WCCTAC

West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee

Minutes

January 22, 2008

The special meeting of the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee was called to order at 7:35 A.M. on Friday, January 22, 2008 by Chair Sharon Brown in the City Council Chamber s of the City of San Pablo, 13831 San Pablo Avenue, San Pablo, California, 94806.

1. Call to Order/Self Introductions

PRESENT: Sharon Brown, Chair (San Pablo), Maria Viramontes, Vice Chair (Richmond), Janet Abelson (El Cerrito), Maria Alegria (Pinole),

Ed Balico (Hercules), Tom Butt (Richmond), Bob Franklin (BART), John Gioia (Contra Costa County), Jerrold Parsons (WestCAT)

STAFF: Lisa Hammon, Executive Director

Nancy Cuneo, Administrative Analyst

John Rudolph, Project Manager

Joanna Pallock, Project Manager

Hisham Noeimi, CCTA

Bryan Otake, General Counsel

1. Call to Order and Self-Introductions

2. Public Comment

There were no comments from the public.

3. Update on the Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee Financing Program

Lisa Hammon summarized Item 3 as outlined in the Agenda and introduced Steven Gortler of Piper Jaffray. She noted that Mark Curran of Piper Jaffray had planned to attend the meeting but was not able to do so because of illness.

Mr. Gortler expressed a desire to ensure that developer impact fee revenues would be sufficient to cover the debt service on any bonds that might be issued by WCCTAC; however, given market volatility, it was determined that an independent consulting firm should be brought in to generate a forecast of future revenues.

Ms. Hammon elaborated by stating that WCCTAC is asking those submitting proposals to submit the forecast for the developer impact fees for each of the next five years as well as an aggregate for the years 2013 through 2033. She invited additional firm submissions to the request for proposal by WCCTAC Board members as the list is not limited to the five firms currently under consideration.

She noted that the RFP will be open for comment until the Board meeting to be held on January 25th after which, it will be issued with the incorporation of any comments and/or recommendations.

Chair Brown asked Mr. Gortler how much cooperation will be needed from the county and the individual cities as it is sometimes difficult to establish correspondence with the relevant representatives within a specific time frame.

He stated that the prospective firms have been asked to include their methodology for coordinating correspondence in their proposal. He stated that he believes that some of the prospective firms will look to the cities and county for direct input in preparing their forecasts while others may take a more detached, analytical approach. He noted that the proposed methodology may play a part in the discussion and determination of which firm will be selected.

He noted that if direct input is determined to be of great value it may be prudent to bring the cities and county into the selection process.

Vice Chair Viramontes commented that since Richmond was the first to look into utilizing developer impact fees, they are prepared to work with an independent entity. She noted that their finance director made a commitment to work with whomever WCCTAC hires.

She noted that the county and the City of Richmond are representative of two-thirds of the projections of what the bond would generate. She concluded by expressing support for hiring of an independent firm in response to the current market volatility.

Ms. Abelson expressed support for hiring an independent firm to review revenue projections due to the risk associated with utilizing monies for local streets and roads as backstop.

Bob Franklin asked how the firm will be selected.

Mr. Gortler responded, stating that each firm is being asked to submit a formal proposal which will be reviewed by Ms. Hammon and WCCTAC staff. He asked Ms. Hammon if the Board would be asked to submit its approval.

Mr. Otake replied to Mr. Franklin by stating that the RFP selection process will be based on a combination of experience, familiarity with the project, and other factors. Selection will not be based upon the lowest bid.

In response to Mr. Gortler, Mr. Otake stated that the contract will be brought before the full Board for its approval.

Ms. Hammon noted that the RFP’s are to be submitted by February 11th.

Mr. Parsons asked that he and WestCAT be apprised of any newly scheduled meetings and/or workshops. He noted that WestCAT would be posting any related information to their website.

Chair Brown expressed her support for the item; however, she stated that she has reservations regarding ABAG’s projections.

Vice Chair Viramontes remarked that most of the cities hold similar concerns as they perceive ABAG’s projections as too aggressive.

Mr. Gortler noted that no one is bound by the process and is free to reject any of the proposals as well as deny endorsement of the work.

On motion by Maria Viramontes, seconded by Jerrold Parsons and carried unanimously the WCCTAC Board voted to move forward with the RFP seeking independent review of the developer impact fee projections.

4. Twenty-Five Year Program for Contra Costa’s State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Funds and Relationship to the 2009 Regional Transportation Plan

Ms. Hammon provided an overview of Item 4 as outlined in the agenda. She noted that of the agencies which were to provide a list of prioritized projects to WCCTAC, Richmond failed to do so. Therefore, WCCTAC made the determination that the waterfront access project for the grade separation into Marina Bay would be given top priority. She noted two other projects in Richmond being given consideration: the Richmond Parkway upgrade and the grade separation at Morton and Giant.

