WCCTAC

West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee

Minutes

December 14, 2007

The regular meeting of the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee was called to order at 7:31 A.M. on Friday, December 14, 2007 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)* , Bob Franklin (BART), John Gioia (Contra Costa County), Gayle McLaughlin (Richmond), Jerrold Parsons (WestCAT), Kris Valstad (Hercules)

STAFF: Lisa Hammon, Executive Director

Linda Young, Transportation Project Specialist

John Rudolph, Project Manager

Nancy Cuneo, Administrative Analyst

Hisham Noeimi, CCTA

Bryan Otake, General Counsel

*Arrived after Roll Call

1. Public Comment

There were no comments from the public

Consent Calendar

On motion by Jerrold Parsons, seconded by Kris Valstad and carried unanimously the WCCTAC Board voted to adopt the Consent Calendar as follows:

2. Approved Minutes, Sign-In Sheet, and Meeting Summary from the October 19, 2007.

3. Approved Staff Reports.

4. Received information about Linda Young’s completion of the UC Davis Extension Transportation Management Certificate Program.

5. Received 2009 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) Development and Schedule.

6. Received 2008 Bike to Work Day Update.

7. Received status of the I-80 Eastbound HOV Lane Extension from Route 4 to the Carquinez Bridge.

8. Received Cost of Construction of New Office and Office Painting.

9. Received Contra Costa County’s Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee Discussion Regarding the Port of Oakland’s Martinez Subdivision Rail Expansion Project and Subsequent Letter to the Port of Oakland.

Board Member Comments and Announcements

John Gioia stated that the Air District has recommended an allocation of $3M around the Bay Area for Greenhouse Gas reduction. Richmond received $70,000 to use for incorporating climate control measures into their general plan. He recommended encouraging the West County jurisdictions to be proactive in seeking funding from grants that could be incorporated into regional transportation planning.

Jerrold Parsons stated that it is important that the county and cities include a transit component in their general planning as it relates to transportation.

Mr. Parsons then summarized the ‘Railvolution’ conference which he attended in Florida and expressed hope that when ‘Railvolution’ comes to the Bay Area that WCCTAC would sponsor a workshop.

Legal Counsel Comments

Bryan Otake apprised the Board of new legislation that will affect elected representatives serving cities and counties. AB57, a Soto bill entitled ‘Safe Routes to Schools’ has been extended indefinitely. The bill provides continued funding for bike and pedestrian infrastructure improvements that aid in providing safe travel to and from schools.

AB1581, The Traffic Actuated Signal (TAS) legislation, is intended to make travel by motorcycle and bicycle safer. AB1581 enacts legislation that makes TAS a state funded mandate requiring installation of new signals which are bicycle/motorcycle friendly.

He continued by stating that Caltrans is setting up the exact standards for what would constitute a sufficient remodel to trigger the requirement in addition to the uniform standards. The legislation will remain in effect until 2018 but will not be enacted until Caltrans issues standards and regulations.

Item 12: Introduction of New WCCTAC Employee- Joanna Pallock, Project Manager

Lisa Hammon introduced Joanna Pallock, who was hired to serve as a second Project Manager for WCCTAC starting January 8th.

Ms. Pallock expressed her gratitude to the Board and provided a brief summary of her background rooted in West County and summarized her experience with transportation related issues.

Item 13: Travel Funds for San Pablo Avenue Youth Interns and Adults to Attend the Transportation research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting in January 2008 in Washington D.C. to Present a Paper on the Summer Internship Program

Ms. Hammon informed the Board that the paper which she and John Rudolph wrote about the San Pablo Avenue Summer Internship Program was accepted by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and will be included as part of a panel discussion addressing how to inform, recruit, and train prospective transportation professionals.

Ms. Hammon requested feedback from the Board regarding use of WCCTAC travel funds to enable some of the students who participated in the summer internship program, adults or appropriate chaperones, and a representative from the school district, to attend the TRB conference and give the presentation.

