TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (TTD) BUDGET FINANCE COMMITTEE Meeting Agenda

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency January 21, 2011 128 Market Street 8:30 a.m. Stateline, NV 89449

Item Action Requested Page A. Review and Acceptance of the District’s Financial Recommend 12 Statement of Operations for July 1, 2010 through Acceptance November 30, 2010 B. Cooperative Agreement Between Tahoe Recommend Approval 16 Transportation District (TTD) and Caltrans Related to the State Route 89 Realignment and Fanny Bridge Rehabilitation Project C. Cooperative Agreement Between Tahoe Recommend Approval 32 Transportation District (TTD) and Nevada Department of Transportation Related to the State Route 28 Rehabilitation Project D. Approval of TTD Project Task Orders and Recommend Approval 66 Amendments to Existing Task Orders and Contracts

TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (TTD) TAHOE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (TTC) Special Meeting – Notice of Agenda and Agenda

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency January 21, 2011 128 Market Street 9:30 a.m. Stateline, NV 89449

This meeting is being called as a special meeting because it is not occurring on the regularly scheduled second Friday of the month at 9:30 a.m. All items on this agenda are action items unless otherwise noted.

I. CALL TO ORDER AND GENERAL MATTERS A. Roll Call and Determination of Quorum of TTD/TTC B. Approval of Agenda for January 21, 2011 C. Approval of Minutes of December 10, 2010

II. PUBLIC INTEREST COMMENTS At this time, members of the public shall have the opportunity to directly address the Board. All comments are to be limited to no more than five minutes per person. The Board is prohibited by law from taking immediate action on or discussing issues raised by the public that are not listed on this agenda.

III. BUDGET FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT

IV. TAHOE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (TTC) CONSENT ITEMS Item Action Requested Page A. Adoption and Approval of the Supporting Approval 1 Resolution for the Fiscal Year 2011 Federal Transit Administration 5311 Program of Projects for California to TRPA Governing Board

V. ADJOURN AS TTC AND RECONVENE AS TTD

VI. LEGAL BRIEFING - CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION. MV Transportation, Inc. v. STATA, et al. Case No. 10-CV-0240. 9th Judicial District Court.

VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item Action Requested Page A. Public Hearing on Nevada Bikeway South Informational Only 4 Demonstration Project Joint Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA)/National Environmental Quality Act (NEPA) Draft Environmental Assessment

VIII. TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (TTD) CONSENT ITEMS Item Action Requested Page A. Review and Acceptance of the District’s Financial Acceptance 12 Statement of Operations for July 1, 2010 through November 30, 2010 B. Approval of Cooperative Agreement Between Approval 16 Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Related to the State Route 89 Realignment and Fanny Bridge Rehabilitation Project C. Approval of Cooperative Agreement Between Approval 32 Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) and Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) Related to the State Route 28/State 431 Intersection Improvement Project

IX. TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (TTD) BUSINESS ITEMS Item Action Requested Page A. Update on Program of Projects Outreach Informational Only 40 Campaign - Completion of Phase I and Phase II Initiation B. Approval of TTD Project Task Orders and Approval 66 Amendments to Existing Task Orders and Contracts

Item Action Requested Page C. Discussion of Potential Changes to the BlueGo Discussion and 68 Transit Service Direction

X. DISTRICT MANAGER REPORT

XI. BOARD, COMMISSION MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS

XII. ADJOURNMENT

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS

This notice and agenda has been posted at the TTD office and the following post offices: Stateline, Nevada and Tahoe Valley, California. The notice and agenda has also been posted at the North Tahoe Conference Center in Kings Beach, the Incline Village GID office and the North Tahoe Chamber of Commerce and on the TTD website: www.tahoetransportation.org.

For those individuals with a disability who require a modification or accommodation in order to participate in the public meeting, please contact Judi White at (775) 589-5502.

California Open Meeting Law Compliance Written notice of this special meeting was delivered to each member of the Board and to each local newspaper of general circulation and radio or television station who has previously requested such notice in writing. Such notice was received at least 24 hours before the time of this special meeting.

Notice of this special meeting was posted at least 24 hours prior to the meeting in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public.

In addition, the Board has caused this agenda and all documents constituting the agenda packet to be mailed to all persons requesting such materials, and such mailing occurred at the time the agenda was posted or upon distribution to all, or a majority of all, of the members of the Board, which occurred first.

Nevada Open Meeting Law Compliance Written notice of this meeting has been given at least three (3) working days before the meeting by posting a copy of this agenda at the principal office of the Board and at three other separate, prominent places within the jurisdiction of the Board not later than 9 a.m. of the third working day before the meeting.

Written notice of this meeting has been given by providing a copy of this agenda to any person who has requested notice of the meetings of the Board. Such notice was delivered to the postal service used by the Board not later than 9 a.m. of the third working day before the meeting for transmittal to the requester by regular mail, or if feasible for the Board and the requester has agreed to receive the public notice by electronic mail, transmitted to the requester by electronic mail sent not later than 9 a.m. of the third working day before the meeting.

Supporting materials were provided to any person requesting such materials and were made available to the requester at the time the material was provided to the members of the Board or, if provided to the members of the Board at the meeting, were made available to the requester at the meeting.

This agenda has been posted on the TTD website - www.tahoetransportation.org.

TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT / COMMISSION BOARD MEETING MINUTES December 10, 2010

TTD/C Board Members in Attendance: Andrew Strain, Member at Large, Chair Will Garner, Placer County, Vice Chair Don Morehouse, Washoe County Ron McIntyre, TNT-TMA Nancy McDermid, Douglas County Bruce Grego, City of South Lake Tahoe Tim Hart, Caltrans

Others in Attendance: Carl Hasty, Tahoe Transportation District Alfred Knotts, Tahoe Transportation District Joanie Schmitt, Tahoe Transportation District Nick Haven, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Karen Fink, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Judi White, Tahoe Transportation District and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Paul Taggart, Esq, Legal Counsel

I. TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT AND TAHOE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL

A. Roll Call and Determination of Quorum The meeting of the Tahoe Transportation District and Tahoe Transportation Commission was called to order by Chairman Strain at 1:33 p.m., at the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. Roll call was taken and it was determined a quorum was in attendance for the TTD/TTC.