She referenced the project list spreadsheet provided to the Board noting that projects are divided into priority projects, vision projects, and three projects of priority by WCCTAC: the I-80 ICM; the San Pablo Avenue Smart Corridors project operations and maintenance and the student bus pass program.

These projects extend beyond the West County region and are therefore not capital projects, which fit into the requirement for STIP projects. They are; however, eligible for submittal. Ms. Hammon noted that there is approximately $152M for the list of projects for the STIP.

Regarding transit projects, Ms. Hammon noted that there are approximately seven AC Transit projects and four WestCAT projects. She asked Mr. Noeimi to apprise the Board of other transit funds that may be available.

Mr. Noeimi stated that recently passed legislation SB717 took a good portion of discretionary STIP funds and gave them to the larger transit operators. He stated that CCTA will examine a number of the transit projects to see if they are eligible for funds from SB717. This will help to further constrain the list of prospective candidate projects. As well, out of the $380M STIP fund estimate over the 25 year RTP period, only 20% is public transportation account money that can be used for transit projects, park-and-ride lots, as well as parking structures.

Mr. Noeimi noted that STIP funds are not expected to be available until 2014. Before that time there will be another update with the 2013 RTP thus, there will be an opportunity to update the list before any of the money is on the table. Mr. Noeimi asked the Board to keep in mind that the list is merely a planning document. CCTA is not asking for a commitment of STIP funds to any of the listed projects, it is simply establishing a list for projects that are a high priority to ensure that they are eligible to compete for state and federal funds.

Ms. Hammon stated that the issue of funds not being available until 2014 or later is highly critical. She noted that there are projects on the list that are under construction prior to 2014; this was taken into consideration at the recent TAC meeting thus, projects on the list were constrained to those which will be implemented in 2014 or later.

Chair Brown expressed hope that MTC would take into consideration the issue of regional equity.

Mr. Noeimi stated that as long as the list is constrained, the underlying communication to MTC is not to the tamper with the list of prioritized projects.

Vice Chair Viramontes commented that there was not a single West County jurisdiction that did not object to MTC’s decision to hold dominion over decisions regarding prioritization of how STIP funds will be utilized. She noted that each region was given five criteria for submittal of projects to be included in the constrained list; each region has done their part to stay within their individual equity share with the hopes that MTC will accept the constrained list as is.

She noted that projects which citizens have voted to initiate and thus pledged tax dollars for have been included in the list. She thanked CCTA staff that has worked with the cities in West Contra Costa in generating the list. She asked how East County's lack of involvement in the STIP after 2009 will play out with regard to the list.

Mr. Noeimi stated that East County submitted a list of STIP projects; however, they did not indicate whether or not those projects will be implemented in the first or second ten years of the RTP. The understanding is that the majority of the STIP funds in the first ten years will be for the other sub-regions e.g. West County, Central County, and Southwest.

Vice Chair Viramontes expressed concern regarding MTC’s ability to move an East County project up to the first ten years which would prove harmful to the other regions that have already made a sacrifice for the sake of East County. She stated that she would hear suggestions from CCTA regarding how to ensure that this does not happen. She noted that if the preceding occurred, East County would not be at fault.

Mr. Noeimi reiterated that this is not a call for projects to program available STIP funds; it is a RTP planning document. Therefore, technically, MTC cannot say that any one project will take place before another. He stated that when there is a call for projects (e.g. the 2010 STIP) CCTA envisions a screening criterion that would ideally prevent movement of an East County project up to the first ten year period.

He noted that if an MTC project performance analysis determines that an East County project takes priority over a West County project there is ultimately nothing that can be done to deter this evaluation; this is in essence why the current approach is being taken in hopes to prevent this sort of scenario from playing out.

Janet Abelson requested clarification of the “key” and the meaning assigned to various colors associated with projects included on the project list.

Ms. Hammon clarified the inquiry, stating that there are seven priority projects for AC Transit. The list has been provided as it was received from AC Transit and has not been broken down any further than the priority projects. She noted that AC Transit is not fully funding any of these projects as some have been assigned to the Vision category. WCCTAC therefore took the information received from AC Transit and translated it to the list. There is therefore some concern as to how to move forward given the number of AC Transit projects.

Ms. Abelson asked for clarification regarding the status of projects in “white”.

Ms. Hammon replied that projects in white are third or fourth priority projects. She suggested that perhaps these projects should be moved into the Vision category. She noted that WestCAT projects two, three, and four should be included on the Vision list.

Ms. Abelson asked how she could correct her chart.

Ms. Hammon stated that the chart cannot be corrected as it exists as it was submitted by AC Transit; therefore, the policy decision that must be made is whether or not to keep all of the AC Transit projects on the list and to designate a dollar amount for AC Transit or let them decide at some point which projects to fund. She asked Nathan Landau of AC Transit is there is any information which he would like to add.