She noted that this is the logical next step for the students. She expressed her feeling that the presentation would have a greater impact if the students were at the conference to provide an in-person account of their findings. Ms. Hammon explained to the Board that there is $1,000 in the budget left over from the Summer Internship Program and noted that there are a number of airline and hotel discounts available.

Ms. Hammon asked Mr. Otake to discuss some of the liability issues related to Item 13.

Mr. Otake explained that questions have arisen related to minimizing WCCTAC’s liability were Item 13 to be approved. He remarked that the proposal, as it stands, holds that WCCTAC is either reimbursed for costs; or to pass certain costs directly to the school district.

Mr. Otake stated that he supports and/or recommends that this be formulated as a school district project e.g. a field trip.

He strongly recommended that WCCTAC attain the appropriate releases and waivers from the school district, guardians or parents, and add WCCTAC as an additional insured on the school district general liability and other insurance coverage that may apply. He as well recommended trying to get indemnities from the school district and/or parental releases and waivers.

Janet Abelson requested clarification about the amount being requested as shown in the two proposed scenarios.

Ms. Hammon replied that when the proposals were formulated it was not known that $1,000 from the Summer Internship Program had not been used. This amount would offset the total amount for the students and chaperones to attend the conference. WCCTAC is asking for approval to supplement the remaining costs.

Ms. Abelson inquired about the amount of money remaining in the WCCTAC travel budget.

Ms. Hammon replied that there is $7,000 for Board member conference attendance; $2,000 for staff and an additional $2,000 for professional development. She noted that approximately $3,000 from the travel budget has been used for this half of the year.

John Gioia inquired about the remaining balance in the travel budget for FY 07-08.

Ms. Hammon replied that there is approximately $8,000.

Mr. Gioia asked if the goal is not to exceed the travel budget and if it is projected that required funds will exceed the travel budget, are there funds available from an additional source.

Ms. Hammon replied that there are additional funds available due to the decision to hire an additional Project Manager for half a year instead of a Senior Transportation Project Administrator who would have worked full time.

She remarked that if the Board approves Item 13, WCCTAC staff will submit a budget amendment outlining the reallocation of funds.

Ms. Abelson stated that in her experience; if money is given to the school board they have to agree to accept it: a process that takes some time. She also noted that there are a number of insurance issues inherent in the proposed arrangement. She expressed concern regarding the ability to sort out all of the financial and insurance details with the school district, given the short period of time available. She asked where, in the process, WCCTAC was, in dealing with the school district.

Ms. Hammon stated that she did not know that the school board required acceptance of money. She noted that arrangements for insurance, acceptance of money by the school board and WCCTAC Board approval of a not-to-exceed-amount would have to be made by December 21st.

Gayle McLaughlin expressed support for moving forward with Item 13.

Chair Brown proposed a motion to approve Item 13 dependent upon taking action in a timely manner. She suggested reaching out to members of the school board to determine if they can help expedite the process.

Janet Abelson suggested that the school district sponsor the event with WCCTAC providing the funding with purpose to avoid insurance complications. She requested that this be included as a flexible component of the motion.

Maria Alegria requested formulation of an itinerary with intent to visit some of the regions’ elected representatives in Washington D.C.

Ms. Hammon noted she had discussed the possibility of the students attending some of the other sessions and visiting relevant representatives and/or historical locations with a representative of the school district.

On motion by John Gioia, seconded by Gayle McLaughlin, the WCCTAC Board voted to approve Item 13 with funds not to exceed $7,000 from WCCTAC, with utilization of $1,000 from Ma’at.

Item 14: Measure J Strategic Plan Including Full Funding for eBART and $138 M Bond Issuance

Hisham Noeimi of CCTA, summarized work on the Measure J strategic plan and inclusion of priority projects within the first seven years of Measure J. He noted that last July, the draft proposal was presented with the understanding that RTP may change their recommendation; however, at the time that they received the request from BART for full funding of the eBART project, they had no means by which to stay within the funding target for some projects including the widening of Highway 4.

BART desired to show full funding in the first strategic plan to ensure enough lead time to purchase railcars and to avoid delays in the project which would result in higher costs. He noted that the project is currently fully funded.