B. Approval of TTD/TTC Agenda of December 10, 2010 Ms. McDermid motioned to approve the TTD/TTC agenda for today’s meeting, holding Item VIII.C and VIII.D until 3:00 and moving Item IX. ahead if necessary. Mr. McIntyre seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

C. Approval of TTD/TTC Meeting Minutes for November 12, 2010 Motion/Second by Ms. McDermid/Mr. McIntyre to approve the TTD and TTC minutes, with changes by Mr. Teshara. The motion passed, with Mr. McIntyre abstaining.

II. PUBLIC INTEREST COMMENTS No public interest comments were made.

III. FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT Mr. Garner noted the Finance Committee recommended approval of all the Consent Items.

Tahoe Transportation Board Meeting Minutes - December 10, 2010 IV. TAHOE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (TTC) CONSENT ITEMS

A. Recommend Approval of Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Amendment #2 to the TMPO Governing Board

Motion/Second by Mr. Grego/Ms. McDermid. The motion passed unanimously.

V. TAHOE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (TTC) BUSINESS ITEMS

A. Informational Overview of Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) of 2012 Regional Transportation Plan Ms. Fink gave a brief overview of Sustainable Communities Strategy and introduced Mr. Jeremy Nelson of Nelson Nygaard Consultants. Mr. Nelson gave a progress report of the consultant’s team work to date.

Action Requested: Informational Only

VI. ADJOURN AS TTC AND RECONVENE AS TTD

VII. TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (TTD) CONSENT ITEMS

A. Review and Acceptance of the District’s Financial Statement of Operations for July 1, 2010 through October 31, 2010 B. Approval of Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) Grant Agreement for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5311 Funds for BlueGo Transit Operations C. Approval of Purchase Orders for BlueGo Transit Operational Needs

Motion/Second by Mr. McIntyre/Mr. Grego. The motion passed unanimously.

VIII. TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (TTD) BUSINESS ITEMS

A. Approval to Issue a Request for Proposal for Contract Services for Waterborne Pilot Project Operations Mr. Hasty reviewed this item. Ms. McDermid wanted to make sure the Board Members received the letter forwarded from Jennifer Montgomery, Placer County Supervisor, stating her support of the pilot project. Mr. McIntyre asked for clarification of what was being requested by staff. Mr. Hasty explained he is proposing to work with the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association, Mr. Shuff, and the Truckee North Tahoe TMA to hire a project manager to finish the job started with the report; continuing to look into getting agreements with property owners for the lakeside/ landside facilities, and putting together a Request for Proposal to advertise for a contractor that could supply a boat and begin operations this summer. Mr. McIntyre asked what resources would be available to hire a project manager. Mr. Hasty stated he would go to the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association and ask for the $10,000.00 they offered earlier

Tahoe Transportation Board Meeting Minutes – December 10, 2010 2 in the year. Mr. Garner asked if the RFP and scope of work would be brought before the Board for approval. Mr. Hasty confirmed it would come back for approval.

Public Comment: Mr. John Shuff stated the Board needs to recognize and push this as a collaborative effort by putting together a group of equally civic minded people, and the two PUD’s, the Resort Association and two or three business associations in Placer County to come up with a plan to run this project for the public good, creating a public asset. Mr. Shuff added that in order to get this project going in 2011, the District will have to find someone who wants to do it. His view is that it should be a community based entity that owns the boats. The next best option would be to put out a RFP, however if the RFP is not awarded in 30 days, nobody will be able to build a boat and get a COI for 2011. He stated the District has done a good job and fulfilled its mission and role, but now a different organization needs to step up. Mr. Garner asked if there was something conceptually in mind for the community-based organization. Mr. Shuff felt a meeting needs to be called to determine the organization.

Mr. Gordon Shaw concurred the next step is to write the RFP and administer that process to find out if there are entities are out there and then put time in working with the pier owners. It will take the public sector to get a package to the operator. The operator will be providing the boat, the captain, the fueling and maintenance. The District will provide the schedule, the stops, etc. Mr. Garner asked what operating funding sources are available. Mr. Hasty noted the District does not have any operating funding sources, the report indicated the service could be self funded, and it has yet to be determined where additional funding will come from if other funding is needed.

Ms. Jan Colyer with the North Shore TMA, stated the District was the enabler to start the North Lake Tahoe Express Airport Shuttle. When that program was started not all the details were in place, but the support and go ahead was there and every year the shuttle gets better and better.

Mr. Ron Treabess of the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association stated there is interest from the organizations that can help, but a person is needed with the ideas that can bring those people together and see what is needed to get started this coming summer with one boat and be in place for two boats in 2012. Timing will be key because Caltrans will have one-way controlled traffic while working on Highway 89 South for a couple of years and now an alternative travel choice will be available. Chair Strain asked if the Resort Association has the funding available based on approvals. Mr. Treabess stated yes, it is available based on approvals and felt confident the funding would be provided.

Ms. Mechele Duhamel, Get on Tahoe Shuttle from Tahoe City, and Garwoods to Sand Harbor, thanked John Shuff and Gordon Shaw for the

Tahoe Transportation Board Meeting Minutes – December 10, 2010 3 work done to date. She stated it would be easy to find an approved boat. She also noted this is a world issue and there are connections with other waterborne transit facilities, such as Lake Como, Italy. Ms. Duhamel submitted a letter to the Board for a proposed waterborne operations feasibility plan and added that there are many funding and non-profit organizations and waterborne associations that would be happy to take this project to the next level. She stated this project should be a technology driven implementation, along with an environmental driven implementation, as well as a community implementation as it moves forward.

Mr. McIntyre asked what the exact contribution from the District will be for the next portion of the project. Mr. Hasty was unsure and noted a financial role may have to be played in the long-term, but not in 2011. The financial role would be related to the possible acquisition of boats through any grant funding available, however that would require an affirmation from FTA and the required 20% match, which source is unknown at this time.

Mr. Teshara arrived at 2:35.

