS WHEREAS, the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) is a Regional

Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) and a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), pursuant to State and Federal designations; and

WHEREAS, federal planning regulations require that MPOs prepare and adopt a short

range Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) for their region; and WHEREAS, the 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (2017 FTIP) has

been prepared to comply with Federal and State requirements for local projects and through a cooperative process between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans), principal elected officials of general purpose local governments and their staffs, and public owner operators of mass transportation services acting through the StanCOG forum and general public involvement; and

WHEREAS, the 2017 FTIP program listing is consistent with: 1) the 2014 RTP

Amendment 2; 2) the 2016 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); and 3) the Corresponding Air Quality Conformity Analysis; and

WHEREAS, the 2017 FTIP contains the MPO’s certification of the transportation planning

process assuring that all federal requirements have been fulfilled; and WHEREAS, the 2017 FTIP meets all applicable transportation planning requirements per

23 CFR Part 450; and WHEREAS, projects submitted in the 2017 FTIP must be financially constrained and the

financial plan affirms that funding is available; and

WHEREAS, the MPO must demonstrate conformity per 40 CFR Part 93 for the FTIP; and WHEREAS, the 2017 FTIP includes a Corresponding Air Quality Conformity Analysis;

and WHEREAS, the Conformity Analysis for the 2017 FTIP supports a finding that the 2017

FTIP meets the air quality conformity requirements for carbon monoxide, ozone and particulate matter; and

WHEREAS, the 2017 FTIP do not interfere with the timely implementation of the

Transportation Control Measures; and WHEREAS, the 2017 FTIP conforms to the applicable State Improvement Programs

(SIPs); and WHEREAS, the documents have been widely circulated and reviewed by StanCOG's

advisory committees representing the technical and management staffs of the member agencies; representatives of other governmental agencies, including State and Federal; representatives of

special interest groups; representatives of the private business sector; and residents of Stanislaus County consistent with the public participation process adopted by StanCOG; and

WHEREAS, a 45-day public review/comment period was conducted from July 5, 2016 to

August 19, 2016, and a public hearing was held on August 17, 2016, to hear and consider comments on the 2017 FTIP, and Corresponding Air Quality Conformity Analysis; and

WHEREAS, the StanCOG Executive Director is authorized to execute any administrative

changes to either the 2017 FTIP or Corresponding Air Quality Conformity Analysis in order to be responsive to any Caltrans, FHWA, or FTA comments for the purpose of securing State and Federal approval of these documents.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Stanislaus Council of Governments

hereby adopts the 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program and Corresponding Air Quality Conformity Analysis.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Stanislaus Council of Governments finds that

the 2017 FTIP is in conformity with the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments and applicable State Implementation Plans for air quality.

The foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Stanislaus Council

of Governments, on the 21st day of September 2016. A motion was made and seconded to adopt the foregoing Resolution. Motion carried and the Resolution was adopted.

MEETING DATE: September 21, 2016

__________________________________________

VITO CHIESA, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

______________________________________________ ROSA DE LEÓN PARK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

INFORMATION ITEMS

TO: Policy Board Staff Report Information THROUGH: Rosa De León Park, Executive Director

FROM: Elisabeth Hahn, Senior Planner Stephen Hanamaikai, Assistant Planner


SUBJECT: FY 2017/2018 Unmet Transit Needs Assessment

Background In accordance with the requirements of the Transportation Development Act (TDA), metropolitan planning organizations must annually complete an Unmet Transit Needs (UTN) Assessment. This assessment identifies and analyzes potential unmet transit needs for “reasonableness” based upon adopted state and local guidelines. The purpose of the assessment is to identify any unmet transit needs that may be present anywhere within the planning area and determine whether those identified needs are reasonable to meet. The TDA provides two major sources of funding for public transportation: the Local Transportation Funds (LTF) and the State Transit Assistance fund (STA). These funds are for the development and planning of public transportation in California and are allocated to local agencies based on population, taxable sales and transit performance. If an unmet transit need is identified as “reasonable to meet” it must be funded using LTF prior to LTF being allocated for non-transit purposes, such as street and roadway projects. The UTN Assessment process requires that at least one public hearing be held for the purpose of receiving potential unmet transit needs from the public. Any transit needs identified during the UTN Assessment process will be reviewed per the Policy Board’s adopted procedures and definitions for “unmet transit need” and “reasonable to meet.”

Discussion

Public hearings will be held in the city of Modesto (as part of the October 19, 2016 StanCOG Policy Board meeting) and in the cities of Oakdale and Patterson. At the time that this staff report was presented to the advisory committees, the hearing dates were being set, but those dates have since been finalized as detailed in Attachment 1. Spanish translation will be provided at each hearing.

For those who are unable to attend the public hearings held during the FY 2017/18 UTN Assessment process and wish to identify a potential unmet transit need, please contact Stephen Hanamaikai, Associate Planner, at (209) 525-4646 or via e-mail at [email protected].


calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 7A

Additional information regarding the UTN Assessment process and forms for submiting potential unmet transit needs comments can be found at http://www.StanCOG.org/Unmet-Transit-Needs.shtm.

Advisory Committee Action This staff report was presented as a discussion item to the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council, Citizens Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee. No comments were made. This staff report was also presented as an information item to the Management and Finance Committee. Should you have any questions regarding this staff report, please contact Rosa Park at 209-525-4600 or via e-mail at [email protected].

Attachments:

1. FY 2017/18 Unmet Transit Needs Public Hearing Schedule (English) 2. FY 2017/18 Unmet Transit Needs Public Hearing Schedule (Spanish)

http://www.stancog.org/Unmet-Transit-Needs.shtm

http://www.stancog.org/Unmet-Transit-Needs.shtm

PUBLIC TRANSIT HEARINGS

Submit comments/questions to:

Stephen Hanamaikai, Associate Planner [email protected] 1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA 95354 (209) 525-4646 www.StanCOG.org/Unmet-Transit-Needs.shtm

Spanish translation services will be provided

Does public transit meet your needs?

Share your transit ideas with us at a public hearing listed below!

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2016 6:00PM

StanCOG Policy Board

1111 I Street, Suite 308

Modesto, CA, 95354

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2017 6:00PM-7:00PM

Hammon Senior Center

1033 W. Las Palmas

Patterson, CA, 95363

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2016 6:00PM-7:00 PM

Gene Bianchi Community Center

110 S. 2nd Avenue

Oakdale, CA, 95361

AUDIENCIAS AL PÚBLICAS

DE TRANSPORTE PÚBLICO

Háganos llegar sus comentarios/preguntas a: Stephen Hanamaikai, Associate Planner [email protected] 1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA 95354 (209) 525-4646 www.StanCOG.org/Unmet-Transit-Needs.shtm

Se ofrecerá servicio de traducción al español

¿Cubrimos sus necesidades de transporte? ¡Comparta sus ideas de transporte público con nosotros en una de

nuestras audenicias públicas! Las audiencias públicas se enumeran a continuacion.

MIÉRCOLES, ENERO DE 11 DEL 2017

6PM-7PM Centro para Tercera Edad Hammon

1033 W. Las Palmas

Patterson, CA, 95363

JUEVES, NOVIEMBRE DE 10 DEL 2016

6PM-7PM Centro Comunitario Gene Bianchi

110 S. 2nd Avenue

Oakdale, CA, 95361

MIÉRCOLES, OCTUBRE DE 19 DEL 2016

6:00PM Reunión del Comité de Políticas Salón de Directorio del StanCOG

1111 I Street, Suite 308

Modesto, CA, 95354



DATE: August 25, 2016

SUBJECT: 2017 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 3 Regional Project Selection Process

Background On September 26, 2013, Governor Brown signed legislation creating the Active Transportation Program (ATP) (SB99, Chapter 359 and AB 101, Chapter 354) The purpose of the program is to encourage active modes of transportation such as biking and walking. ATP combines small-dedicated grant programs, which fund efforts like Safe Routes to Schools, bicycle programs, and recreational trails. Discussion Forty-percent of the total statewide 2017 ATP funding is allocated to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) in urban areas with populations greater than 200,000. The 2017 Active Transportation Program Fund Estimate identifies $1.480 million for StanCOG for a regional call for projects for Fiscal Years 2019/20 ($740,000) and 2020/21 ($740,000). Applications submitted during the regional call for projects must be selected through a competitive process in accordance with the “2017 Active Transportation Program Guidelines” approved by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) on March 17, 2016. Projects selected through the regional call for projects may be located in large urban, small urban or rural areas. Additionally, a minimum of 25% of the funds distributed to each MPO must benefit disadvantaged communities. StanCOG utilizes the same project selection criteria, weighting, minimum project size, match requirement, and definition of disadvantaged communities as identified by the CTC adopted “2017 Active Transportation Program Guidelines.” Applications submitted by local agencies within the Stanislaus region, that were submitted for the statewide competition and were not selected by the CTC, will be automatically included along with the applications submitted during the regional call for projects. In addition, StanCOG’s multidisciplinary project evaluation committee has been established to review and score the applications. Composition of this evaluation committee is identified below:

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 7B

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

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

StanCOG 2017 ATP Cycle 3 Call for Projects Schedule

September 12, 2016 StanCOG 2016 ATP Cycle 3 Call for Projects Begins

October 10, 2016 StanCOG 2016 ATP Cycle 3 Call for Projects Ends

November 2016 ATP Project Evaluation Committee Reviews Applications

December 21, 2016 Policy Board Approval of ATP Programming Recommendations

January 27, 2017 StanCOG submits Programming Recommendations to CTC

March 2017 CTC adopts MPO Selected Projects

Should you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Rosa De León Park, at 209.525.4600 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Advisory Committee Action: This staff report was presented to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and Management and Finance Committee (MFC) and Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC). No comments were made. Attachment(s):

1. 2017 Active Transportation Program Guidelines 03/17/16 2. 2017 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Fund Estimates


2017 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM

GUIDELINES

March 17, 2016 California Transportation Commission

i

CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2017 ATP GUIDELINES TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

IV. Project Selection Process ..............................................................................................12 14. Project Application ....................................................................................................12 15. Sequential Project Selection .....................................................................................12 16. MPO Competitive Project Selection ..........................................................................12 17. Screening Criteria ......................................................................................................13 18. Scoring Criteria ..........................................................................................................13 19. Project Selection between Project Applications with the Same Score ..................15 20. Project Evaluation Committee ..................................................................................15

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

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

VII. Project Delivery ...........................................................................................................17 21. Federal Requirements ...............................................................................................18 22. Design Standards ......................................................................................................19 23. Project Inactivity ........................................................................................................19 24. Project Reporting .......................................................................................................19

VIII. Roles And Responsibilities ........................................................................................20 25. California Transportation Commission (Commission) ............................................20 26. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) ................................................21 27. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) With Large Urbanized Areas ..........21 28. Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) Outside an MPO with Large Urbanized Areas and MPOs without Large Urbanized Areas ...........................................22 29. Project Applicant .......................................................................................................22

IX. Program Evaluation ........................................................................................................23

California Transportation Commission 2017 ATP Guidelines March 2016

1

I. Introduction

1. Background The Active Transportation Program (ATP) was created by Senate Bill 99 (Chapter 359, Statutes of 2013) and Assembly Bill 101 (Chapter 354, Statutes of 2013) to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking. These guidelines describe the policy, standards, criteria, and procedures for the development, adoption and management of the ATP. The guidelines were developed in consultation with the Workgroup. The workgroup includes representatives from Caltrans, other government agencies, and active transportation stakeholder organizations with expertise in pedestrian and bicycle issues, including Safe Routes to School programs. The Commission may amend the ATP guidelines after conducting at least one public hearing. The Commission must make a reasonable effort to amend the guidelines prior to a call for projects or may extend the deadline for project submission in order to comply with the amended guidelines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Program Schedule and Funding Years

The guidelines for the third program of projects must be adopted by March 17, 2016. New programming capacity for the 2017 ATP will be for state fiscal years 2019/20 and 2020/21. Each programs must be adopted not later than April 1 of each odd-numbered year; however, the Commission may alternatively elect to adopt a program annually.


2

The following schedule lists the major milestones for the development and adoption of the 2017 ATP:

Draft ATP Guidelines and Application presented to Commission January 20-21, 2016

Commission hearing and adoption of ATP Guidelines March 17, 2016*

Call for projects April 15, 2016

Commission adopts ATP Fund Estimate May 18, 2016*

Large MPOs submit optional guidelines to Commission June 1, 2016

Project applications to Caltrans (postmark date) June 15, 2016

Commission approves or rejects MPO guidelines June 29-30, 2016*

Staff recommendation for statewide and small urban and rural portions of the program October 28, 2016

Commission adopts statewide and small urban and rural portions of the program December 7-8, 2016*

Projects not programmed distributed to large MPOs based on location December 7-8, 2016

Deadline for MPO project programming recommendations to the Commission January 27, 2017

Commission adopts MPO selected projects March 2017

*Dates coincide with the Commission’s adopted 2016 CTC meeting calendar.