After a number of meetings between CCTA, BART, and MTC staff, MTC determined that in order to provide the bridge toll money for funding eBART, they will need to see a full commitment of Measure J funding in the strategic plan; otherwise they will provide money on a match basis which will jeopardize the eBART project as well as the widening of Highway 4.

Mr. Noeimi noted that CCTA had determined that at a conservative, zero percent growth rate of revenues, CCTA does have the financial capacity to issue a third bond in 2015 up to $150M. Upon demonstrating this to Transpac they provided two options: delay the bypass project and move money from it to eBART or; assume the third bond issuance in the strategic plan. Approval was given unanimously to assumption of a third bond issuance.

He noted that Transpac approved inclusion of the third bond issuance and recommended adoption of the strategic plan contingent upon follow through on the part of MTC relative to their commitment of $241M in bridge toll money- with no objections from any of the RTPC’s. He stated that operating on a pay-as-you–go basis would result in a decrease in funds in the amount of $10M. He explained that debt service for this bond would be paid entirely by BART in the amount of approximately $220M.

Given that assumptions are being made on a projection of zero percent growth in revenues it is likely that there may be greater funding available in the future.

Chair Brown asked how the other regional committees are dealing with this.

Mr. Noeimi remarked that the other agencies including Transpac, unanimously supported recognition that the entire county needs to be behind the project. In return East County will not be competing for other funds for the next 10 years.

Vice Chair Viramontes noted that it made no sense to risk losing the funds to another county due to an inability to service the debt. She stated that at the November Administration and Projects Committee (APC), a unanimous vote was given to support moving forward with the bond issuance.

She as well pointed out that for East County, moving BART service to Antioch is vindication for years of taxation without access to service within their jurisdiction. The remainder of East County’s main priority is fixing Highway 4 which presents something of a problem when these cities are asked to redirect funds to eBART when they won’t benefit from the service.

The APC made clear that even if the rest of the cities in East County can be convinced to sacrifice additional bond monies dedicated to them, they need to demonstrate a willingness to sacrifice on the behalf of the other communities that are willing to put the bond money up front. The APC put forth to them, the possibility of gaining access to the 18 percent of Measure J funds allocated for local streets or some other alternative. She stated that Highway 4 has recently been slated for removal from the STIP.

She stated that this is significant given that West County’s top priority project is already short $63 M. In order to remedy this shortfall, help is needed from East County. Removal of Highway 4 from the first STIP means that the San Pablo Interchange Project may be able to access funds from that STIP.

Lastly, Ms. Viramontes remarked about the selection of programs over capital projects with regard to Measure J funds. She noted that programs are not at risk; the bonding at zero percent was against the project portion of Measure J; this places these projects in jeopardy.

Regarding the Richmond Parkway, Chair Brown stated that 100 percent of the funding was received while the majority of the projects were cut at a rate of up to approximately 25% due to circumstances arising related to the economy.

Janet Abelson expressed concern about the possibility of future shortfalls in funding necessitating future removal of projects from the STIP.

Maria Alegria stated that she understood that when projects were being prioritized with regard to Measure J funds, if a project was deemed to be too expensive those funds could be redirected to other projects.

Ms. Abelson summarized that Measure J was set up such that each region received a certain share of Measure J funds; each region could use its money as it saw fit. This facilitated a breakthrough in regional cooperation in working together to develop Measure J. This underlying principle of give and take should carry over to project implementation.

Vice Chair Viramontes noted that East County never stayed within their limits when submitting their project list, due in part to bonding against their developer fees. They would not throw out a project they would simply re-prioritize.

Mr. Noeimi noted that when the MTC committee approved funding using the bridge toll money they did so on the condition that if eBART does not go through, that the money is to be used on the Highway 4 project.

Ms. Hammon made note of the projects that would be affected by a third bond issuance following FY-2015. She requested that it be made clear that if East County is going to give up their STIP fund it must be for any project regardless of the sponsor.

Vice Chair Viramontes remarked that it made little sense to move ahead with building Highway 4 without consideration being given to an eBART station as it would only create future conflicts.