Action Requested: Approval

Chair Strain motioned to approve the ability to participate on behalf of the District to find out the opportunities and pitfalls with the goal of getting service on the North Shore, particularly Placer County, as quickly as it can be developed. Ms. McDermid seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

B. Approval of the Tahoe/BlueGO - 2010 Short Range Transit Plan as the District’s Five-Year Guide for Transit System Development Mr. Hasty reviewed this item.

Mr. Garner asked if Attachment A of the staff summary was a companion piece to the plan. Mr. Hasty explained that the attachment was the only public comment received regarding the plan.

Mr. Teshara apologized for being late. He felt Mr. Stenersen’s letter was much appreciated. His suggestion is a motion to approve the document, including direction to staff to finalize the organization of the operations committee; get a meeting scheduled as quickly as possible; and look at Mr. Stenersen’s letter and other considerations and prioritize them. Mr. Teshara wants the community to understand that the Board is taking a responsible position and is listening to the public.

Action Requested: Approval

Mr. Teshara made the motion to approve the use of the 2010 Short Range Transit Plan as the District’s five-year guiding document as

Tahoe Transportation Board Meeting Minutes – December 10, 2010 4 suggested by staff, with direction to set up the operations committee as quickly as possible and use Mr. Stenersen’s letter as a guide for some of the issues that need to be prioritized and get the process underway. Mr. Grego seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

C. Determination of Environmental Review Process Approval for District’s Capital Projects Mr. Hasty reviewed this item and discussed the timeline in Attachment C (page 101). Ms. McDermid noted the South Demonstration Bikeway and Nevada State Route 28/431 Intersection Improvement Projects listed in Attachment C were not included in the hybrid. Mr. Hasty explained they were not included as they are scheduled to be moving to construction and their documents have been completed. Ms. McDermid asked how the projects are related when they are not interconnected projects. Mr. Hasty explained they are all part of the system.

Chair Strain asked the status of the environmental document for South Demonstration Bikeway. Mr. Knotts responded that a draft Environmental Analysis has been completed and is ready for release. He also noted the Intersection Improvement Project has a categorical exclusion exemption. Mr. Knotts informed the Board that the North Demonstration Bikeway Project had been on hold, while waiting for State Parks to approve the submitted request for authorization to proceed on the project and the approval was received two weeks ago.

Chair Strain asked what a table of contents for the Hybrid Programmatic Environmental Document would look like. Mr. Knotts answered it would be all resource areas required by each regulation, CEQA, NEPA, and TRPA. The table of contents would be flushed out as part of the RFP process with responses from the consultants who would propose their approach and outline to the project, along with the indirect, direct and cumulative impacts to the project as well. Chair Strain asked if the District could do our own cumulative affects analysis rather than through the TRPA process, and fold it into each project. Mr. Hasty stated we would take the risk of being turned down as being inadequate and noted that for joint documents, there is a third party type of arrangement. Chair Strain asked what happens when we bring a new project forward that wasn’t included in the initial cumulative analysis. Mr. Knotts explained that an addendum would be submitted. Mr. Grego asked if there are issues with one of the projects would that affect the remainder of the projects. Mr. Hasty said it would depend on the issue.

Mr. Teshara stated a good environmental analysis contractor is needed for this document and a detailed scope of work is necessary.

Action Requested: Approval

Motion/Second Mr. Grego/Mr. Morehouse. The motion passed unanimously.

Tahoe Transportation Board Meeting Minutes – December 10, 2010 5

D. Adoption of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Implementing Procedures and Delegation of Responsibilities to the District Manager and Staff Mr. Knotts reviewed this item.

Action Requested: Adoption

Motion/Second Ms. McDermid/Mr. Garner. The motion passed unanimously.

IX. LEGAL BRIEFING - CLOSED SESSION A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation MV Transportation, Inc. v. STATA, et al. Case No. 10-CV-0240. 9th Judicial District Court

The Board received an update on MV STATA case and no action was taken.

X. DISTRICT MANAGER REPORT Mr. Hasty had available a transit ridership report for BlueGo. Derek Kirkland was hired as the Capital Program Specialist and will start January 3. Mr. Hasty requested the January meeting moved to January 21 as he will be out of the country. Mr. Knotts requested the meeting be held on the South Shore, as a public hearing will be held on the South Demonstration Bikeway Project Environmental Analysis. He wished everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

XI. BOARD, COMMISSION MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS Ms. McDermid informed the Board that Douglas County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to fund TTD through June 30, 2011.

XII. ADJOURNMENT

Respectfully Submitted:

Judi White Executive Assistant Tahoe Transportation District

(The above meeting was recorded in its entirety, anyone wishing to listen to the aforementioned tapes, please contact Judi White, Clerk to the Board, (775) 589- 5502.)

Tahoe Transportation Board Meeting Minutes – December 10, 2010 6

MEMORANDUM

Date: January 17, 2011

To: Tahoe Transportation Commission (TTC) Board of Directors

From: Transportation Staff

Subject: Recommend Adoption and Approval of the Supporting Resolution for the Fiscal Year 2011 Federal Transit Administration 5311 Program of Projects for California to TRPA Governing Board

Action Requested: Recommend adoption by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), sitting as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for the California portion of the Lake Tahoe Basin, of the supporting resolution regarding the Fiscal Year 2011 Federal Transit Administration FTA 5311 Program of Projects (POP) for California.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the TTC recommend adoption by the TRPA, sitting as the RTPA, of the Fiscal Year 2011 FTA 5311 POP allocations. Any change in the final apportionment shall be adjusted according to the following percentages for each service; Tahoe Transportation District (BlueGO) - 69% and Placer County (TART) - 31%.

Background: In order for a transit service within the jurisdiction of the RTPA to receive a Section 5311 Grant, the project must be included in the Regional Program of Projects, which is submitted by TRPA to Caltrans for approval. This year, the estimated 5311 allocation to TRPA based on direction from Caltrans is $133,854 (same as 2010 allocation). The percentage distribution of 5311 funds is derived by utilizing the TTD approved formula based on percentage of Vehicle Service Hours (VSH), percentage of Vehicle Service Miles (VSM), and percentage of Population (Pop).