II. Funding

4. Source

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

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

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

• State Highway Account funds.

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

5. Distribution

State and federal law segregate the Active Transportation Program into multiple, overlapping components. The Active Transportation Program Fund Estimate must indicate the funds available


3

for each of the program components. Consistent with these requirements, the Active Transportation Program funds must be distributed as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

o SCAG must obtain concurrence from the county transportation commissions.

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

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

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

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


4

6. Matching Requirements

Although the Commission encourages the leveraging of additional funds for a project, matching funds are not required. If an agency chooses to provide match funds, those funds cannot be expended prior to the Commission allocation of Active Transportation Program funds in the same project phase (permits and environmental studies; plans, specifications, and estimates; right-of-way; and construction). Matching funds must be expended concurrently and proportionally to the Active Transportation Program funds. The Matching funds may be adjusted before or shortly after contract award to reflect any substantive change in the bid compared to the estimated cost of the project. Large MPOs, in administering a competitive selection process, may require a funding match for projects selected through their competitive process. Applicants from within a large MPO should be aware that the match requirements may differ between the MPO and statewide competitive programs.

7. Funding for Active Transportation Plans

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

8. Reimbursement The Active Transportation Program is a reimbursement program for eligible costs incurred. Reimbursement is requested through the invoice process detailed in Chapter 5, Accounting/Invoices, Local Assistance Procedures Manual. Costs incurred prior to Commission allocation and, for federally funded projects, Federal Highway Administration project approval (i.e. Authorization to Proceed) are not eligible for reimbursement.


5

III. Eligibility

9. Eligible Applicants

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

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

• Caltrans*

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

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

o State or local park or forest agencies

o State or local fish and game or wildlife agencies

o Department of the Interior Land Management Agencies

o U.S. Forest Service

• Public schools or School districts.

• Tribal Governments - Federally-recognized Native American Tribes.

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

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

A project applicant found to have purposefully misrepresented information that could affect a project’s score may result in the applicant being excluded from the program for the current cycle and the next cycle. For funding awarded to a tribal government, a fund transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) may be necessary. A tribal government may also partner with another eligible entity to apply if desired. * Caltrans and MPOs, except for MPOs that are also regional transportation planning agencies, are not eligible project applicants for the federal Transportation Alternative Program funds appropriated to the Active Transportation Program. Therefore, funding awarded to projects submitted directly by Caltrans and MPOs are limited to other Active Transportation Program funds. Caltrans and MPOs may partner with an eligible entity to expand funding opportunities.


6

10. Partnering With Implementing Agencies

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

11. Eligible Projects

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

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

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

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

• Non-infrastructure Projects: Education, encouragement, and enforcement activities that further the goals of this program. The Commission intends to focus funding for non-infrastructure on start-up projects. A project is considered to be a start-up when no program currently exists. Start-up projects must demonstrate how the program is sustainable after ATP funding is exhausted. ATP funds cannot fund ongoing program operations. Non-infrastructure projects are not limited to those benefiting school students. Program expansions or new components of existing programs are eligible for ATP funds as long as the applicant can demonstrate that the existing program will be continued with non-ATP funds.

• Infrastructure projects with non-infrastructure components.


7

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

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

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

o Elimination of hazardous conditions on existing bikeways and walkways.

o Preventative maintenance of bikeways and walkways with the primary goal of improving the active transportation operations/usability extending the service life of the facility.

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

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

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

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

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

• Establishment or expansion of a bike share program.

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

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

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

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

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

o Conducting pedestrian and bicycle safety education programs.

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

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

o Components of open streets events directly linked to the promotion of a new infrastructure project or designed to promote walking and biking on a daily basis.


8

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

o School crossing guard training.

o School bicycle clinics.

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

12. Minimum Request for Funds

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

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

A. Disadvantaged Communities For a project to contribute toward the Disadvantaged Communities funding requirement, the project must clearly demonstrate, with verifiable information, a direct, meaningful, and assured benefit to a disadvantaged community. To count as providing a benefit, a project must fulfill an important need of low-income people in a way that provides a significant benefit and targets its benefits primarily to low-income people while avoiding substantial burdens on a disadvantaged community. For a project to qualify as directly benefiting a disadvantaged community, the project must be located within or in reasonable proximity and have a direct connection, to the disadvantaged community served by the project; or the project must be an extension or a segment of a larger project that connects to or directly adjacent to that disadvantaged community. It is incumbent upon the applicant to clearly articulate how the project benefits the disadvantaged community; there is no presumption of benefit, even for projects located within a disadvantaged community. To qualify as a disadvantaged community the community served by the project must meet at least one of the following criteria:

• The Median Household Income (Table ID B19013) is less than 80% of the statewide median based on the most current Census Tract (ID 140) level data from the 2010-2014 American Community Survey (<$49,191). Communities with a population less than 15,000 may use data at the Census Block Group (ID 150) level. Unincorporated communities may use data at the Census Place (ID 160) level. Data is available at:

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


9

• An area identified as among the most disadvantaged 25% in the state according to the CalEPA and based on the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool 2.0 (CalEnviroScreen 2.0) scores (score must be greater than or equal to 36.62). This list can be found at the following link under SB 535 List of Disadvantaged Communities:

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

• At least 75% of public school students in the project area are eligible to receive free or reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program. Data is available at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/sd/filessp.asp. Applicants using this measure must indicate how the project benefits the school students in the project area. Project must be located within two miles of the school(s) represented by this criteria.

• Other:

o If a project applicant believes a project benefits a disadvantaged community but the project does not meet the aforementioned criteria due to a lack of accurate Census data or CalEnviroScreen data that represents a small neighborhood or unincorporated area, the applicant must submit for consideration a quantitative assessment, to demonstrate that the community’s median household income is at or below 80% of that state median household income.

o Regional definitions of disadvantaged communities as adopted in a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) by an MPO or RTPA per obligations with Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, such as “environmental justice communities” or “communities of concern,” may be used in lieu of the options identified above.

o Projects located within Federally Recognized Tribal Lands (typically within the boundaries of a Reservation or Rancheria).

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

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

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

D. Active Transportation Resource Center Typical Active Transportation Resource Center roles include:

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

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


10

• Assisting with program evaluation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


12

IV. Project Selection Process

14. Project Application

ATP project applications will be available at: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/index.html. A project application must include the signature of the Chief Executive Officer or other officer authorized by the applicant’s governing board. Where the project is to be implemented by an agency other than the applicant, documentation of the agreement between the project applicant and implementing agency must be submitted with the project application. A project application must also include documentation of all other funds committed to the projects. Information on how to submit project application will be posted at: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/index.html and www.catc.ca.gov/programs/ATP.htm prior to the call for projects. A copy of the project application must also be sent to the Regional Transportation Planning Agency or County Transportation Commission within which the project is located and to the MPO (a contact list can be found at www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/orip/). The copy may be hard copy or electronic – check with your regional agency or county commission for their preference.

15. Sequential Project Selection

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

16. MPO Competitive Project Selection

As stated above, projects not selected for programming in the statewide competition must be considered by the MPOs in administering a competitive selection process. An MPO choosing to use the same project selection criteria and weighting, minimum project size, match requirement, and definition of disadvantaged communities as used by the Commission for the statewide competition may delegate its project selection to the Commission. An MPO delegating its project selection to the Commission may not conduct a supplemental call for projects. An MPO, with Commission approval, may use a different project selection criteria or weighting, minimum project size, match requirement, and/or definition of disadvantaged communities for its competitive selection process. Use of a minimum project size of $500,000 or less, or of a different match requirement than in the statewide competitive program does not require prior Commission

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/index.html

http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/ATP.htm


13

approval. An MPO may also elect to have a supplemental MPO specific call for projects. The projects received in this call must be considered along with those not selected through the statewide competition. In administering a competitive selection process, an MPO must use a multidisciplinary advisory group to assist in evaluating project applications. Following its competitive selection process, an MPO must submit its programming recommendations to the Commission along with the following:

• Project applications that were not submitted through the statewide program

• List of the members of its multidisciplinary advisory group

• Description of unbiased project selection methodology

• Program spreadsheet with the following elements

o All projects evaluated

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

o Project type designations such as Non-infrastructure, Safe Routes to School, etc.

• Board resolution approving program of projects

• Updated Project Programming Requests (PPRs)

17. Screening Criteria Before evaluation, project applications will be screened for the following:

• Consistency with an adopted regional transportation plan.

• Supplanting Funds: A project that is already fully funded will not be considered for funding in the Active Transportation Program. ATP funds cannot be used to supplant other committed funds.

• Eligibility of project: Project must be one of the four types of projects listed in Section 11 of these guidelines.

18. Scoring Criteria

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

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

Applicants must:

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

Scores will be scaled in relation to the severity of and the benefit provided to the disadvantaged community affected by the project.


14

• Potential for increased walking and bicycling, especially among students, including the identification of walking and bicycling routes to and from schools, transit facilities, community centers, employment centers, and other destinations; and including increasing and improving connectivity and mobility of non-motorized users. Applicants may describe how the project would address significant gap closures. (0 to 35 points)

• Potential for reducing the number and/or rate or the risk of pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities and injuries, including the identification of safety hazards for pedestrians and bicyclists. Applicants may describe qualitative safety barriers that deter people from walking/biking if their community lacks quantitative safety data and how the project would address the community’s safety concerns. (0 to 25 points)

• Public participation and Planning. (0 to 10 points)

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

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

• Cost-effectiveness (0 to 5 points)

o A project’s cost effectiveness will be evaluated on the relative costs of the project in comparison to the project’s benefits as defined by the purpose and goals of the ATP. This includes the consideration of the safety and mobility benefit in relation to both the total project cost and the funds provided.

The Cal-B/C benefit-cost model is being updated to incorporate active transportation projects. When this update is complete, applicants must use this model to quantify the cost-effectiveness of their project.

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

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

The California Conservation Corps can be contacted [email protected]. Qualified community conservation corps can be contacted at [email protected].



15

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

• Applicant’s performance on past ATP projects. Point reduction for non-use of the Corps as committed to in a past ATP award or project failure on any past ATP project. (0 or to -10 points)

19. Project Selection between Project Applications with the Same Score

If two or more projects applications receive the same score that is the funding cut-off score, the following criteria will be used to determine which project(s) will be funded:

• Construction ready infrastructure projects

• Highest score on Question 1

• Highest score on Question 2

20. Project Evaluation Committee

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

V. Programming Following at least one public hearing, the Commission will adopt a program of projects for the Active Transportation Program, by April 1 of each odd numbered year. The Active Transportation Program must be developed consistent with the fund estimate and the amount programmed in each fiscal year must not exceed the amount identified in the fund estimate. The program of projects for each fiscal year will include, for each project, the amount to be funded from the Active Transportation Program, and the estimated total cost of the project. In the case of a large project delivered in segments, include the total cost of the segment for which ATP funds are requested. Project costs in the Active Transportation Program will include costs for each of the following components: (1) permits and environmental studies; (2) plans, specifications, and estimates; (3) right-of-way; and (4) construction. The cost of each project component will be listed


16

in the Active Transportation Program no earlier than in the fiscal year in which the particular project component can be implemented. When proposing to fund only preconstruction components for a project, the applicant must demonstrate the means by which it intends to fund the construction of a useable segment, consistent with the regional transportation plan. The Commission will program and allocate funding to projects in whole thousands of dollars and will include a project only if it is fully funded from a combination of Active Transportation Program and other committed funding. The Commission will regard funds as committed when they are programmed by the Commission or when the agency with discretionary authority over the funds has made its commitment to the project by ordinance or resolution. For federal formula funds, including Surface Transportation Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, and federal formula transit funds, the commitment may be by Federal approval of the Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. For federal discretionary funds, the commitment may be by federal approval of a full funding grant agreement or by grant approval. If the program of projects adopted by the Commission does not program the full capacity identified in the fund estimate for a given fiscal year, the balance will remain available to advance programmed projects. Subject to the availability of federal funds, a balance not programmed in one fiscal year will carry over and be available for projects in the following fiscal year. The intent of the Commission is to consolidate the allocation of federal funds to as few projects as practicable. Therefore, the smallest projects may be designated, at the time of programming, for state-only funding.

VI. Allocations The Commission will consider the allocation of funds for a project when it receives an allocation request and recommendation from Caltrans in the same manner as for the STIP (see section 64 of the STIP guidelines). The recommendation will include a determination of project readiness, the availability of appropriated funding, and the availability of all identified and committed supplementary funding. Where the project is to be implemented by an agency other than the applicant, the allocation request must include a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding or Interagency Agreement between the project applicant and implementing agency. The Commission will approve the allocation if the funds are available and the allocation is necessary to implement the project as included in the adopted Active Transportation Program. In order to ensure the timely use of all program funds, the Commission will, in the last quarter of the fiscal year, allocate funds to projects programmed in a future fiscal year on a first-come, first served basis. If there are insufficient funds, the Commission may delay the allocation of funds to a project until the next fiscal year without requiring an extension. Should requests for allocations exceed available capacity, the Commission will give priority to projects programmed in the current-year. Allocation requests for a project in the MPO selected portion of the program must include a recommendation by the MPO.