Jerrold Parsons asked what is being planned with eBART and Highway 4.

Mr. Noeimi stated that when BART and CCTA were drafting the environmental documents, the plan was to take BART on the Union Pacific line; however, negotiations fell apart and Union Pacific rejected the CCTA’s proposal. The only alternative that remained was widening of the freeway to accommodate BART in the median of Highway 4.

On motion by Maria Viramontes, seconded by John Gioia and carried unanimously the WCCTAC Board voted to support full funding for eBART as proposed by the APC and CCTA with the caveat that Vasco Road is an East County project.

Bob Franklin expressed gratitude to the Board on the behalf of his BART colleague, Joel Keller,

Item 15: Twenty-Five Year Program for Contra Costa’s State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Funds and Relationship to the 2009 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)

Ms. Hammon provided an overview of Item 15 as outlined in the agenda. She summarized a handout listing the preliminary list of STIP projects developed by CCTA. Ms. Hammon noted that she re-numbered the projects: previously multiple projects were grouped together within a single project listing. The WCCTAC-TAC had discussed projects, which were not included in the CCTA list of STIP projects, but are however part of the Measure J and STMP project list which may need STIP funds within the next 25 years.

The TAC recommended that the list of nine projects on the CCTA list be expanded to include 23 projects. They also recommended that CCTA defer submittal of the finalized list to MTC until after the Board meeting on February 25^th; at which time both the TAC and the WCCTAC Board will have had another opportunity to examine the list and prioritize it as requested by MTC.

Mr. Noeimi noted that during the formulation of previous RTP’s, MTC provided a funding estimate to CCTA; CCTA would then in turn provide MTC with a list of prioritized projects. For the current RTP, MTC is not providing a funding estimate; they are instead issuing a call for projects to be submitted by the end of January which is based on the five targets in the 2035 Fact Sheet. MTC will then determine which projects will be included in the RTP.

He expressed that this places discretion over future STIP funds in jeopardy as state and federal funds could not be utilized for projects which are not included in the RTP. CCTA and the CMA’s are proposing to submit a constrained list of projects that is based on estimated funding over the next 25 years in the amount of $440M for FY-2013-2033.

Mr. Noeimi noted that at a prior meeting of CCTA, a constrained list was approved. It was developed based on the latest call for projects including Prop 1B, CMA, Caldecott, the I-80 ICM Project, and Measure J projects that have funding shortfalls. It is intended to serve as a starting point for discussion with the RTPC’s. CCTA is requesting that the RTPC’s review the list to see if there are other projects that may have funding shortfalls. He noted that the next step is to meet with project sponsors with purpose to gather as many details as possible about each project to identify shortfalls and any possible additional funding mechanisms.

Ms. Abelson asked about the I-80 ICM Project being $5M below STIP and the effect that this would have on the project as she understood that it was to be underway within a year.

Mr. Noeimi remarked that STIP funds will not be available until FY-2014.

Ms. Abelson stated that this destroys the I-80 ICM project.

Mr. Noeimi explained that project sponsors were planning to apply for Prop 1B Traffic Synchronization monies; however, the guidelines for that program have not yet been finalized. CCTA has heard that these resources may require a match in funds.

He remarked that there are ways to advance the funding for the I-80 ICM Project such as AB39 or a fund source with reimbursement from the STIP when those funds become available.

Ms. Abelson expressed concern that projects which will not be started for sometime are changing into different projects. She proposed using developer impact fees to move these projects forward.

Ms. Hammon stated that developer impact fees do not provide a full funding source for any of the projects to which they are related.

Ms. Abelson expressed hope that all relevant entities would consider scaling down in order to achieve more immediate results and not risk losing projects over grand considerations.

Maria Viramontes stated that CCTA sent a letter to MTC objecting to the new process. She noted that it would be a great challenge to obtain all the details outlining each project in the allotted time. She proposed an extra meeting in January to help define the scope of each project and sort out the details with purpose to make an informed and committed vote with regard to selection of projects.