FY 2011 5311 Allocations

Transit Service Provider Allocation % FY2011 Allocation

Placer County (TART) 31% $ 40,862 TTD (BlueGO) 69% $ 92,992

TOTAL 100% $ 133,854

NH/jw AGENDA ITEM: IV.A.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 1-

Additional Information: If you have any questions or comments regarding this item, please contact Nick Haven at (775) 589-5256 or [email protected].

Attachment: A. TRPA Resolution

NH/jw AGENDA ITEM: IV.A.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 2- ATTACHMENT A

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, SITTING AS THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 2011-___

APPROVAL OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION 5311 FISCAL YEAR 2011 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS

WHEREAS, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is designated by the State of California as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency for the Tahoe Region;

WHEREAS, there are Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5311 and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Grant Funds available for transit assistance for non-urbanized areas for use to support public transit agencies;

WHEREAS, the TRPA, as the RTPA, has submitted a request for programming of transit operating assistance for Tahoe Transportation District and Placer County;

WHEREAS, these funds are essential in providing dependable transit service in the Lake Tahoe Basin;

WHEREAS, these funds are consistent with the TRPA Regional Transportation Plan for the Lake Tahoe Region;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Governing Board of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, sitting as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency, adopts this resolution approving the State of California Federal Transit Administration Fiscal Year 2011 Program of Projects, available to non-urbanized areas, to be programmed for use by Tahoe Transportation District and Placer County to support the local public transit systems.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Governing Board of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, sitting as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency, at its regular meeting held on January 26, 2011 by the following vote:

Ayes:

Nays:

Abstain:

Absent: ______Norma Santiago, Chair Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

NH/jw AGENDA ITEM: IV.A.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 3-

MEMORANDUM

Date: January 17, 2011

To: Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) Board of Directors

From: TTD Staff

Subject: Public Hearing on Nevada Bikeway South Demonstration Project Joint Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA)/National Environmental Quality Act (NEPA) Draft Environmental Assessment

Action Requested: It is requested the Board conduct a Public Hearing on the Nevada Stateline to Stateline Bikeway Joint Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA)/National Environmental Quality Act (NEPA).

Background: In May 2007, the District entered into an Interlocal Agreement with the TRPA, the United States Forest Service (USFS), Nevada Division of State Lands, Nevada Division of State Parks, Carson City, Washoe County, Douglas County, and Incline General Improvement District to cooperatively undertake the Nevada Stateline to Stateline Bikeway Project, including the design and construction of a North and South Demonstration Project. The North Demonstration Project is a trail segment that begins at the southern end of Incline Village and continues to Sand Harbor State Park, while the South Demonstration Project begins at the Nevada and California state line in Stateline, Nevada and continues to Round Hill Pines Beach Resort. The demonstration projects were identified for expedited development, as initial assessments identified fewer constraints to implementing these two respective projects. Under the roles and responsibilities section of the Interlocal Agreement, the District is identified as the lead agency for “the implementation of the recommended trail alignment and two Demonstration Projects.”

In January 2009 and February 2009, the TTD hired Carl Hasty and Alfred Knotts as District Manager and Transportation Projects Manager, respectively. Consistent with the roles and responsibilities outlined in the Interlocal Agreement, project management duties were officially transferred to the TTD in March 2009 and have since been managed by TTD Staff. These duties included the development of a Feasibility Report for potential trail alignment for the segment between Sand Harbor and Round Hill Pines Resort, as well as the planning, design, and construction of the two demonstration projects. To date, the TTD has successfully managed the projects in a timely and cost effective manner, which has resulted in the development of a public draft Joint TRPA/NEPA Environmental Assessment for the South Demonstration Project and a Draft Feasibility Report for the Sand Harbor to Round Hill Pines segment. This scheduled public hearing focuses solely on the public draft Joint TRPA/NEPA

AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VII.A.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 4-

Environmental Assessment for the South Demonstration Project. A report on the Draft Feasibility Report will be given to the Board as part of the February 2011 Board meeting.

Discussion: The USFS and TRPA have directed the preparation of a joint Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, TRPA’s Compact, Chapter 5 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, and Article 6 of the TRPA Rules of Procedure for the Nevada Stateline-to-Stateline Bikeway, South Demonstration Project. The approximately 3.2-mile shared-use path would be within the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) Round Hill and Urban Lots management areas defined in the Forest Plan. It would cross portions of the following TRPA Plan Area Statements: 068 (Round Mound), 070A (Edgewood), 070B (Rabe), and 077 (Oliver Park), and would be contiguous to the Stateline and Kingsbury Community Plan areas. The shared-use path meets the definition of a linear public facility (LPF) in Chapter 2, “Definitions,” of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, and as such, would be subject to the applicable TRPA Code provisions that apply to LPF. Please see Attachment A for project location map.

The Draft EA analyzes three alternatives for the South Demonstration Project (see Attachment B – Alternative Alignment Map), identified as Alternative A, Alternative B, and Alternative C (No Project/No Action Alternative). Under both action alternatives (A and B), the project would be constructed in three phases. Each phase would consist of one segment of shared-use path, approximately one mile in length. These segments and the affected parcels include:

► Segment 1: The California/Nevada state line on Lake Parkway to the north side of Kahle Drive. This segment includes an option to narrow the width of Lake Parkway west of U.S. 50 by seven feet.

► Segment 2: North side of Kahle Drive to the existing shared-use path on the south side of Elks Point Road (Elks Point Bike Path).

► Segment 3: South side of Elks Point Road (Elks Point Bike Path) to Round Hill Pines Beach. This segment includes upper and lower optional alignments around the west side of Round Mound.

Segments 1 and 3, including the optional alignments, would be the same with both Alternatives A and B. Similarly, the proposed expansion and enhancement of the existing parking lot with a restroom facility at the northwest corner of the intersection of U.S. 50 and Kahle Drive and use of a portion of the Elks Point Bike Path in Segment 2 would be the same with both Alternatives A and B.

The primary difference between Alternatives A and B is the alignment of the shared-use path through Rabe Meadow, between Kahle Drive and Elks Point Road (Segment 2). The Alternative A and B alignment options in Segment 2 were determined to best meet the purpose and need and project goals and objectives and are intended to minimize effects on cultural and biological resources and stream environment zone (SEZ) areas; minimize tree removal; maximize use of existing disturbed areas; and enhance user experience.