17

In compliance with Section 21150 of the Public Resources Code, the Commission will not allocate funds for a non-infrastructure project or plan, or for design, right-of-way, or construction of an infrastructure project, prior to documentation of environmental clearance under the California Environmental Quality Act. As a matter of policy, the Commission will not allocate funds, other than for the environmental phase, for a federally funded project prior to documentation of environmental clearance under the National Environmental Policy Act. Exceptions to this policy may be made in instances where federal law allows for the acquisition of right-of-way prior to completion of National Environmental Policy Act review. If an implementing agency requests an allocation of funds in an amount that is less than the amount programmed, the balance of the programmed amount may be allocated to a programmed project advanced from a future fiscal year. Any amount allocated for environmental may also be expended for design. In addition, a local agency may expend an amount allocated for environmental, design, right of way, or construction for another allocated project component, provided that the total expenditure shifted to a component in this way is not more than 20 percent of the amount actually allocated for either component. This means that the amount transferred by a local agency from one component to another may be no more than 20 percent of whichever of the components has received the smaller allocation from the Commission. Any scope changes must be presented to Caltrans for consideration prior to allocation. Caltrans will make a recommendation of approval to the Commission for final approval. Scope changes that result in a decrease of active transportation benefits may result in removal from the program.

VII. Project Delivery Active Transportation Program allocations must be requested in the fiscal year of project programming, and construction allocations are valid for award for six months from the date of allocation unless the Commission approves an extension. Applicants may submit and the Commission will evaluate extension requests in the same manner as for STIP projects (see section 66 of the STIP guidelines) except that extension to the period for project allocation and for project award will be limited to twelve months. If extraordinary issues exist that require a longer extension, the implementer may request up to 20 months for allocation only. Extension requests for a project in the MPO selected portion of the program must include a recommendation by the MPO, consistent with the preceding requirements. If there are insufficient funds, the Commission may delay the allocation of funds to a project until the next fiscal year without requiring an extension. Whenever programmed funds are not allocated within the fiscal year they are programmed or within the time allowed by an approved extension, the project will be deleted from the Active Transportation Program. Funds available following the deletion of a project may be allocated to a programmed project advanced from a future fiscal year. An MPO, in administering its competitive portion of the Active Transportation Program, must determine which projects to advance and make that recommendation to the Commission. Unallocated funds in one fiscal year will not carry over and be available for projects in the following fiscal year. The implementing agency must enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans and, if the project is federally funded, obligate the federal funds within six months.


18

Funds allocated for project development or right of way costs must be expended by the end of the second fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the funds were allocated. After the award of a contract, the implementing agency has up to 36 months to complete (accept) the contract. At the time of fund allocation, the Commission may extend the deadline for completion of work and the liquidation of funds if necessary to accommodate the proposed expenditure plan for the project. The implementing agency has six months after contract acceptance to make the final payment to the contractor or vendor, prepare the Final Report of Expenditures and submit the final invoice to Caltrans for reimbursement. It is incumbent upon the implementing agency to develop accurate project cost estimates. If the amount of a contract award is less than the amount allocated, or if the final cost of a component is less than the amount allocated, the savings generated will not be available for future programming. Caltrans will track the delivery of Active Transportation Program projects and submit to the Commission a semiannual report showing the delivery of each project phase.

21. Federal Requirements

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

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

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

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

• If the project applicant requires the consultation services of including, but not limited to, architects, landscape architects, land surveyors, or engineers, the procedures in the Chapter 10, Consultant Selection, of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual must be followed. The naming of a Partner in the application does not negate this requirement.

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


19

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

22. Design Standards

Streets and Highways Code Section 891 requires that all city, county, regional, and other local agencies responsible for the development or operation of bikeways or roadways where bicycle travel is permitted utilize all minimum safety design criteria established by Caltrans, except that an agency may utilize other minimum safety design criteria if specific conditions are met, as described in Streets and Highways Code Section 891(b). Chapter 11, Design Standards, of the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual describes statewide design standards, specifications, procedures, guides, and references that are acceptable in the geometric, drainage, and structural design of Local Assistance projects. For capital projects off the state highway system, the project applicant will be responsible for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the facility. If another entity agrees to assume responsibility for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the facility, documentation of the agreement must be submitted with the project application, and a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding or Interagency Agreement between the parties must be submitted with the request for allocation. All facilities constructed using Active Transportation Program funds cannot revert to a non-Active Transportation Program use for a minimum of 20 years or its actual useful life as documented in the project application, whichever is less, without approval of the Commission.

23. Project Inactivity

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

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

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

• Before and after photos documenting the project.

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

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


20

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

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

Please note that the final delivery report required by this section is in addition to the aforementioned Final Report of Expenditures. For the purpose of this section, a project becomes operable when the construction contract is accepted or acquired equipment is received, or in the case of non-infrastructure activities, when the activities are complete. Caltrans must audit a selection of Active Transportation Program projects to evaluate the performance of the project, determine whether project costs incurred and reimbursed are in compliance with the executed project agreement or approved amendments thereof; state and federal laws and regulations; contract provisions; and Commission guidelines, and whether project deliverables (outputs) and outcomes are consistent with the project scope, schedule and benefits described in the executed project agreement or approved amendments thereof. A report on the projects audited must be submitted to the Commission annually.

VIII. Roles And Responsibilities

25. California Transportation Commission (Commission)

The Commission responsibilities include:

• Adopt guidelines, policies, and application for the Active Transportation Program.

• Adopt Active Transportation Program Fund Estimate.

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

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

o The statewide component of the Active Transportation Program,

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

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

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

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

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


21

• Allocate funds to projects.

• Evaluate and report to the legislature.

26. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)

Caltrans has the primary responsibility for the administration of the adopted Active Transportation Program. Responsibilities include:

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

• Provide program training.

• Solicit project applications for the program.

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

• Assist as needed in functions such as facilitating project evaluation teams and evaluating applications.

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

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

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

• Perform audits of selected projects in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

• Serve as the main point of contact in project implementation, including administering the contract(s) for the Active Transportation Resource Center.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• In administering a competitive selection process, an MPO must explain how the projects recommended for programming by the MPO include a broad spectrum of projects to


22

benefit pedestrians and bicyclists. The explanation must include a discussion of how the recommended projects benefit students walking and cycling to school.

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

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

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

• Determine which projects to advance and make that recommendation to the Commission in consultation with Commission staff and Caltrans.

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

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

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

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

• SCAG must obtain concurrence from the county transportation commissions.

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

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

29. Project Applicant

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


23

Understanding or Interagency Agreement between the parties must be submitted with the request for allocation.

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

• Projects programmed,

• Projects allocated,

• Projects completed to date by project type,

• Projects completed to date by geographic distribution,

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

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

PROPOSED

4-Year 5-Year2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Total Total

STATE RESOURCESBeginning Balance $0 $0State Highway Account 34,200 34,200 34,200 34,200 34,200 136,800 171,000

State Resources Subtotal $34,200 $34,200 $34,200 $34,200 $34,200 $136,800 $171,000

FEDERAL RESOURCESSTBG Set-Aside for Transportation Alternatives[1] $65,455 $66,730 $66,730 $66,730 $66,730 $266,920 $332,375Recreational Trails 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 7,600 9,500Other Federal 19,950 19,950 19,950 19,950 19,950 79,800 99,750

Federal Resources Subtotal $87,305 $88,580 $88,580 $88,580 $88,580 $354,320 $441,625

TOTAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE $121,505 $122,780 $122,780 $122,780 $122,780 $491,120 $612,625

URBAN REGIONS (MPO Administered)State ($13,221) ($13,221) ($13,221) ($13,221) ($13,221) ($52,884) ($66,105)Federal (35,384) (35,896) (35,896) (35,896) (35,896) (143,583) (178,967)

Urban Regions Subtotal ($48,605) ($49,117) ($49,117) ($49,117) ($49,117) ($196,467) ($245,072)

SMALL URBAN & RURAL REGIONS (State Administered)State ($4,829) ($4,829) ($4,829) ($4,829) ($4,829) ($19,316) ($24,145)Federal (7,319) (7,444) (7,444) (7,444) (7,444) (29,777) (37,095)

Small Urban & Rural Regions Subtotal ($12,148) ($12,273) ($12,273) ($12,273) ($12,273) ($49,093) ($61,240)

STATEWIDE COMPETITION (State Administered)State ($16,150) ($16,150) ($16,150) ($16,150) ($16,150) ($64,600) ($80,750)Federal (44,603) (45,240) (45,240) (45,240) (45,240) (180,960) (225,562)

Statewide Competition Subtotal ($60,753) ($61,390) ($61,390) ($61,390) ($61,390) ($245,560) ($306,312)

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS ($121,505) ($122,780) ($122,780) ($122,780) ($122,780) ($491,120) ($612,625)

[1] Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Set-Aside for Transportation Alternatives (TA) was formally the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) included in MAP-21.

FEDERAL STBG

FEDERAL OTHER STATE TOTAL Disadvantaged

Communities*

MTC Region 5,506$ 1,915$ 2,908$ 10,329$ 2,582$ SACOG Region 1,544 609 1,123 3,276 819 SCAG Region 15,194 4,833 6,106 26,134 6,533 Fresno COG (Fresno UZA) 586 249 503 1,338 334 Kern COG (Bakersfield) 469 225 510 1,205 301 SANDAG (San Diego UZA) 2,648 829 1,006 4,483 1,121 San Joaquin COG (Stockton) 332 183 465 981 245 Stanislaus COG (Modesto) 321 138 281 740 185 Tulare CAG (Visalia) 197 118 317 632 158 Total 26,796$ 9,100$ 13,221$ 49,117$ 12,279$

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

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (ATP)FUND ESTIMATE

($ in thousands)

RESOURCES

DISTRIBUTION

Note: Individual numbers may not add to total due to independent rounding. STBG Set-Aside for TA reflects preliminary FHWA estimates pursuant to Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. Final dollar amounts may vary based on actual apportionment and obligational authority by FHWA or any changes in Federal guidance. Fiscal Year 2020-21 extends beyond FAST Act authorization, but is assumed to be funded at the same level as in prior years.

ANNUAL DISTRIBUTION IN FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2020-21

URBAN REGIONS

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

dtrujillo

Highlight

dtrujillo

Highlight

dtrujillo

Highlight




SUBJECT: Administrative Modification #12 to the 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) and Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP) - Type 1 Administrative Modification

Background

As the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Stanislaus Region, StanCOG is responsible for managing state and federal funds through the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). The FTIP contains the entire list of projects to which state and federal funds have been awarded through StanCOG, Caltrans, or other grantor agencies. The Policy Board adopted the 2015 FTIP on December 15, 2014.

Occasionally, the FTIP must be amended to add new projects, modify project descriptions, change funding amounts, modify program-funding year, or delete an existing project. On November 10, 2011, with the acknowledgement of the StanCOG Policy Board, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) delegated to the StanCOG Executive Director the authority to approve Administrative Modifications to the Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP)/Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). This delegated authority is in accordance with the revised FSTIP/FTIP amendments and Administrative Modification Procedures dated June 3, 2011. This delegated authority allows for the approval of administrative modifications without the need for state or federal approval. This streamlines and shortens the process of revising the FSTIP. These minor adjustments consist of Type 1 Administrative Modifications. Type 1 Administrative Modifications are minor changes to the FTIP that must be consistent with the following FHWA criteria:

1. Revise a project description without changing the project scope or conflicting with the

environmental document;

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 7C

2. Revise the funding amount listed for a phase of a project. Additional funding is limited to the lesser of either 40% of the total project cost or $10 million;

3. Change the source of funds;

4. Change a project lead agency; or

5. Splits or combines individually listed projects; as long as cost, schedule, and scope remain unchanged.

Administrative Modifications can be processed in accordance with these procedures provided that:

1. It does not affect the air quality conformity determination, including timely implementation of Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), and

2. It does not impact financial constraint.

Discussion This Administrative Modification #12 was prepared as a result of the following local agency programming requests and modifications.

Various Agencies

1. CTIPS # 21400000566 Grouped Projects for Pavement Resurfacing and/or rehabilitation (Existing Project)

• Reapportioned $60,827 in RSTP Funds for FFY 2015/16.