Kris Valstad expressed support for creation of a comprehensive and detailed list in addition to regional cooperation.

Ms. Abelson expressed support for an additional meeting.

Vice Chair Viramontes recommended that larger projects be divided into smaller segments in the interest of more focused funding. She as well expressed a need for regional cooperation with regard to large scale projects.

Ms. Abelson proposed treating the interchange projects as a large scale project to be given high priority.

Jerrold Parsons stated a need to clarify priorities noting that WestCAT/Lynx has an immediate need for new buses.

Maria Alegria asked if there are certain criteria which need to be examined relative to prioritization of projects. She asked if Pinole was represented at the TAC.

Ms. Hammon replied that all of the jurisdictions and agencies except Pinole were represented at the TAC meeting.

Mr. Noeimi noted that the CCTA Board letter lists criteria which include: any Measure J project with a funding shortfall; deliverability of the project and considerations such as scope, cost, and safety. He added that CCTA met with transit operators in addition to the RTPC’s.

Ms. Hammon noted that there was some confusion at the TAC as to whether or not transit agencies were to submit projects to the RTPC’s or directly to the CCTA.

Mr. Noeimi stated that 20 percent of the STIP funds for 25 years would go to public transportation accounts for transit eligible projects. Therefore, there needs to be public transportation projects on the list.

Ms. Hammon expressed concern over large quantities of money on the program side for transit. This previously resulted in a hybrid project for Measure J bonds. With regard to Mr. Parson’s expression of an immediate need for buses, there may be a future need for more hybrid projects within the 25 year period based on this. This is in essence getting ahead of the intended, coordinated approach to identifying what the transit needs were with regard to Measure J funds.

Deidre Hartman stated that BART’s project costs are so large that they will be working directly with CCTA and not submitting to the RTPC’s.

Chair Brown asked if an additional meeting in January is desired.

Ms. Hammon noted that between now and the regularly scheduled TAC meeting WCCTAC staff will be contacting all the member agencies to obtain as many details as possible. Therefore, WCCTAC will be prepared to discuss projects in detail on the 10th.

Vice Chair Viramontes requested a more detailed list of the criteria provided by MTC.

Ms. Hammon made note of the immense difficulty inherent in trying to assess the needs of multiple entities with limited information via a lack of adequate correspondence with each of the relevant jurisdictions. She expressed support for additional meetings and a reduction in the pace with which CCTA is conducting reviews.

She stated that a WCCTAC Board meeting to discuss a single item prior to the regularly scheduled meeting would prove helpful.

Gayle McLaughlin left at 9:18.

Chair Brown confirmed that the special meeting will be held on January 22nd at 8 am. In the meantime all representatives will be responsible for meeting with staff in their jurisdiction.

Ms. Hammon noted that she will determine if there are any other projects to add to the list.

Item 16: Updates: (1) Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee Financing; and (2) I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility Project

Ms. Hammon outlined updates on the STMP Program which included meetings with the City of Richmond and Contra Costa County with whom discussions are ongoing. She noted progress related to the resolutions of support for the I-80 ICM Project.

Ms. Abelson asked what could be done to further the goals of WCCTAC and inquired about traffic light synchronization funds.

Ms. Hammon replied that criteria is being released related to the traffic light synchronization account. She remarked that WCCTAC is in communication with the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, (the project sponsor).

John Rudolph stated that draft guidelines have been released and WCCTAC is drafting a response due in February. Once comments are received, a call for projects will be issued. Other counties have expressed interest in ICM projects for their areas.

Janet Abelson asked if a sub-committee could be formed to approach ACCMA representatives for support. She suggested agendizing of the preceding for the next meeting.

Chair Brown granted the request for agendizing formation of a sub-committee to approach ACCMA for support for the I-80 ICM Project.

Item 17: Correspondence/Other Information

With no further business to come before the WCCTAC Board, Chair Brown adjourned the meeting at 9:24 A.M., until the Special Board meeting to be held on January 22, 2008 at 8:00 A.M. at the San Pablo City Council Chambers, 13831 San Pablo Avenue, San Pablo, California, 94806.