The public comment period for the Draft EA commenced on January 13, 2011 and will conclude at 11:59 p.m. on February 14, 2011. The Draft EA is available for the public to review at the USFS LTBMU, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA; the TRPA, 128 Market Street, AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VII.A.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 5-

Stateline, NV; and the Douglas County Library, 233 Warrior Way, Zephyr Cove, NV. In addition, the document can be found on the USFS LTBMU website (under Land & Resources Management, Projects); the TRPA website (under Major Projects and Environmental Documents); and the project website at http://www.nvtahoebikeway.com (under Document Library, South Demonstration Project). Three public hearings are scheduled to solicit comments on the Draft EA. The first will be at the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners meeting on Thursday, January 20, 2011, beginning at 1:30 p.m. at the Tahoe Transportation Center, 169 U.S. 50, Stateline, Nevada 89449. The second will be at this scheduled Board meeting. The third will be before the TRPA Public Hearings Officer on February 3, 2011, beginning at 2:00 p.m. at the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 128 Market Street, Stateline, NV 89449. Please note that no specific agenda time has been set for this item at these meetings. Please refer to the agenda posted at http://cltr.co.douglas.nv.us/agendas.asp and http://www.trpa.org/default.aspx?tabindex=1&tabid=239 one week prior to each of the meetings for updated information.

Written responses should be sent at the earliest possible date, as comments received after 11:59 p.m. on February 14, 2011 are not required to be considered and may not be included in the final document. Please send written responses to Garrett Villanueva at USFS at the address shown above. Responses should include the name of the private party and/or the contact person at your agency or organization. A complete Notice of Availability is included in this item as Attachment C.

Fiscal Analysis: All expenditures associated with the development of the environmental analysis have been approved in subsequent contracts and/or task orders. There is no additional fiscal impact associated with this item.

Work Program Analysis: This project is in the work program. All work associated with this effort will be captured under respective elements of the existing and proposed Work Programs and corresponding allotted staff time.

Additional Information: If you have any questions or comments regarding this item, please contact Alfred Knotts at [email protected] or (775) 589-5503.

Attachments: A. Project location map B. Alternative Alignment Map C. Notice of Availability

AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VII.A.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 6- ATTACHMENT A

PROJECT LOCATION MAP

AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VII.A. TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 7-

Alternative Alignment Map ATTACHMENT B

TTD BOARDAK/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 8- AGENDA ITEM: VII.A. ATTACHMENT C TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE P.O. Box 5310 FOREST SERVICE 128 Market Street LAKE TAHOE BASIN MANAGEMENT UNIT Stateline, Nevada 89449-5310 35 College Drive Phone: (775) 588-4547 South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Fax: (775) 588-4527 (530) 543-2600 Fax: (530) 543-2693

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY, COMMENT, AND PUBLIC HEARINGS

To: Nevada State Clearinghouse California State Clearinghouse Cooperating Agencies Other Interested Public Agencies Interested Parties and Organizations Affected Property Owners (within 300 feet)

Subject: Joint TRPA and NEPA Draft EA for the Nevada Stateline-to-Stateline Bikeway, South Demonstration Project in Stateline, Nevada

From the Lead Agencies: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) U.S. Forest Service (USFS) P.O. Box 5310 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Stateline, NV 89449 35 College Drive Contact: Jeanne McNamara South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150-4500 Acting Branch Chief, Environmental Contact: Garrett Villanueva Improvement Branch Assistant Forest Engineer Phone: (775) 589-5252 Phone: (530) 543-2762 Fax: (775) 588-4527 Fax: (530) 543-2693 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

The USFS and TRPA have directed the preparation of a joint Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, TRPA’s Compact, Chapter 5 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, and Article 6 of the TRPA Rules of Procedure for the Nevada Stateline-to-Stateline Bikeway, South Demonstration Project.

The South Demonstration Project is a component of the larger Nevada Stateline-to-Stateline Bikeway Project, which encompasses an approximately 30-mile-long corridor between Stateline, Nevada and Crystal Bay, Nevada. The South Demonstration Project shared-use path is located in Douglas County, Nevada on the east shore of Lake Tahoe, beginning on Lake Parkway at the Nevada/California border in the south shore casino core and ending approximately 0.3 mile north of the entrance to Round Hill Pines Beach. The proposed shared-use path would be entirely on the west side of U.S. 50 and is approximately 3.2 miles in length, of which approximately 2.2 miles is proposed to be located on NFS lands. Approximately 0.9 mile of the proposed shared-use path would extend along private parcels owned by Edgewood Companies along Lake Parkway and U.S. 50, requiring a deed- restricted easement from Edgewood Companies and encroachment permits from Douglas County and Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). The remainder of the path would be an on-road segment on Laura Drive, which would require an encroachment permit and/or right-of-way dedication from the Olive Park General Improvement District (GID). The shared-use path would cross two streams in the project area: Edgewood Creek and Burke Creek. The proposed shared-use path would generally include a 10-foot wide paved path with 2-foot shoulders on both sides. The segment along Lake Parkway and U.S. 50, between Lake Parkway and 4-H Camp Road, (approximately one quarter of the total path length) would include a 12-foot-wide paved path with 1-foot

Nevada Stateline-to-Stateline Bikeway, South Demonstration Project Notice of Availability 1 January 2011 TTD BOARDAK/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 9- AGENDA ITEM: VII.A. ATTACHMENT C

shoulders on both sides. The shared-use path would be limited to non-motorized vehicle use, except by maintenance vehicles.

The approximately 3.2-mile shared-use path would be within the LTBMU Round Hill and Urban Lots management areas defined in the Forest Plan. It would cross portions of the following TRPA Plan Area Statements: 068 (Round Mound), 070A (Edgewood), 070B (Rabe), and 077 (Oliver Park), and would be contiguous to the Stateline and Kingsbury Community Plan areas. The shared-use path meets the definition of a linear public facility (LPF) in Chapter 2, “Definitions,” of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, and as such, would be subject to the applicable TRPA Code provisions that apply to LPFs.