Group Listing Update

Various Agencies

2. CTIPS #21400000594 Grouped Projects for Intersection Signalization (Existing Project)

• Deleted: o $798,446 CMAQ funds in FFY 2015/16 o $292,463 Local funds 2015/16

Group Listing Updated

Various Agencies

3. CTIPS # 21400000565 Grouped Projects for Intersection Channelization (Existing Project)

• Added: o $798,446 CMAQ funds in FFY 2015/16 o $225,256 SHOPP in 2018/19

Group Listing Updated

Should you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Rosa De León Park, at 209.525.4600 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Advisory Committee Action: This staff report was presented to the Technical Advisory Committee and Management and Finance Committee. No comments were made. Attachment(s):

1. Administrative Modification #12


• stanCOG ~ ii1t Stanislaus Council of Governments

1111 I Street, Ste 308 Modesto, CA 95354 209.525.4600 Main 209.558.7833 Fax

Member Agencies

City of Ceres

City of Hughson

City of Modesto

City of Newman

City of Oakdale

City of Patterson

City of Riverbank

City of Turlock

City of Waterford

Stanislaus County

Policy Board Chair

Vito Chiesa

Policy Board Vice-Chair

Bill Zoslocki

Executive Director

Rosa De Le6n Park

July 28, 2016

Muhaned Aljabiry, Chief Caltrans, Division of Programming, MS 82 Office of Federal Transpmiation Management Programming PO Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274

www.stancog.org

Subject: Approval of Administrative Modification #12 (Type 1 Amendment) to the Stanislaus Council of Government's 2015 FTIP

Dear Mr. Aljabiry:

On November 10, 2011 , with the acknowledgement of the StanCOG Policy Board, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) delegated to the StanCOG Executive Director the authority to approve Administrative Modifications to the Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP)/Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). This delegated authority is in accordance with the revised FSTIP/FTIP Amendments and Administrative Modification Procedures dated June 3, 2011.

The Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) Executive Director has completed the review of StanCOGs' Administrative Modification #12 to the 2014/15- 2017/18 Federal Transpmiation Improvement Program (FTIP). This administrative modification does not affect programming capacity that relies on the State's federal programming capacity.

The Executive Director finds that these proposed changes are consistent with the FSTIP/FTIP Amendment and Administrative Modification Procedures and approves these changes. The administrative modification is described in the attachments.

Under this delegated authority, an administrative modification does not require Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration or Caltrans approval. This change is effective immediately and therefore reflected as an administrative modification to Califomia's 2015 FSTIP and StanCOG's 2015 FTIP per the date of this letter.

Please address any questions on this administrative modification to Elisabeth Hahn, Senior Planner, by phone at (209) 525-4633.

Sincerely,

~-:JL_ ~e6nPark Executive Director

Attachment 1 : Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Attachment 4: Attachment 5:

Summary of Changes to the 2015 FTIP CTIPS Pages Back-up List of Grouped Projects for Pavement Resurfacing and/or Rehabilitation Back-up List of Grouped Projects for Intersection Channelization Back-up List of Grouped Projects for Intersection Signalization

Cc: Abhijit Bagde, Cal trans Division of Transportation Programming Ken Baxter, Caltrans District 10 Parminder Singh, Caltrans District 10 DLAE

Cecilia Crenshaw, Federal Highway Administration

Attachment 1

Summary of Changes to the 2015 FTIP

Prior FFY

Prior CTIPS

Amount

Current FFY

Current CTIPS

Amount

$4,597,703 $4,540,703 RSTP

$62,457 $94,394 Local Match

$5,461,498 $5,169,035 Local Match

2015/16 2015/16

2015/16 2015/16

Grouped Projects for Intersection

Signalization: Grouped Projects for

Intersection Signalization projects

consistent with 40 CFR Part 93.126 Exempt Table 3

category (Using Toll Credits)

CON$31,356,670 $30,265,761

$1,533,402

$2,940,028

-$1,090,909 -3.48%

$2,711,186 $1,912,740 CMAQ

Local Match

CMAQ

Grouped Listing UpdatedExisting 21400000594 Various Agencies

Various Agencies

Grouped Projects for Pavement

Resurfacing/Rehab: Grouped Projects for pavement resurfacing and/or rehabilitation:

Projects are consistent with 40 CFR Part 93.126

Exempt Tables 2 and Table 3 Categories -

Pavement resurfacing and/or

rehabilitation (Using Toll Credits)

$48,190,071 Grouped Listing UpdatedExisting 21400000566

$1,023,702CONExisting 21400000565 Various Agencies

Grouped Projects for Intersection

Channelization: Grouped Projects for

Intersection Channelization:

Projects are consistent with 40 CFR Part 93.126 Exempt Table 3

Categories - Intersection

Channelization Projects. (Using Toll

Credits)

$12,662,020 $13,685,722

$1,308,146

$2,141,582

2015 FTIP

Existing or

New Project

CTIPS ID# Sponsor Agency Project Title

Total Project%

Increase/Decrease

Programming

Total Project%

Increase/Decrease

Current Total Project Cost(Rounded x

$1,000)

Fund Source

8.08%

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

COMMENTS

Agency: Various

Amendment #: 9

Phase

Amendment Type: Administrative Modification (Type 1)

Phase

Total Project Change

(Rounded x $1,000)

Grouped Listing Updated

Prior Total Project Cost (Rounded x

$1,000)

0.00%$0CON$48,190,071 2015/16 2015/16

Project Programming Details per Update

Attachment 2

CTIPS Pages

Stanislaus Council of Governments - Federal Transportation Improvement Program(Dollars in Whole)

Local Highway SystemDIST:10

PPNO:

EA:

CTIPS ID:214-0000-0594

CT PROJECT ID:

MPO ID.:STANCOG

COUNTY:Stanislaus County

ROUTE:

PM:

TITLE (DESCRIPTION):Grouped Projects for Intersection Signalization (GroupedProjects for Intersection Signalization projects consistentwith 40 CFR Part 93.126 Exempt Table 3 category(Using Toll Credits))

MPO Aprv: 07/28/2016

State Aprv: 07/28/2016

Federal Aprv: 07/28/2016

EPA TABLE II or III EXEMPT CATEGORY

Intersection signalization projects.

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: Various Agencies PROJECT MANAGER: JEANETTE FABELA PHONE: (209) 525-4600 EMAIL: [email protected]

PROJECT VERSION HISTORY (Printed Version is Shaded) (Dollars in whole)

Version Status Date Updated By Change Reason Amend No. Prog Con Prog RW PE

21 Official 07/28/2016 MTUCKER Amendment - Cost/Scope/Sch. Change 12 30,265,761

20 Official 03/29/2016 JFABELA Amendment - Cost/Scope/Sch. Change 9 31,356,670


18 Official 05/20/2015 JFABELA Amendment - Cost/Scope/Sch. Change 5



15 Official 06/18/2014 JFABELA Adoption - Carry Over 20,728,881



* CMAQ - * Fund Source 1 of 4 * Fund Type: Congestion Mitigation * Funding Agency: Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)

PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 BEYOND TOTAL

PE

RW

CON 9,385,352 654,192 1,912,740 3,296,475 2,518,158 17,766,917

Total: 9,385,352 654,192 1,912,740 3,296,475 2,518,158 17,766,917

* Local Funds - * Fund Source 2 of 4 * Fund Type: City Funds * Funding Agency: Various Agencies


PE

RW

CON 3,296,817 5,169,035 1,699,250 1,855,472 12,020,574

Total: 3,296,817 5,169,035 1,699,250 1,855,472 12,020,574

* CT Minor Pgm. - * Fund Source 3 of 4 * Fund Type: SHOPP Advance Construction (AC) * Funding Agency: Caltrans


PE

RW

CON 250,000 250,000

Total: 250,000 250,000

* RSTP - * Fund Source 4 of 4 * Fund Type: STP Local * Funding Agency: Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)


PE

RW

CON 52,500 30,000 75,000 70,770 228,270

Total: 52,500 30,000 75,000 70,770 228,270

Project Total: PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 BEYOND TOTAL

PE

RW

CON 12,984,669 684,192 7,156,775 5,066,495 4,373,630 30,265,761

Total: 12,984,669 684,192 7,156,775 5,066,495 4,373,630 30,265,761

Products of CTIPS Page 1 08/01/2016 01:58:50


Local Highway SystemComments:******** Version 21 - 07/28/2016 **************** Version 20 - 03/21/2016 **************** Version 19 - 05/26/2015 **************** Version 18 - 05/19/2015 **************** Version 17 - 04/23/2015 **************** Version 16 - 12/19/2014 ********RTP# C03 - SC38Back-up List: 2015 FTIP Appendix D******** Version 1 - 03/12/14 ********Project data transfered from 2012 FTIP.******** Version 14 - 02/28/2014 **************** Version 13 - 06/18/2013 **************** Version 12 - 01/04/2013 ********RTP Appendix # M-1/Page 1-9******** DFTIP Version 1 - 05/02/2012 **************** Version 8 - 04/30/2012 **************** Version 7 - 04/04/2012 ********Toll Credity FFY 11/12 $3,441 City of Turlock******** Version 6 - 11/21/2011 ********Toll Credits FFY 11/12 $30,970 City of Oakdale******** Version 5 - 09/26/2011 ********100% CMAQ funding per energy act provisions will be used, relieving local agency of match requirement: FFY10/11 City of Modesto "New Traffic Signal 2013" ($90,000)******** Version 4 - 07/21/2011 **************** Version 3 - 03/25/2011 **********An additional $250,000 is being applied from State Minor B funds to the City of Waterford "Western Ave & SR 132" Project******** Version 2 - 03/10/2011 **************** Version 1 - 12/20/2010 ********RTP, Appendix M-1



Local Highway SystemDIST:10

PPNO:

EA:

CTIPS ID:214-0000-0565

CT PROJECT ID:

MPO ID.:VA01

COUNTY:Stanislaus County

ROUTE:

PM:

TITLE (DESCRIPTION):Grouped Projects for Intersection Channelization(Grouped Projects for Intersection Channelization:Projects are consistent with 40 CFR Part 93.126 ExemptTable 3 Categories - Intersection ChannelizationProjects. (Using Toll Credits))

MPO Aprv: 07/28/2016

State Aprv: 07/28/2016

Federal Aprv: 07/28/2016

EPA TABLE II or III EXEMPT CATEGORY

Non signalization traffic control and operatng.

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: Various Agencies PROJECT MANAGER: MARCUS TUCKER PHONE: (209) 525-4636 EMAIL: [email protected]

PROJECT VERSION HISTORY (Printed Version is Shaded) (Dollars in whole)

Version Status Date Updated By Change Reason Amend No. Prog Con Prog RW PE

22 Official 07/28/2016 MTUCKER Amendment - Cost/Scope/Sch. Change 12 13,685,722



19 Official 05/27/2015 JFABELA Amendment - Cost/Scope/Sch. Change 7




15 Official 06/18/2014 JFABELA Adoption - Carry Over 6,929,715


* CMAQ - * Fund Source 1 of 3 * Fund Type: Congestion Mitigation * Funding Agency: Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)


PE

RW

CON 2,263,527 1,637,117 2,940,028 1,299,145 818,038 8,957,855

Total: 2,263,527 1,637,117 2,940,028 1,299,145 818,038 8,957,855

* Local Funds - * Fund Source 2 of 3 * Fund Type: City Funds * Funding Agency: Various Agencies


PE

RW

CON 68,000 111,007 1,533,402 1,363,255 898,212 3,973,876

Total: 68,000 111,007 1,533,402 1,363,255 898,212 3,973,876

* RSTP - * Fund Source 3 of 3 * Fund Type: STP Local * Funding Agency: Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)


PE

RW

CON 135,000 55,000 563,991 753,991

Total: 135,000 55,000 563,991 753,991

Project Total: PRIOR 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 BEYOND TOTAL

PE

RW

CON 2,331,527 1,883,124 4,528,430 3,226,391 1,716,250 13,685,722

Total: 2,331,527 1,883,124 4,528,430 3,226,391 1,716,250 13,685,722



Local Highway SystemComments:******** Version 22 - 07/28/2016 **************** Version 21 - 05/23/2016 **************** Version 20 - 03/21/2016 **************** Version 19 - 05/20/2015 **************** Version 18 - 05/14/2015 **************** Version 17 - 04/22/2015 **************** Version 16 - 12/19/2014 ********RTP# RE02 - SC32Back-up List : 2015 FTIP Appendix D******** Version 1 - 03/12/14 ********Project data transfered from 2012 FTIP.******** Version 13 - 02/28/2014 **************** Version 12 - 01/04/2013 ********RTP Appendix # M-1/Page 1-9******** DFTIP Version 1 - 05/02/2012 **************** Version 9 - 04/30/2012 **************** Version 8 - 04/04/2012 ********Toll Credits FFY 11/12 $9,176 City of Turlock******** Version 7 - 11/21/2011 ********Toll Credits FFY 11/12 $43,586 City of Modesto******** Version 6 - 09/26/2011 **************** Version 5 - 07/20/2011 **************** Version 4 - 05/11/2011 ********Toll Credits in FFY 10/11 CON $574 for City of Oakdale "G Street & Maag Ave"

Toll Credits in FFY 10/11 PE $6,882 for "SB Prescott at Plaza"

Toll Credits in FFY 10/11 PE $14,337 for "SB McHenry/Briggsmore Prescott at Plaza"