Mr. Landau stated “no” and commented that AC Transit is attempting to move forward with the various projects in a number of ways. He noted that some projects relate directly to Measure J, as well. AC Transit attempted to load the STIP with the portion of the projects that are currently being implemented. He stated that the total amount that AC Transit staff is recommending is $24M.

Vice Chair Viramontes stated that it would be helpful, given the amount of funds that AC Transit is requesting, if Mr. Landau could break up list into those projects that could be completed within the first ten years of the STIP as there are projects on the list which are near completion. She noted that one of the criteria is can the project be completed within the first ten years. She asked if $24M is the amount needed in the first ten years.

Mr. Landau stated that $24M is the amount needed for projects in the first ten years. He stated that he would have to consult with staff in order to provide a more detailed answer. He noted that the first column contains the short term elements whereas the second column exhibits the longer term elements.

Ms. Hammon stated that the $152M for the blue projects is over the amount that would qualify as West County's fair share. Given this, what would West County’s’ fair share be.

Mr. Noeimi replied that CCTA has resisted providing a target by regions for the STIP because in many cases within the STIP period, all of the funding would need to be used in one project in order to implement it. He noted that West County’s share of Measure J funds is 25% which establishes a target of approximately $95M of the $380M. As well there is about $40M in ITIP funds; if projects are eligible, this amount will be applied to those projects in order to get as many of the projects on the list as possible.

Ms. Hammon noted that the San Pablo Dam Road Interchange is an ITIP eligible project.

Deidre Heitman of BART provided the WCCTAC Board with an update on BART’s strategy with regard to the current process. She stated that BART’s transit capital project shortfalls are so immense so as to dwarf all other entities’ STIP. She noted that BART’s initial request is in the amount of $50M for car replacement. This amount will be increased prior to the coming TCC meeting as the current amount required for replacing BART’s antiquated transporters is $2B.

She stated that she has invited BART staff to come before the WCCTAC Board to discuss BART’s transit capital shortfalls in order to provide a clearer understanding of BART’s need for car replacement with regard to how it impacts the region as a whole. She summarized by stating that BART has been working directly with the CCTA.

Ms. Hammon asked Mr. Noeimi if BART’s request will effect the $380M.

Mr. Noeimi replied that BART’s car request will be taken from the $380M in Measure J funds.

Ms. Heitman commented that BART has already allocated their share of the SB717 funds therefore, those funds cannot be reprogrammed.

Ed Balico stated regarding the Hercules Intermodal Station Phase 2, that the project is already underway and must be considered a priority project.

Mr. Noeimi stated that a number of projects can be included in the constrained list if it is shown that they are locally funded.

Janet Abelson echoed Mr. Balico’s concern with regard to the Del Norte Project. She asked if in three years the STIP process will start over again.

Mr. Noeimi stated that in three years the next update of the RTP will begin which will require a number of the projects on the constrained list to be updated based on the status of a particular project at that time (e.g. has the project received federal earmarks or obtained some form of additional funding.)

Jerrold Parsons noted that a number of the visionary projects in Hercules directly effect WestCAT’s ability to manage their system in the near future and are thus a high priority for WestCAT. As well, Pinole has no priority projects on the list. Mr. Parsons asked if one of the relevant projects could be moved onto the priority list.

Ms. Hammon stated that one of the criteria for being on the list is that the project is in a planning document. She remarked that she is uncertain as to whether or not either of the projects submitted by Pinole are in a planning document.

Mr. Noeimi stated that there is perhaps a general category into which the I-80 westbound onramp at Pinole Valley Road may be included. He stated that CCTA will list this project as locally funded.

Ms. Hammon noted that the Hercules Intermodal Station is currently in Phase II.

Mr. Noeimi commented that the Hercules Intermodal Station will be shown as a candidate for the ITIP and will therefore be a “blue” project.

Ms. Hammon expressed a desire to summarize the changes that would be made to the list prior to the January 25 meeting of the WCCTAC Board. They are as follows:

· WestCAT projects are cited as “Vision” projects

· Work more with AC Transit regarding their priorities

· Identify potential ITIP projects

Mr. Noeimi added that any projects that may be locally funded should be noted.

Mr. Parsons asked regarding the Pinole Valley Road onramp, if there is a way to expand the project to include an east and westbound onramp in the scope of the project. He noted that the eastbound onramp is of greater priority than the westbound onramp.

Chair Brown reiterated the sentiment.

Ms. Hammon stated that she would discuss this with staff from Pinole prior to the January 25 meeting of the WCCTAC Board.

5. Other Business

With no further business to come before the WCCTAC Board, Chair Brown adjourned the meeting at 8:41 A.M., until the next meeting to be held on January 25, 2008 at 7:30 A.M. at the San Pablo City Council Chambers, 13831 San Pablo Avenue, San Pablo, California, 94806.