The Draft EA analyzes three alternatives for the South Demonstration Project, identified as Alternative A, Alternative B, and Alternative C (No Project/No Action Alternative). Under both action alternatives (A and B), the project would be constructed in three phases. Each phase would consist of one segment of shared-use path, approximately 1 mile in length. These segments and the affected parcels include:

► Segment 1: The California/Nevada state line on Lake Parkway to the north side of Kahle Drive. This segment includes an option to narrow the width of Lake Parkway west of U.S. 50 by 7 feet.

► Segment 2: North side of Kahle Drive to the existing shared-use path on the south side of Elks Point Road (Elks Point Bike Path).

► Segment 3: South side of Elks Point Road (Elks Point Bike Path) to Round Hill Pines Beach. This segment includes upper and lower optional alignments around the west side of Round Mound.

This notice is to inform you that a public comment period for the South Demonstration Project Draft EA will commence on Thursday, January 13, 2011 and will conclude on Monday, February 14, 2011. Comments will be solicited during this timeframe and will be incorporated into the final document. Written responses should be sent at the earliest possible date, as comments received after 11:59 p.m. on February 14, 2011 are not required to be considered and may not be included in the final document. Please send your written responses to Garrett Villanueva at USFS at the address shown above. Responses should include the name of a contact person at your agency or organization.

The Draft EA is available for the public to review at the USFS LTBMU, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA; the TRPA, 128 Market Street, Stateline, NV; and the Douglas County Library, 233 Warrior Way, Zephyr Cove, NV. In addition, the document can be found on the USFS LTBMU website (under Land & Resources Management, Projects), the TRPA website (under Major Projects and Environmental Documents), and the project website at http://www.nvtahoebikeway.com (under Document Library, South Demonstration Project).

Three public hearings are scheduled to solicit comments on the Draft EA. The first will be at the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners meeting on Thursday January 20, 2011, beginning at 1:30 p.m. at the Tahoe Transportation Center, 169 U.S. 50, Stateline, Nevada 89449. The second will be at the Tahoe Transportation District Board meeting on January 21, 2011, beginning at 9:30 a.m. at the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 128

Nevada Stateline-to-Stateline Bikeway, South Demonstration Project January 2011 2 Notice of Availability TTD BOARDAK/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 10- AGENDA ITEM: VII.A. ATTACHMENT C

Market Street, Stateline, NV 89449. The third will be before the TRPA Public Hearings Officer on February 3, 2011, beginning at 2:00 p.m. at the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 128 Market Street, Stateline, NV 89449. Please note that no specific agenda time has been set for this item at these meetings. Please refer to the agenda posted at http://cltr.co.douglas.nv.us/agendas.asp, http://www.tahoetransportation.org/board.html, and http://www.trpa.org/default.aspx?tabindex=1&tabid=239 one week prior to each of the meetings for updated information.

If you have any questions, please contact Garrett Villanueva at USFS or Jeanne McNamara at TRPA (contact information is provided above).

Nevada Stateline-to-Stateline Bikeway, South Demonstration Project 3 January 2011 Notice of Availability TTD BOARDAK/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 11- AGENDA ITEM: VII.A.

MEMORANDUM

Date: January 17, 2011

To: Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) Board of Directors

From: TTD Staff

Subject: Review and Acceptance of the District’s Financial Statement of Operations for July 1, 2010 through November 30, 2010

Action Requested: It is requested the Board accept the latest Financial Statement of Operations for July 1, 2010 through November 30, 2010.

Background: Staff has completed analyzing financial information for the first five months of fiscal year 2011.

Discussion: Overall, the District appears to have ended with a net gain of $147,589 for the month of November 2010. The gain was partially expected as transit contribution revenue for multiple months were recorded in November, while legal expenditures for October & November and vehicle fuel for the first half of November will be recognized in December. The District will be using some of these funds to help meet match grant requirements for future maintenance costs originally budgeted with ARRA funding.

This gain increased the District’s cash fund balance to $215,090 which is approximately $176,953 more than the start of the fiscal year. Staff wants to caution the Board to review the fiscal analysis for a more accurate financial picture.

The table below reflects the balances on November 30, 2010 between transit and non-transit balance sheet items.

Tahoe Transportation District November 30, 2010 Balances

Non Transit Transit Cash 0 305,315 Accounts Receivable 232,805 80,610 Prepaid Expenses 4,168 0 Accounts Payable 159,197 120,891 Deferred Revenue 0 127,721 Beginning Year Fund Balance 38,137 0

JS/jw AGENDA ITEM: VIII.A.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 12-

Fiscal Analysis: Although the fund balance appears to be greater than anticipated, Staff wants to make the Board aware of the following circumstances that will consume that balance: 1. Anticipated Transit Contributions will be reduced $156,500 without the participation of Harrahs/Harveys. 2. The District has not yet secured agreements with Lakeside Inn and MontBleu regarding Transit Contributions. 3. Monthly Farebox Revenue is tracking approximately $20,000 less than anticipated. 4. Transit Maintenance costs expected to be funded by ARRA will in fact be funded with other grant opportunities requiring match. 5. The classic car sale proceeds totaling $18,000 are restricted for the bus shelter match, pending Caltrans approval. 6. Legal fees will be more than originally forecasted for Fiscal Year 2011, mainly due to the litigation with MV Transportation. 7. The District has budgeted member contributions for 2011 totaling $55,000 as anticipated revenue. Staff continues to focus their attention on presenting the benefits gained by the District’s programs relevant to the capital projects and transit support services for the jurisdictions in order to attempt to secure contributions.

Staff feels when the above information is taken into account, the District’s true financial position is approximately the same as it was at the beginning of the fiscal year.

Additional Information: If you have any questions or comments regarding this item, please contact Joanie Schmitt at (775) 589-5227 or [email protected].

Attachments: A. Financial Statement of Operations B. Transit Operations Detailed Financial Statement of Operations.