Toll Credits in FFY 11/12 CON $30,396 for City of Oakdale "G Street & Maag Ave"******** Version 3 - 03/25/2011 ********

******** Version 2 - 03/10/2011 **************** Version 1 - 07/26/2010 ********RTP Appendix # M-1/Page 3-8


Attachment 3

Back-up List of Grouped Projects for

Pavement Resurfacing and/or Rehabilitation

Grouped Projects for Pavement Resurfacing and/or Rehabilitation FFY 14/15City of Ceres Detailed Project List

2015 FTIP Grouped ProjectsTotal Federal Funds 670,158$ Total Local Match 86,827$

Agency County Project Description Project Location Program Year (FFY) Federal Funds Local Funds Total Project Cost

Ceres Stanislaus OverlayMitchell Road Overlay Phase III: Whitmore Avenue to Roeding Road. 14/15 670,158$ 86,827$ 756,985$

Grouped Projects for Pavement Resurfacing and/or Rehabilitation FFY 15/16City of Ceres Detailed Project List

2015 FTIP Grouped ProjectsTotal Federal Funds 345,466$ Total Local Match 44,759$


Ceres Stanislaus Reconstruction / OverlayHerndon Road Reconstruction/Overlay: Hatch Road to Herndon Road 15/16 300,000$ 38,868$ 338,868$

Ceres Stanislaus OverlayService Road Overlay, Phase 1: Blaker Road to Morgan Road 15/16 45,466$ 5,891$ 51,357$

City of Ceres Detailed Project List2015 FTIP Grouped Projects

Total Federal Funds 458,305$ Total Local Match 59,379$


Ceres Stanislaus OverlayMitchell Road Overlay Phase IV- Roeding Rd. to Service Rd. 16/17 458,305$ 59,379$ 517,684$

City of Ceres Detailed Project List2015 FTIP Grouped Projects



Ceres Stanislaus Overlay Service Road Overlay Phase II- Central Ave. to Blaker Rd. 17/18 458,305$ 59,379$ 517,684$

Grouped Projects for Pavement Resurfacing and/or Rehabilitation FFY 16/17


2015 FTIP Administrative Modification #12 1

Total Federal Funds 39,173$ Total Local Match -$

Agency County Project Description Project Location Program Year (FFY) Federal Funds State/Local Funds Total Project Cost

Hughson Stanislaus Roadway ReconstructionReconstruction of Tully Rd. (Whitmore Ave. to Santa Fe Ave.) 14/15 39,173$ Toll Credits 39,173$



Hughson Stanislaus Pavement Rehabilitation Whitmore Avenue- Tully to Charles Street 16/17 200,000$ 25,912$ 225,912$

City of Hughson Detailed Project List2015 FTIP Grouped Projects

Grouped Projects for Pavement Resurfacing and/or Rehabilitation FFY 16/17City of Hughson Detailed Project List


2015 FTIP Grouped Projects


Grouped Projects for Pavement Resurfacing and/or Rehabilitation FFY 14/15City of Modesto Detailed Project List

2015 FTIP Grouped ProjectsTotal Federal Funds 2,131,983$ Total Local Match -$


Modesto Stanislaus Pavement Rehabilitation

Pavement Rehabilitation on Pelandale from Sisk to Dale; and on Standiford Ave. from McHenry to Sisk; Crows Landing Rd. from S. 7th St. to W. Whitmore Ave. (Preliminary Engineering) 14/15 250,000$ Toll Credits 250,000$


Pavement Rehabilitation on Scenic Dr. from Rose to Downey; Scenic Drive from Lakewood to Claus; Claus Rd. from Santa Fe to Scenic; and Coffee Rd. from Sylvan to Scenic (Construction) 14/15 1,551,983$ Toll Credits 1,551,983$

Modesto Stanislaus Pavement Condition Survey 2015

Pavement Condition Survey 2015 - Conduct pavement condition survey on streets within the City of Modesto 14/15 300,000$ Toll Credits 300,000$

Modesto Stanislaus Pavement Rehabilitation Tully Road from 9th St. to Pelandale Ave. and Orangeburg Ave. from Martin Ave. to McHenry Ave. 14/15 30,000$ Toll Credits 30,000$

Grouped Projects for Pavement Resurfacing and/or Rehabilitation FFY 15/16City of Modesto Detailed Project List

Total Federal Funds 1,320,000$ Total Local Match -$



Tully Road from 9th St. to Pelandale Ave. and Orangeburg Ave. from Martin Ave. to McHenry Ave. 9th St. from Carpenter Road to Tully Road. 15/16 770,000$ Toll Credits 770,000$

Modesto Stanislaus Road Rehabilitation Paradise Road- from 1st Street to S. Carpenter Road 15/16 250,000$ Toll Credits 250,000$ Modesto Stanislaus Pavement Rehabilitation Pavement Rehabilitation on Pelandale from Sisk to Dale 15/16 300,000$ Toll Credits 300,000$

City of Modesto Detailed Project List2015 FTIP Grouped Projects

Total Federal Funds 1,584,493$

Total Local Match -$ Agency County Project Description Project Location Program Year (FFY) Federal Funds Local Funds Total Project Cost


La Loma Ave. from James St. to Rowland Ave., Miller Ave. from El Vista Ave. to N. Riverside Dr.,Burney St. from 18th St. to Jennie St., 17th ST. from G St. to Burney St.,J St. from 9th St. to 17th St. 16/17 1,584,493$ Toll Credits 1,584,493$

City of Modesto Detailed Project List2015 FTIP Grouped Projects

Total Federal Funds 1,734,493$



Pavement Rehabilitation on Pelandale from Sisk to Dale;and on Standiford Ave. from McHenry to Sisk; CrowsLanding Rd. from S. 7th St. to W. Whitmore Ave. 18/19 $1,734,493 Toll Credits $1,734,493





City of Newman Detailed Project List2015 FTIP Grouped Projects

Total Federal Funds 373,076$

Total Local Match -$

Agency County Project Description Project Location Program Year (FFY) Federal Funds Local Funds Total Project CostNewman Stanislaus Rehabilitation The Intersection of Inyo Avenue & Canal School Road 17/18 373,076$ Toll Credits 373,076$




Newman Stanislaus Rehabilitation The Intersection of Inyo Avenue & Canal School Road 19/20 125,000$ Toll Credits 125,000$

City of Newman Detailed Project List2015 FTIP Grouped Projects




Total Local Match -$


Oakdale Stanislaus Pavement RehabilitationC Street Pavement Rehab Phase 1- from Yosemite to 6th St 15/16 369,698$ Toll Credits 369,698$

Oakdale Stanislaus Overlay S. Yosemite (F St. to J St.) 15/16 146,565$ Toll Credits 146,565$

City of Oakdale Detailed Project List2015 FTIP Grouped Projects



Oakdale Stanislaus Pavement RehabilitationC Street Pavement Rehab Phase 2- from Yosemite to 1st St 16/17 237,526$ 30,774$ 268,300$

City of Oakdale Detailed Project List2015 FTIP Grouped Projects



Oakdale StanislausPavement Maintenance Program G Street (Maag to Ventanas) pavement Maintenance 17/18 237,526$ 30,774$ 268,300$



City of Oakdale Detailed Project ListGrouped Projects for Pavement Resurfacing and/or Rehabilitation FFY 15/16




Local Match -$ Agency County Project Description Project Location Program Year (FFY) Federal Funds State/Local Funds Total Project Cost

Patterson Stanislaus Overlay Ward Avenue from American Eagle Avenue to Hwy 33 14/15 926,617$ Toll Credits 926,617$

City of Patterson Detailed Project List2015 FTIP Grouped Projects


Total Local Match 28,615$ Agency County Project Description Project Location Program Year (FFY) Federal Funds State/Local Funds Total Project Cost

Patterson Stanislaus

Roadway Reconstruction/Overlay and Widening

Sperry Avenue Improvement & Widening: Various locations along Sperry Avenue between Baldwin Rd. and State Route 33 16/17 220,869$ 28,615$ 249,484$




Patterson Stanislaus

Roadway Reconstruction/Overlay and Widening

Sperry Avenue Improvement & Widening: Various locations along Sperry Avenue between Baldwin Rd. and State Route 33 17/18 220,869$ 28,615$ 249,484$




Patterson Stanislaus Roadway Rehabilitation Sperry Avenue Improvements: on Sperry Ave from Ward Ave to South Del Puerto 19/20 363,991$ 49,635$ 413,626$









Total Local Match -$ Agency County Project Description Project Location Program Year (FFY) Federal Funds State/Local Funds Total Project Cost

Riverbank Stanislaus Overlay Morril Road from Oakdale Road to Jackson Avenue 15/16 443,000$ Toll Credits 443,000$

City of Riverbank Detailed Project List2015 FTIP Grouped Projects



Riverbank Stanislaus OverlayOakdale Road between Patterson Road and Silver Rock Road 17/18 269,496$ Toll Credits 269,496$

City of Riverbank Detailed Project List2015 FTIP Grouped Projects





County Stanislaus Reconstruction/Overlay

RSTP Phase L:1. Howard Rd. (Highway 5 to Frank Cox Rd.) - Full Depth Reclamation with HMA cap Partial Overlay 2. Hatch Road (Carpenter Rd. to Monticello Ln) - Full Depth Reclamation with HMA cap 3. Carpenter Rd. (Robertson Rd. to 913 ft North of Beverly Dr.) - Full Depth Reclamation with HMA cap 15/16 2,101,983$ Toll Credits 2,101,983$




RSTP Phase J:1. Emerald Ave. from Kansas Ave. to Woodland Ave.2. Sperry Rd. from 50' +/- west of I-5 to 300' +/- east of Rogers Rd.3. Baldwin Rd. from Patterson limits to Zacharias Rd. 16/17 1,837,255$ Toll Credits 1,837,255$

Stanislaus County Detailed Project List2015 FTIP Grouped Projects



County Stanislaus Resurfacing/Overlay

RSTP Phase K:1. Faith Home Rd. from West Main St. to Levine Rd.2. Milnes Rd. from Albers Rd. to Oakdale Waterford Highway3. Claribel Rd. from Albers Rd. to Oakdale Waterford Highway 17/18 1,837,255$ Toll Credits 1,837,255$


Total Federal Funds -$

Total Local Match 1,800,000$ Agency County Project Description Project Location Program Year (FFY) Federal Funds State/Local Funds Total Project Cost


RSTP Phase M:1.Albers Rd. - Hwy 132 to Claribel Ave. 2. Patterson Rd. - Riverbank City limits to Albers Rd.3. E. Whitmore Ave. - Hughson City Limits to Hickman Rd.4. Hickman Rd. - E. Whitmore Ave. to 400 south of bridge5. 9th St. - River Rd. to 1400' North of Hatch Rd.6. Golden State Blvd. - Taylor Rd. to Nunes Rd.7. Nunes Rd. - Keyes Rd to Keyes Rd.8. Mitchell Rd. - Ceres Bridge to Yosemite Blvd. 19/20 -$ 1,800,000$ 1,800,000$





Grouped Projects for Pavement Resurfacing and/or Rehabilitation FFY 15/16Stanislaus County Detailed Project List



City of Turlock Detailed Project List2015 FTIP Grouped Projects



Turlock Stanislaus Rehabilitation E. Monte Vista Ave., from Geer Rd. to eastern city limits 16/17 761,269$ 98,631$ 859,900$

City of Turlock Detailed Project List2015 FTIP Grouped Projects



Turlock Stanislaus Rehabilitation

1. Hawkeye Ave., between N. Olive Ave. and Daubenberger Rd.2. Lander Ave., between South Ave. and E. Glenwood Ave. 17/18 761,269$ 98,631$ 859,900$







Waterford Stanislaus Overlay

F Street (Yosemite to Bentley Street). Bentley Street (I Street to F Street). Tim Bell Road (Bonnie Brae to El Pomar). 14/15 400,000$ Toll Credits 400,000$

2015 FTIP Grouped ProjectsCity of Waterford Detailed Project List


Attachment 4


Intersection Channelization

Agency Project Title Description Year CMAQ Federal RSTP Federal Local Project Cost

Ceres Traffic Flow Improvements Roundabout (Morgan/Aristocrat, Central/Pine and Central/Industrial) 14/15 106,855$ -$ 13,844$ 120,699$

Ceres Traffic Flow Improvements Whitmore Avenue and Morgan Road Intersection Improvements 14/15 215,533$ -$ 26,516$ 242,049$

Ceres Traffic Flow Improvements Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Signal Synchronization Phase II 14/15 57,653$ -$ 7,469$ 65,122$

Ceres Traffic Flow Improvements Traffic Signal Synchronization Improvements 14/15 65,512$ -$ 8,488$ 74,000$

Modesto Traffic Flow Improvements Right Turn Lane from eastbound Standiford Ave.to southbound Sisk Rd. 14/15 199,193$ -$ 25,807$ 225,000$