JS/jw AGENDA ITEM: VIII.A.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 13- Tahoe Transportation District ATTACHMENT A Financial Statement of Operations For Period July 1, 2010 - November 30, 2010

Actual Budget Actual Nov Annual YTD Variance

FTA - NV 58-0001 (Bus Maint) 0 0 24,325 (24,325) FTA - NV 58-0001 Match 0 0 8,418 (8,418) FTA NV 58-0001 Expenditures 0 0 (32,720) 32,720 Net ( + / - ) 0 0 23 (23)

FTA - 5308 Water Transit Vehicles 0 597,830 0 597,830 FTA - 5308 Match 0 149,457 0 149,457 FTA 5308 Expenditures 0 (747,287) 0 (747,287) Net ( + / - ) 0 0 0 0

FTA - 5309 Shelters 0 197,830 0 197,830 FTA - 5309 Match 0 49,457 18,000 31,457 FTA 5309 Expenditures 0 (247,287) 0 (247,287) Net ( + / - ) 0 0 18,000 (18,000)

FTA - ARRA Shelters 0 151,037 0 151,037 FTA ARRA Expenditures 0 (151,037) 0 (151,037) Net ( + / - ) 0 0 0 0

FTA - RTAP 0 1,500 1,500 0 FTA - RTAP Match 0 0 789 (789) FTA RTAP Expenditures 0 (2,270) (2,289) 19 Net ( + / - ) 0 (770) 0 (770)

USFS - SNPLMA Rd 9 0 139,224 161,106 (21,882) USFS-SNPLMA Expenditures 0 (139,224) (161,106) 21,882 Net ( + / - ) 0 0 0 (0)

FLH 1/2 Percent Funding 182,692 6,013,707 695,641 5,318,066 FLH 1/2 Percent Expenditures (182,692) (6,013,707) (695,642) (5,318,065) Net ( + / - ) 0 0 (0) 0

CNG Fuel Sales 14,526 93,072 42,498 50,574 CNG Expenditures (10,536) (93,072) (40,680) (52,392) Net ( + / - ) 3,990 0 1,817 (1,817)

Rental Car Mitigation Revenues 2,793 80,000 34,958 45,042 Rental Car Mitigation Expenditures (347) (93,430) (32,760) (60,670) Net ( + / - ) 2,446 (13,430) 2,198 (15,628)

Regional Contributions (TRPA) 7,000 60,000 35,000 25,000 Regional Contribution Expenditures (5,000) (60,000) (5,000) (55,000) Net ( + / - ) 2,000 0 30,000 (30,000)

Member Agencies Contributions 0 55,000 3,059 51,941 Member Contribution Expenditures (2,605) (37,158) (15,458) (21,700) Net ( + / - ) (2,605) 17,842 (12,399) 30,241

Passthrough Revenue - Placer Co 24,661 63,320 135,280 (71,960) Passthrough Expenditures - Placer Co. (24,661) (63,320) (135,280) 71,960 Net ( + / - ) 0 0 0 (0)

Transit Administration Revenue 372,477 3,201,749 402,477 2,799,272 Transit Administration Expenditures (230,718) (3,201,749) (265,164) (2,936,585) Net ( + / - ) 141,759 0 137,313 (137,313)

Transit Capital Revenue 0 364,000 0 364,000 Transit Capital Expenditures 0 (364,000) 0 (364,000) Net ( + / - ) 0 0 0 0

Revenue 604,149 11,217,183 1,563,051 9,654,132 Expenses (456,559) (11,213,541) (1,386,098) (9,827,443) Net ( + / - ) 147,589 3,642 176,953 (173,311)

Fund Balance 38,137 FY 2011 Profit/(Loss) 176,953 TTD BOARDFund Balance PACKET @- JAN. 11/30/10 21, 2011 215,090 -PAGE 14- JS/jw AGENDA ITEM: VIII.A. Tahoe Transportation District ATTACHMENT B Transit Operations Financial Statement of Operations For Period July 1, 2010 through November 30, 2010

Actual Annual Actual Nov Budget YTD Variance Revenue

TRANSIT Farebox Revenue 26,455 525,000 26,455 498,545 FTA 5311 NDOT 55,610 721,155 55,610 665,545 Private Contributions 157,079 925,540 157,079 768,461 Local Governments 133,333 712,062 163,333 548,729 FTA 5311 CMAQ 150,000 150,000 Carson City RTC 75,000 75,000 FTA 5311 CalTrans 92,992 92,992 SNPLMA 0 0 Revenue Total 372,477 3,201,749 402,477 2,799,272

Expenses

Transit Contracts 168,265 2,147,216 168,265 1,978,951 Repairs & Maintenance 23,840 100,000 23,840 76,160 Vehicle Fuel 21,557 348,530 21,557 326,973 Legal 67,500 10,693 56,808 Facility Rent 4,948 31,900 4,948 26,952 Facility Utilities 2,441 37,500 2,441 35,059 Reproduction & Printing 634 29,400 634 28,766 Supplies 399 1,500 399 1,101 Auto-In State 130 130 Insurance 9,500 9,500 Advertising 15,000 15,000 Legal Notices 2,500 2,500 Telephone 16,929 16,929 License & Permits 225 225 Subscriptions & Publications 1,000 1,000 Professional Services 41,250 41,250 Audit Services 4,800 4,800 Training 1,625 1,625 Bank & CC Fees 1,800 1,800 Misc 37,343 37,343 Transit Staff 8,634 306,101 32,388 273,713 Expense Total 230,718 3,201,749 265,164 2,936,585

Revenue Total 372,477 3,201,749 402,477 2,799,272 Expenditure Total 230,718 3,201,749 265,164 2,936,585 Net + / (-) 141,759 0 137,313 -137,313

TTD BOARDJS/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 15- AGENDA ITEM: VIII.A.

MEMORANDUM

Date: January 17, 2011

To: Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) Board of Directors

From: TTD Staff

Subject: Cooperative Agreement Between Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Related to the State Route 89 Realignment and Fanny Bridge Rehabilitation Project

Action Requested: It is requested the Board authorize the District Manager to execute a Cooperative Agreement between the Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) related to the State Route 89 Realignment/Fanny Bridge Project upon final review from District Legal Counsel.