Modesto Traffic Flow Improvements Bus Turnout SB Dale Rd 14/15 101,810$ 75,000$ 20,280$ 197,090$

Modesto Traffic Flow Improvements State Route 132 (14th Street/D Street) Intersection Improvements 14/15 170,000$ -$ (Toll Credits) 170,000$

Modesto Traffic Flow Improvements Right Turn Lane from Southbound McHenry Avenue to Westbound Briggsmore Avenue 14/15 -$ 25,000$ (Toll Credits) 25,000$

Modesto Traffic Flow Improvements WB D Street to NB 9th Street (SR 132) : Right-Turn Lane Improvments 14/15 70,823$ 35,000$ (Toll Credits) 105,823$

Modesto Traffic Flow Improvements Roundabout at Kodiak/Lincoln Oak 14/15 66,397$ 8,603$ 75,000$

Turlock Traffic Flow Improvements

Intersection Improvements at Golden State Boulevard & Fulkerth Road; Duel left turn lanes on the South, West and East traveling directions, modify the existing traffic signal to include a protected left turn phase for each turn phase and add pedestrian facilities throughout the intersection. (Using Toll Credits) 14/15 583,341$ -$ (Toll Credits) 583,341$

TOTAL 1,637,117$ 135,000$ 111,007$ 1,883,124$

Grouped Project Listing for Intersection Channelization FFY 2014/15


Ceres Traffic Flow ImprovementsTraffic Signal Modification at Roeding Road and Mitchell Road 15/16 34,970$ -$ 4,530$ 39,500$

Modesto Traffic Flow Improvements Bus Turnout SB Dale Rd 15/16 185,913$ -$ 24,087$ 210,000$

Modesto Traffic Flow Improvements Right Turn Lane on southbound Prescott Road at Plaza Parkway 15/16 -$ 55,000$ (Toll Credits) 55,000$

Modesto Traffic Flow ImprovementsRight Turn Lane on Southbound McHenry Ave to Westbound Briggsmore Ave 15/16 519,630$ -$ (Toll Credits) 519,630$

Patterson Traffic Flow Improvements Ward Avenue & W. Las Palmas Intersection Improvements 15/16 491,979$ -$ 188,619$ 680,598$

Turlock Traffic Flow Improvements

Intersection Improvements at Golden State Boulevard & Fulkerth Road; Duel left turn lanes on the South, West and East traveling directions, modify the existing traffic signal to include a protected left turn phase for each turn phase and add pedestrian facilities throughout the intersection. 15/16 $ 1,707,536 -$ $ 1,316,166 $ 3,023,702

TOTAL 2,940,028$ 55,000$ 1,533,402$ 4,528,430$


Ceres Traffic Flow Improvements Traffic Signal Modification at Roeding Road and Mitchell Road 16/17 349,162$ -$ 45,238$ 394,400$

Ceres Traffic Flow ImprovementsRoundabout at Central Ave/ Pine St/ Industrial Way and Morgan/Aristocrat 16/17 471,865$ -$ 61,135$ 533,000$

Riverbank Traffic Flow Improvements

Traffic Management Intersection Improvements at Roselle Ave. and Morill Rd., sidewalk infill to link pedestrain commute access along Morill Road 16/17 53,118$ -$ 6,882$ 60,000$

Modesto Traffic Flow Improvements Oakdale Road and Scenic Drive Intersection Improvements 16/17 -$ 200,000$ (Toll Credits) 200,000$

Modesto Traffic Flow Improvements Right Turn Lane from eastbound Standiford Ave.to southbound Sisk Rd. 16/17 125,000$ -$ 50,000$ 175,000$

Stanislaus County Traffic Flow Improvements Claribel Rd/Roselle Ave Intersection 16/17 300,000$ 363,991$ 1,200,000$ 1,863,991$ TOTAL 1,299,145$ 563,991$ 1,363,255$ 3,226,391$




Riverbank Traffic Flow Improvements

Traffic Management Intersection Improvements at Roselle Ave. and Morill Rd., sidewalk infill to link pedestrain commute access along Morill Road 17/18 230,852$ -$ 195,618$ 426,470$

Patterson Traffic Flow Improvements

Roadway improvements at Sperry Ave., and S. Del Puerto Ave. to configure turn lanes in all directions and improve traffic flow 17/18 212,186$ -$ 352,594$ 564,780$

Modesto Traffic Flow ImprovementsRight Turn Lane from eastbound Standiford Ave.to southbound Sisk Rd. 17/18 375,000$ -$ 350,000$ 725,000$

TOTAL 818,038$ -$ 898,212$ 1,716,250$


Attachment 5


Intersection Signalization


Modesto Signalize Upgrade Traffic Signals 2013 14/15 210,101$ (Toll Credits) 210,101$

Modesto Signalize New Traffic Signals 2015 14/15 85,000$ 30,000$ (Toll Credits) 115,000$

Modesto Signalize Traffic Signal Upgrades 2015 14/15 100,000$ -$ (Toll Credits) 100,000$

Riverbank SignalizeSignal @ Patterson Road & Roselle & Coordinated Pedestrian Railroad Safety Crossing Including Sidewalks 14/15 80,000$ -$ (Toll Credits) 80,000$

Turlock Signalize W. Main/Tegner Intersection Improvements 14/15 179,091$ -$ (Toll Credits) 179,091$ TOTAL 654,192$ 30,000$ -$ 684,192$


Modesto Signalize New Traffic Signals 2015 15/16 448,450$ 75,000$ (Toll Credits) 523,450$

Modesto Signalize Upgrade Traffic Signal-2017: Tully Rd. at 9 St., 1 St. at H St., Paradise Rd. at H St., and 11 St. at Needham Ave. 15/16 114,675$ -$ (Toll Credits) 114,675$

Modesto Signalize Traffic Signal Upgrades 2015 15/16 512,000$ -$ (Toll Credits) 512,000$

Stanislaus County Signalize Carpenter Road at Whitmore Road Traffic Signalization 15/16 -$ -$ 1,249,035$ 1,249,035$ Stanislaus County Signalize Geer Rd/Whitmore Ave Signalization 15/16 300,000$ -$ 1,825,000$ 2,125,000$ Stanislaus County Signalize Keyes Rd/ Faith Home Rd Intersection 15/16 200,000$ -$ 100,000$ 300,000$

Stanislaus County Signalize Geer Rd/Santa Fe Ave Signalization 15/16 300,000$ -$ 1,995,000$ 2,295,000$

Turlock Signalize Traffic Signal at F St and Lander 15/16 37,615$ -$ (Toll Credits) 37,615$ TOTAL 1,912,740$ 75,000$ 5,169,035$ 7,156,775$

Grouped Project Listing for Intersection Signalization FFY 2015/16



Turlock Signalize Traffic Signal at N. Denair Ave. and Hawkeye Ave. 16/17 28,640$ -$ (Toll Credits) 28,640$ Turlock Signalize Traffic signal at W. Main St. and West Ave. 16/17 35,042$ -$ (Toll Credits) 35,042$

Ceres Signalize Traffic Signal at Morgan and Service Road 16/17 33,250$ -$ 14,250$ 47,500$

Riverbank SignalizeSignal @ Patterson Road & Roselle & Coordinated Pedestrian Railroad Safety Crossing Including Sidewalks 16/17 990,453$ 70,770$ (Toll Credits) 1,061,223$

Stanislaus County Signalize Keyes Rd/ Faith Home Rd Intersection 16/17 1,000,000$ -$ 200,000$ 1,200,000$

Stanislaus County Signalize Crows Landing/Grayson Intersection 16/17 300,000$ -$ 1,485,000$ 1,785,000$ Turlock Signalize Walnut/Taylor Intersection Improvements 16/17 909,090$ -$ (Toll Credits) 909,090$

TOTAL 3,296,475$ 70,770$ 1,699,250$ 5,066,495$

`

Agency Project Title Description Year CMAQ Federal RSTP Federal Local Project CostCeres Signalize Traffic Signal at Morgan and Service Road 17/18 304,150$ -$ 130,350$ 434,500$

Modesto Signalize Upgrade Traffic Signal-2017: Tully Rd. at 9 St., 1 St. at H St., Paradise Rd. at H St., and 11 St. at Needham Ave. 17/18 868,750$ -$ (Toll Credits) 868,750$

Turlock Signalize Traffic Signal at F St and Lander 17/18 288,385$ -$ (Toll Credits) 288,385$

Turlock Signalize Traffic Signal at N. Denair Ave. and Hawkeye Ave. 17/18 329,360$ -$ (Toll Credits) 329,360$

Turlock Signalize Traffic signal at W. Main St. and West Ave. 17/18 427,513$ -$ (Toll Credits) 427,513$ Stanislaus County Signalize Carpenter Rd/Whitmore Ave. Intersection 17/18 300,000$ -$ 1,725,122$ 2,025,122$

TOTAL 2,518,158$ -$ 1,855,472$ 4,373,630$




FROM: Elisabeth Hahn, Senior Planner Debbie Trujillo, Planning Technician


SUBJECT: 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Monthly Project Status Report FFY 15/16

Background StanCOG, as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), programs and monitors federal transportation funding in the Stanislaus Region, and verifies the delivery of projects and that State and Federal funding are being secured efficiently per Assembly Bill 1012. Failing to meet project delivery dates for any phase of a project may jeopardize federal funding to the region. The 2015 FTIP programs the region's projects over the next four federal fiscal years (FFY 2014/15, 15/16, 16/17, 17/18) and is a comprehensive list of transportation projects that receive federal funds, require a federal action, or are regionally significant. StanCOG closely monitors the status of all projects programmed in the FTIP through close communication with the local jurisdictions. Discussion A copy of the “2015 FTIP Monthly Project Status Report for FFY 2015/16,” identifying “Project Obligations by Agency,” is attached. The report demonstrates that as of August 29, 2016 the Stanislaus Region has yet to obligate 5.18% of its FFY 2015/16 funds. To ensure that our local agency projects are delivered, Caltrans Headquarters requested that all Requests for Authorizations (RFAs) be submitted by the deadline of July 29, 2016 to guarantee processing and approval. RFAs submitted after this deadline are not guaranteed funding. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Rosa De León Park, at 209.525.4600 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Advisory Committee Action: This staff report was presented to the Technical Advisory Committee and Management and Finance Committee. No comments were made. Attachment:

1. 2015 FTIP Monthly Project Status Report for FFY 2015/16 (updated: 08/29/16)


calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 7D

August 29, 2016

Agency Total Funds Obligated (Federal/State/Local)

Total Amount in FTIP

Percentage Obligated from Total Amount

in FTIP

% Obligated from Total Amount Agency was

Apportioned in FTIP

Ceres $2,508,079 $2,508,079 12.06% 100.00%

Hughson $408,000 $408,000 1.96% 100.00%

Modesto $4,422,021 $4,422,021 21.26% 100.00%

Newman $475,000 $475,000 2.28% 100.00%

Oakdale $716,263 $716,263 3.44% 100.00%

Patterson $680,598 $680,598 3.27% 100.00%

Riverbank $443,000 $443,000 2.13% 100.00%

Turlock $2,313,871 $3,112,317 11.13% 74.35%

Waterford $0 $0 0.00% 0.00%

Stanislaus County $7,236,188 $7,515,795 34.80% 96.28%

StanCOG $513,774 $513,774 2.47% 100.00%$19,716,794 $20,794,847 94.82%

2015 FTIP Monthly Project Status Report for FFY 2015/16

Monthly Project Status Report 1 of 5

August 29, 2016

CTIPS #FTIP

Program Location Work Description Phase

Date of Last Federal/State

Obligation

Federal/State Funds

ObligatedLocalMatch

Total Dollar Amount in

FTIP

Federal/State Funds

RequiringObligation Status of Funding Obligation

21400000672 ATP Don Pedro Road/Nadine Avenue SRTS (Multiple Schools) CON 3/16/2016 $321,000 $0 $321,000 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000672 ATPHackett & Kinser Road (Sinclear Elementary & Blaker-Kinser Jr High School) SRTS CON 8/16/2016 $749,000 $0 $749,000 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000565 CMAQTraffic Signal Modification at Roeding Rd and Mitchell Rd Traffic Flow Improvements CON 12/24/2015 $34,970 $4,530 $39,500 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000678 CMAQ

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Signal Synchronization Phase III: Service/Blaker Road from Blaker Rd to Central Ave.; Central Ave/Don Pedro from E Service Rd to Don Pedro Rd.; Don Pedro Rd at Mitchell Road existing FO communication Traffic Control Devices CON 6/17/2016 $74,631 $9,669 $84,300 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000678 CMAQ

ITS Signal Synchronization Phase IV: Crows Landing/Hackett Road and Crows Landing/Whitmore Road Traffic Control Devices CON 6/17/2016 $59,030 $7,648 $66,678 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000678 CMAQIntelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Signal Synchronization Phase II Traffic Control Devices CON 7/27/2016 $488,221 $63,255 $551,476 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000678 CMAQ Traffic Signal Synchronization Improvements Traffic Control Devices CON 7/20/2016 $270,813 $35,087 $305,900 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000566 RSTPHerndon Rd Reconstruction/Overlay Hatch Rd to Herndon Rd Reconstruction/Overlay CON 6/17/2016 $300,000 $38,868 $338,868 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000566 RSTPService Rd Overlay, Phase 1: Blaker Rd to Morgan Rd Overlay CON 12/24/2015 $45,466 $5,891 $51,357 $0 Funds Obligated

$2,343,131 $164,948 $2,508,079 $0

CTIPS #FTIP



Obligation

Federal/State Funds

ObligatedLocalMatch


FTIP

Federal/State Funds


21400000672 ATP Fox Road Pedestrian Improvement Project CON 6/29/2016 $408,000 $0 $408,000 $0 Funds Obligated

$408,000 $0 $408,000 $0

2015 FTIP Monthly Project Status Report for FFY 2015/16

City of Ceres

City of Hughson


August 29, 2016

CTIPS #FTIP



Obligation

Federal/State Funds

ObligatedLocalMatch


FTIP

Federal/State Funds


21400000678 CMAQ Synchronize Traffic Signals Downtown 2015 Traffic Control Devices CON 1/15/2016 $400,000 $0 $400,000 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000678 CMAQ

Upgrade the ATMS software and communications for the traffic signals in the City of Modesto Traffic Control Devices CON 7/18/2016 $140,002 $0 $140,002 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000594CMAQ / RSTP New Traffic Signals 2015 Signalize CON 7/21/2016 $523,450 $0 $523,450 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000594 CMAQ Traffic Signal Upgrades 2015 Signalize CON 7/28/2016 $512,000 $0 $512,000 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000594 CMAQ

Upgrade Traffic Signal - 2017: Tully Rd at 9th St, 1 St at H St, Paradise Rd at H St., and 11th St at Needham Ave. Signalize CON 7/7/2016 $114,675 $0 $114,675 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000565 CMAQ Bus Turnout SB Dale Rd Traffic Flow Improvements CON 7/21/2016 $185,913 $24,087 $210,000 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000565 CMAQRight turn lane on southbound Prescott Rd at Plaza Parkway Traffic Flow Improvements CON 5/9/2016 $55,000 $0 $55,000 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000565 CMAQRight turn lane on southbound McHenry Ave to Westbound Briggsmore Ave Traffic Flow Improvements CON 8/23/2016 $519,630 $0 $519,630 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000566 RSTP

Tully Road from 9th St. to Pelandale Ave. and Orangeburg Ave. from Martin Ave. to McHenry Ave. 9th St from Carpenter Rd to Tully Rd Pavement Rehabilitation CON 6/2/2016 $770,000 $0 $770,000 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000566 RSTP

Pelandale from Sisk to Dale; and on Standiford Ave. from McHenry to Sisk; Crows Landing Rd from S. 7th St. to W. Whitmore Ave. Pavement Rehabilitation CON 7/5/2016 $300,000 $0 $300,000 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000566 RSTP Paradise Road - from 1st Street to S. Carpenter Road Rehabilitation CON 6/21/2016 $250,000 $0 $250,000 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000679 CMAQWB D Street to NW 9th St (SR 132); Right Turn Lane Improvements Traffic Flow Improvements CON 6/27/2016 $562,265 $0 $562,265 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000510 CMAQ Rideshare Program Rideshare Program CON 5/19/2016 $64,999 $0 $64,999 $0 Funds Obligated

$4,397,934 $24,087 $4,422,021 $0

CTIPS #FTIP



Obligation

Federal/State Funds

ObligatedLocalMatch


FTIP

Federal/State Funds


21400000673 CMAQ Purchase CNG Street Sweeper Purchase CNG Street Sweeper CON 7/7/2016 $350,000 $0 $350,000 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000566 RSTPInyo Avenue and Canal School Road Intersection Rehabilitation CON 7/28/2016 $125,000 $0 $125,000 $0 Funds Obligated

$475,000 $0 $475,000 $0

City of Modesto

City of Newman


August 29, 2016

CTIPS #FTIP



Obligation

Federal/State Funds

ObligatedLocalMatch


FTIP

Federal/State Funds


21400000566 RSTPC Street Pavement Rehab Phase 1 - from Yosemite to 6th Pavement Rehabilitation CON 8/12/2016 $369,698 $0 $369,698 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000566 RSTP S. Yosemite (F St to J St) Overlay CON 6/27/2016 $146,565 $0 $146,565 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000678 CMAQ

Synchronize three signals on Yosemite Avenue (F Street to J Street) and channelization improvements Traffic Control Devices CON 6/27/2016 $200,000 $0 $200,000 $0 Funds Obligated

$716,263 $0 $716,263 $0

CTIPS #FTIP



Obligation

Federal/State Funds

ObligatedLocalMatch


FTIP

Federal/State Funds


21400000565 CMAQWard Avenue & W. Las Palmas Intersection Improvements Traffic Flow Improvements CON 7/20/2016 $491,979 $188,619 $680,598 $0 Funds Obligated

$491,979 $188,619 $680,598 $0

CTIPS #FTIP



Obligation

Federal/State Funds

ObligatedLocalMatch


FTIP

Federal/State Funds


21400000566 RSTPMorrill Road from Oakdale Road to Jackson Avenue Overlay CON 7/5/2016 $443,000 $0 $443,000 $0 Funds Obligated

$443,000 $0 $443,000 $0

CTIPS #FTIP



Obligation

Federal/State Funds

ObligatedLocalMatch


FTIP

Federal/State Funds


21400000565 CMAQ

Intersection Improvements at Golden State Blvd & Fulkerth Rd; Duel left turn lanes on the South, West and East traveling directions, modify the existing traffic signal to include a protected left turn phase for each turn phase and add pedestrian facilities throughout the intersection. Traffic Flow Improvements CON 8/23/2016 $909,090 $1,316,166 $3,023,702 $798,446

Awaiting E76 Amendment Modification Summary approval

21400000594 CMAQ Traffic Signal at F St and Lander Signalize CON 8/12/2016 $37,615 $0 $37,615 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000678 CMAQ

Traffic Signal Synchronization: Monte Vista Ave. between N. Tegner Rd. and Golden State Blvd.; Golden State Blvd. between Olive Ave. and East Ave.; Geer Rd between Monte Vista Ave. and Hawkeye Ave. Traffic Control Devices CON 8/2/2016 $51,000 $0 $51,000 $0 Funds Obligated

$997,705 $1,316,166 $3,112,317 $798,446

City of Patterson

City of Oakdale

City of Turlock

City of Riverbank


August 29, 2016

No federal funded projects programmed in FFY 15/16.

CTIPS #FTIP



Obligation

Federal/State Funds

ObligatedLocalMatch


FTIP

Federal/State Funds


21400000594 CMAQ Geer Rd/Whitmore Ave Signalization Signalize CON 8/9/2016 $265,590 $1,825,000 $2,125,000 $34,410 Remaining funds due to costs savings on project

21400000594 CMAQ Keyes Rd/Faith Home Rd Intersection Signalize CON 6/14/2016 $200,000 $100,000 $300,000 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000594 CMAQ Geer Rd/Santa Fe Ave Signalization Signalize CON 8/12/2016 $265,590 $1,995,000 $2,295,000 $34,410 Remaining funds due to costs savings on project

21400000254 CMAQ Rideshare Program Rideshare Program CON 5/25/2016 $75,068 $9,726 $84,794 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000566 RSTP

Phase L:1. Howard Rd (Hwy 5 to Franck Cox Rd) - Full depth reclamation with HMA cap partial overlay.2. Hatch Rd (Carpenter Rd to Monticello Ln) - Full depth reclamation with HMA cap.3. Carpenter Rd (Robertson Rd to 913 ft north of Beverly Dr) - Full depth reclamation with HMA cap. Reconstruction/Overlay CON 8/2/2016 $1,891,196 $0 $2,101,983 $210,787 Remaining funds due to costs savings on project

21400000610 RSTP Golden State/Golf/Berkeley Intersection Improvements CON 6/2/2016 $609,018 $0 $609,018 $0 Funds Obligated

$3,306,462 $3,929,726 $7,515,795 $279,607

CTIPS #FTIP



Obligation

Federal/State Funds

ObligatedLocalMatch


FTIP

Federal/State Funds


21400000479 CMAQ Regional Rideshare Program Regional Rideshare Program CON 4/25/2016 $177,060 $22,940 $200,000 $0 Funds Obligated

21400000303 RSTP Planning and Monitoring Activities Planning and Monitoring Activities CON 4/25/2016 $60,000 $7,774 $67,774 $0 Funds Obligated

11400000014 RIP Planning, Programming and MonitoringPlanning, Programming and Monitoring CON 12/10/2015 $0 $246,000 $246,000 $0 Funds Obligated

$237,060 $276,714 $513,774 $0

StanCOG

City of Waterford

Stanislaus County


- StanCOG ~ Stanislaus Council of Governments

PRESENT:

ALSO PRESENT:

1. CALL TO ORDER

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

Modesto, CA

Draft Minutes of September 12, 2016 (Monday) 5:00pm

Chair Vito Chiesa, Vice-Chair Bill Zoslocki (City of Modesto); Luis Molina (City of Patterson); Gary Soiseth (City of Turlock)

Rod Attebery, Monica Streeter (Neumiller and Beardslee); Cindy Malekos, Rosa Park, Dave Reed (StanCOG); Kendall Flint (via telephone) (RGS)

Chair Vito Chiesa called the meeting to order at 5:05pm.

2. ROLLCALL

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS - NONE

4. CONSENT CALENDAR

A. Motion to Approve Executive Committee Meeting Minutes of 8/8/16

*By Motion (Member Luis MolinaNice-Chair Bill Zoslocki), and a unanimous vote, the Executive Committee approved the Consent Calendar.


A. Motion to Recommend Policy Board Adopt a Resolution to Authorize the Executive Director to Approve an Annual Amount for the Extension of the Brown Armstrong Contract for Financial Auditing Services Dave Reed said that this item would allow for the annual amount of$35,000 to be specified in the contract amendment for the two-year extension for financial auditing services.

*By Motion (Member Luis Molina/Member Gary Soiseth), and a unanimous vote, the Executive Committee recommended that the Policy Board adopt a Resolution to authorize the Executive Director to approve an annual amount of $35,000 for the extension ofthe Brown Armstrong contract for financial auditing services.

Page 1 of2

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 7E

B. Motion to Recommend Policy Board Adopt a Resolution to Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Neumiller and Beardslee for FY 2016/17 Legal Services Rosa Park indicated that this item was for the annual agreement for legal services. There was consensus to recommend that the annual agreement not exceed $87,500, and to authorize the Executive Director to amend it if necessary at an amount not to exceed the adopted line item budget.

*By Motion (Chair Vito Chiesa/Member Luis Molina), and a unanimous vote, the Executive Committee recommended that the Policy Board adopt a resolution to authorize the Executive Director to execute a one-year term Professional Services Agreement with Neumiller and Beardslee for FY 2016/17legal services for an amount not to exceed $87,500; and amend the scope and contract amount as long as it does not exceed the FY 2016/ 17 line item budget amount contained in the adopted Overall Work Program.

C. Motion to Recommend Policy Board Approve Classification and Salary Study Recommendations Dave Reed reported that the Classification and Salary Study that the Policy Board authorized to be conducted had been done. The Executive Committee tabled the item at this time.

D. Measure L/Transportation Expenditure Plan for the Stanislaus Region Update Kendall Flint provided an update on the educational outreach for the Expenditure Plan. She said that educational materials had been mailed out and that educational presentations continued to be made throughout the region.

E. Draft September Policy Board Agenda Review It was suggested that Item 6B be moved to the Consent Calendar.

6. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Rosa Park said that she, Chair Chiesa, and Members Bill O'Brien and Bill Zoslocki participated the prior week in the San Joaquin Valley Voice trip to Washington, DC. She also reported that she had been invited to speak at the National Association of Regional Council' s (NARC) conference.

7. ADJOURNMENT Chair Vito Chiesa adjourned the meeting at 5:37pm.

Next Regularly Scheduled Executive Committee Meeting: October 10,2016 (Monday) @ 5:00pm StanCOG Board Room 1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA 95354

Cindy Manager of Administrative Services

Page 2 of2

- StanCOG ~ Stani slaus Council of Governmen ts

MANAGEMENT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING StanCOG Board Room

MEMBERS PRESENT:

ALSO PRESENT:

1. CALL TO ORDER

1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA

Draft Minutes of September 7, 2016 (Wednesday) 3:00pm

Chair Raul Mendez (City of Hughson); Vice-Chair Keith Boggs (Stanislaus County); Daryl Jordan (City of Ceres); Michael Holland (City ofNewman); Bryan Whitemyer (arrived after Item SA) (City of Oakdale); Ken Irwin (City of Patterson); Marisela Garcia (City ofRiverbank); Gary Hampton (City of Turlock); Tim Ogden (City of Waterford)

Elisabeth Hahn, Stephen Hanamaikai, Karen Kincy, Isael Ojeda, Cindy Malekos, Dave Reed, Marcus Tucker, Lydia Worden (StanCOG); Kendall Flint (RGS)

Chair Raul Mendez called the Management and Finance Committee meeting to order at 3:02 pm.

2. ROLLCALL

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS- NONE

4. CONSENT CALENDAR

A. Motion to Approve Management and Finance Committee Minutes of 8/3/16

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

5. DISCUSSION/ ACTION ITEMS

A. Motion to Recommend Policy Board Adopt by Resolution the 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) and Corresponding Final Air Quality Conformity Analysis (AQCA) Elisabeth Hahn said that the 2017 FTIP, a four-year implementation program of all projects that receive federal funding, had been prepared. She reported that a 45-day public review and comment period was held from July 5 to August 19, 2016 and that all comments received had been addressed and included in the final draft.

Page 1 of3

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 7F

*By Motion (Stanislaus County/City of Newman), and a unanimous vote, the Management and Finance Committee recommended that the Policy Board adopt by Resolution the 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) and Corresponding Final Air Quality Conformity Analysis (AQCA).

B. Motion to Recommend Policy Board Adopt by Resolution the FY 2015/16 Local Transportation Fund Supplemental Apportionment Dave Reed stated that in accordance with the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and StanCOG's adopted Transit Cost Sharing Procedures, because more funds were received than originally anticipated, a supplemental apportionment of $760,586 was recommended for distribution.

*By Motion (City ofTurlocldCity of Oakdale), and a unanimous vote, the Management and Finance Committee recommended that the Policy Board adopt by Resolution the FY 2015/16 Local Transportation Fund Supplemental Apportionment of $760,586.

C. Measure L/Transportation Expenditure Plan for the Stanislaus Region Update Kendall Flint provided an update on the educational presentations being made about the Expenditure Plan in the individual communities. She said an educational mailer was going out the next week, and that the social media platform and website (www.stanislaus-localroadsfirst.com) were being accessed by many visitors for information about the Expenditure Plan.

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

A. 2017 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 3 Regional Project Selection Process

B. FY 2017118 Unmet Transit Needs Assessment

C. 2015 FTIP Monthly Project Status Report FFY 2015/16

D. Local Transportation Fund (L TF) Schedule of Actual Receipts

E. Administrative Modification #12 to the 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) and Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP) - Type 1 Administrative Modification

F. Policy Board Minutes of 6/15/16 and 6/22/16

G. Executive Committee Minutes of 6/6/16

H. Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Minutes of 6/1116

I. Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SST A C) Minutes of 5/31/16

J. Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BP AC) Minutes of 6/1/16

7. CALTRANSREPORT Tom Dumas reported that the first HOV lanes in Caltrans District 10 were to open soon on I-5 in Stockton. He also reported that the applications for sustainable planning grants were due November 4.

Page 2 of3

8. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT On behalf of Rosa Park, Dave Reed thanked members for their efforts in preparing letters of support regarding the MPO rulemaking issue.

9. MEMBER REPORTS- NONE

10. ADJOURNMENT. Chair Raul Mendez adjourned the meeting at 3:21 pm.

Next Regularly Scheduled Management and Finance Committee Meeting: October 5, 2016 (Wednesday) @ 3:00 pm StanCOG Board Room 1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA 95354


Cindy Manage· of Administrative Services

Page 3 of3

t» stanCOG ~ Stanislaus Council of Governments

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) MEETING StanCOG Board Room

MEMBERS PRESENT:

ALSO PRESENT:

1. CALL TO ORDER

1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA

Draft Minutes of September 7, 2016 (Wednesday) 6:00pm

Constance Anderson, Elizabeth Claes, Terhesa Gamboa, Zach Keller, Lany Lew, Sue Stevens

Carla Alviso, Elisabeth Hahn, Stephen Hanamaikai, Dave Reed, Marcus

Tucker (StanCOG)

Chair Elizabeth Claes called the meeting to order at 6:00pm.

2. ROLLCALL

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS -None

4. CONSENT CALENDAR

A. Motion to Approve Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Minutes of 8/3/16

* By Motion (Member Terhesa Gamboa/Member Larry Lew), and a unanimous vote, the Citizens Advisory Committee approved the Consent Calendar.


A. Motion to Recommend Policy Board Adopt by Resolution the 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) and Corresponding Final Air Quality Conformity Analysis (AQCA) Marcus Tucker provided an overview of the 2017 FTIP and Conesponding Final AQCA. He reported that there was a 45-day public review and comment period from July 15th to August 19th and that four public comments were received that would be addressed in the final2017 FTIP. He also stated that the FTIP and CoiTesponding Final Air Quality Conformity Analysis were available on the Stan COG website and would go before the Policy Board at their September 21st meeting. There was a brief discussion and members' questions were answered.

B. * By Motion (Member Zach Keller /Member Larry Lew), and a unanimous vote, the Citizens Advisory Committee recommended that the Policy Board adopt by Resolution the 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) and ColTesponding Final Air Quality Conformity Analysis (AQCA).

Page 1 of2

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 7G

C. FY 2015/16 Local Transportation Fund Supplemental Apportionment Dave Reed provided background on the available FY 2015116 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) supplemental apportionment. He stated that staff recommended that the supplemental apportiomnent, in the amount of $760,586 be distributed in accordance with Section 7 of the Transit Cost Sharing Procedures. Members' questions were answered.

D. 2017 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 3 Regional Project Selection Process Marcus Tucker reviewed the 2017 A TP Cycle 3 Regional Project Selection Process. He reported that the Stanislaus region could expect to receive approximately $740,000 for FY 2019/20 and FY 2020/21. He also reviewed the timeline of the call for projects schedule. A brief discussion followed and members' had their questions answered.

E . FY 2017/18 Unmet Transit Needs Assessment Stephen Hanamaikai provided an overview of the Umnet Transit Needs Assessment, which was conducted annually. He stated that public hearings would be held in Modesto, Patterson and Oakdale, but that the dates had yet to be fmalized. He also stated that there would be public outreach to seniors, disabled communities and students. Member Gamboa stated that when the outreach dates were confirmed, she would share them within her community groups.

F. Measure L/Transportation Expenditure Plan for the Stanislaus Region Update Dave Reed reported that educational mailers were being sent out to the public. He thanked the members for their efforts and support and encouraged them to visit the website at www.stanislauslocalroadsfirst.com and social media sites for more information.

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

A. Policy Board Minutes of 6/15/16 and 6/22/16

B. Executive Committee Minutes of 6/6/16

C. Management and Finance Committee Minutes of 6/116

D. Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) Minutes of5/3116

E. Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BP AC) Minutes of 6/1116

7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Dave Reed reported that the Executive Director Rosa Park and three Policy Board members were in Washington DC for the San Joaquin Valley Voice trip.

8. MEMBER REPORTS- None

9. ADJOURNMENT Chair Elizabeth Claes adjourned the meeting at 6:23pm.

Next Regularly Scheduled Citizens Advisorv Committee Meeting: October 5, 2016 (Wednesday) @ 6:00 P.ID StanCOG Board Room 1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA 95354


'nistrative Assistant

Page 2 of2

of 3

SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL (SSTAC) MEETING StanCOG Board Room 1111 I Street, Suite 308

Modesto, CA

Draft Minutes of September 6, 2016 (Tuesday) 10:00 am

MEMBERS PRESENT: Lillian Castigliano (COA); Eunice Lovi (Stanislaus County); Simona Rios

(Catholic Charities); George Sharp (DRAIL) ALSO PRESENT: Fred Cavanah (City of Ceres); Melissa Molina, Adam Barth (City of

Modesto); Scott Medeiros (City of Turlock); April Henderson-Potter (Stanislaus County); Elisabeth Hahn, Stephen Hanamaikai, Karen Kincy, Dave Reed, Debbie Trujillo, Marcus Tucker (StanCOG)

1. CALL TO ORDER

Vice-Chair Lillian Castigliano called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None

4. CONSENT CALENDAR

A. Motion to Approve SSTAC Minutes of 8-2-16

*By Motion (Simona Rios/Eunice Lovi), and unanimous vote, the Council approved the minutes of 8-2-16.


A. Motion to Recommend Policy Board Adopt by Resolution the FY 2015/16 Local Transportation Fund Supplemental Apportionment Dave Reed provided a report on the available supplemental apportionment for FY 2015/16. He stated that staff recommended that the apportionment be distributed in accordance with Section 7 of the Transit Cost Sharing Procedures.

calviso

Typewritten Text

Item 7H

calviso

Typewritten Text

of 3

*By Motion (Simona Rios/George Sharp), and unanimous vote, the Council recommended that the Policy Board adopt by resolution the FY 2015/16 Local Transportation Fund Supplemental Apportionment with the suggestion of revisiting the Transit Cost Sharing Procedures for future years.

B. FY 2017/18 Unmet Transit Needs Assessment Stephen Hanamaikai provided a brief overview of the FY 2017/18 Unmet Transit Needs Assessment process. He mentioned that there would be three public hearings held with one at the October Policy Board meeting, one in Oakdale in November, and the third in Patterson in January. He said that final dates and locations would be provided for the Oakdale and Patterson hearings at a later date.

C. 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) and Corresponding Final Air

Quality Conformity Analysis (AQCA) Marcus Tucker provided a quick overview of the 2017 FTIP and Corresponding Final AQCA. He reported that one public hearing was held and there was a 45-day public review and comment period from July 5, 2016 to August 19, 2016. He said that all comments received had been addressed and were included in the final draft which would go before the Policy Board on September 21, 2016 for approval.

D. Measure L/Transportation Expenditure Plan for the Stanislaus Region Update

Dave Reed, on behalf of Rosa Park, thanked members for their efforts regarding Measure L. He mentioned that two educational mailers had gone out and a third would be going out soon. He encouraged members to visit the website at www.Stanislaus-LocalRoadsFirst.com for more information as well as to share the website with others. He asked members to provide staff with any upcoming events or meetings where staff could provide any educational information regarding Measure L.

6. TRANSIT MANAGERS/MOVE REPORT Scott Medeiros provided an update on Turlock Transit. He mentioned that due to the new fare boxes on buses, staff would be updating brochures with new language regarding monthly passes. Eunice Lovi provided a report on Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT). She mentioned that new services had been implemented as of August 22nd, which included a commuter route to the Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station, a new fixed route serving Waterford and Ceres, and a new fare structure. She said a new ADA paratransit service had been implemented. She stated the county would use a functional assessment procedure instead of a paper application that would be coordinated with Storer Transportation and the new provider performing the assessments. She mentioned that new brochures were available and a new website had been launched. Fred Cavanah provided a report on Ceres Area Transit (CAT) services. He mentioned that, in an effort for CAT to meet their fare box recovery ratio, significant changes to the transit system would be presented to the city council for approval on September 12th. He said, if approved, changes would go into effect on December 1st. He briefly reviewed the changes that would be presented to the city council. Melissa Molina provided an updated ridership report on Modesto Area Dial a Ride (MADAR). She mentioned that the percentage of riders utilizing mobility devices as well as personal care assistance (PCA) riders had increased. She said staff had been working on a service boundary map that agencies and the public could have access to on the website. She also reported that the new bulky item policy on the MAX buses would be implemented on MADAR and provided members with informational material.

http://www.stanislaus-localroadsfirst.com/

Adam Barth provided a report on Modesto Area Express (MAX). He mentioned that twenty-two buses had been retrofitted with staggered Q'PODS (mobility device securement station) and stated that the majority of the fleet, new and refurbished, would have the staggered Q'PODS as well. He said that new fare boxes were planned to be in the entire fleet by July 2017 and a possible implementation of a new fare structure in place by September 2017. He stated that a new transit policy and improvement rlan that would properly plan routes and services would go before the city council on September 1411 for approval.

7. CAL TRANS REPORT -NONE -,

8. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT- NONE

9. MEMBER REPORTS Simona Rios repmied that Catholic Charities would be rece1vmg new software and hardware, developed by Paratransit Inc. that would assist them with the programs offered. She also mentioned that the Healthy Aging Fall Summit would be held on October 21 , 2016 at the Centre Plaza.

Lillian Castigliano reported that the Stanislaus Elder Abuse Prevention Alliance (SEAP A) in Turlock was held with the focus on keeping money and medication safe.Safety tips from the police department were also provided.

11. ADJOURNMENT

Vice-Chair Lillian Castigliano adjourned the meeting at 11 :34 a.m.

Next Regularly Scheduled SSTAC Meeting: October 4, 2016 Tuesday) @ 10:00 am StanCOG Board Room 1111 I Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA

Page 3 of3

consent calendar · 2016. 9. 21. · rod attebery (neumiller and beardslee); cindy malekos, isael...

Documents