Background: In July 2010, TRPA Transportation Staff executed a contract with Wood Rodgers, Inc. to assist in the development of a Caltrans level Project Report (PR) for the State Route 89 Realignment/ Fanny Bridge Project (Project) as required within the Project Approval/Environmental Document (PA/ED) Phase. Since the execution of the Task Order, several Project Development Team meetings have been held with attendance by Caltrans, the United States Forest Service, Tahoe City Public Utility District, Placer County, California State Parks, and the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. While certain tasks have been put on hold related to the environmental document, work has proceeded related to Project Report, specifically topographic survey work, control survey, utility locate/verification, preliminary right-of-way mapping, aerial photography, geometric engineering, traffic analysis, and structural analysis. Additionally, six (6) alternatives have been developed for the Project for review and consideration by the PDT and the public, however, prior to proceeding with any additional work, Caltrans has requested that a Project Cooperative Agreement (co-op) be developed and executed, consistent with Caltrans Project Development Procedures.

Discussion: Per Chapter 16 of the Caltrans Project Development Procedures, “Projects on the State Highway System often involve a partnership of funding and responsibilities for doing the work. Whenever there is an exchange of effort, funding, or materials between the State and another local entity, for work on the State Highway System, a cooperative agreement is necessary.” The co-op is permitted under Streets and Highway Code, Section 114 and 138 and allows Caltrans to have other entities fulfill their responsibilities to the State Highway System. This agreement defines the roles, responsibilities, and obligations of both the TTD and Caltrans for

AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VIII.B.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 16-

PA/ED activities for this phase of the Project. Subsequent phases of the Project (Right of Way, Plans, Specifications & Estimate, construction, etc.) will be the subject of a future amendment to this co-op or a separate co-op.

A co-op has been drafted by Caltrans District 3 and has been submitted to the TTD for review and approval (see Attachment A). At present time, the co-op has been submitted to District Legal Counsel for review and consideration. In an effort to maintain the project schedule and maximize the 2011 field season, Staff is recommending approval and execution of the co-op following final review by District Legal Counsel. An initial review of the co-op has been conducted by TTD Staff and all language is consistent with Caltrans boilerplate co-op’s.

Additional Information: If you have any questions or comments regarding this item, please contact Alfred Knotts at [email protected] or (775) 589-5503.

Attachment: A. Draft Cooperative Agreement Between Caltrans and TTD

AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VIII.B.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 17- ATTACHMENT A District Agreement No. 03-0467

PLA-89-PM 7.5/9.4 Realignment of SR 89 in Tahoe City E.A. No. 03-3A7600 District Agreement No. 03-0467

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO AND EFFECTIVE ON ______, 20__, is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as “CALTRANS”, and the TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, a public corporation/entity, referred to herein as “TTD”.

RECITALS

1. CALTRANS and TTD, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code sections 114 and 130, are authorized to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for improvements to the State Highway System (SHS) within Tahoe City in Placer County.

2. TTD desires to realign State Route (SR) 89 in Tahoe City from PM 7.5 to 9.4, referred to herein as “PROJECT”.

3. “WORK” means all work reasonably necessary to complete PROJECT except CALTRANS’ Independent Quality Assurance (IQA) of PROJECT Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) and CALTRANS’ oversight for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process to FHWA as the NPEA Lead Agency, if NEPA applies, in the review, comment and approval of the PROJECT environmental documentation prepared entirely by TTD. TTD is willing to fund one hundred percent (100%) of all support costs for WORK.

4. CALTRANS’ funds will not be used to finance any of the WORK costs except as set forth in this Agreement.

5. PROJECT plans specifications and estimates (PS&E), right of way (R/W) and construction will be the subject of a separate future agreement.

6. This Agreement will define the roles and responsibilities of the CEQA Lead Agency and CEQA Responsible Agency regarding environmental documentation, studies, and reports necessary for compliance with CEQA. This Agreement will also define the roles and responsibilities of the parties for compliance with NEPA, if NEPA applies

7. The parties now define herein below the terms and conditions under which PROJECT is to be developed, designed, and financed.

1 AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VIII.B.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 18- ATTACHMENT A District Agreement No. 03-0467 SECTION I

TTD AGREES:

1. To fund one hundred percent (100%) of all WORK costs.

2. To prepare all PROJECT environmental review documentation.

3. To not use CALTRANS’ funds for WORK costs except as set forth in this Agreement.

4. WORK performed by TTD, or performed on TTD’s behalf, shall be performed in accordance with all State and Federal laws, regulations, policies, procedures, and standards that CALTRANS would normally follow as shown in Exhibit B, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. WORK shall be submitted to CALTRANS for CALTRANS’ review, comment, concurrence, and/or acceptance at crucial stages of development.

5. WORK, except as set forth in this Agreement, is to be performed by TTD. Should TTD request CALTRANS to perform any portion of WORK, except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement, TTD shall first agree to reimburse CALTRANS for such work pursuant to an amendment to this Agreement.

6. To have Project Reports (PRs) prepared, at no cost to CALTRANS, and to submit each to CALTRANS for CALTRANS’ review, concurrence, and/or approval at appropriate stages of development. PRs for PROJECT shall be signed on behalf of TTD by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California. TTD agrees to provide landscape plans prepared and signed by a licensed California Landscape Architect.

7. To permit CALTRANS to monitor, participate, and review selection of personnel who will prepare the PR, prepare environmental documentation, including the investigative studies and technical environmental reports for PROJECT. TTD agrees to consider any request by CALTRANS to avoid a contract award or to discontinue services of any personnel considered by CALTRANS to be unqualified on the basis of credentials, professional expertise, failure to perform, and/or other pertinent criteria.

8. Personnel who prepare environmental documentation, including investigative studies and technical environmental reports shall be made available to CALTRANS, at no cost to CALTRANS, through completion of PROJECT construction to discuss problems which may arise during PS&E, R/W, and construction phases of the PROJECT, and/or to supplement environmental documentation.

9. Personnel who prepare the preliminary engineering, including investigative studies, shall be made available to CALTRANS, at no cost to CALTRANS, through completion of PROJECT construction to discuss problems which may arise during PS&E, R/W, and construction phases of the PROJECT, and/or to make design revisions for contract change orders.

10. To make written application to CALTRANS for necessary encroachment permits authorizing entry of TTD onto SHS right of way to perform required WORK as more specifically defined elsewhere in this Agreement. TTD shall also require TTD’s consultants and contractors to make written application to CALTRANS for the same necessary encroachment permits.

2 AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VIII.B.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 19- ATTACHMENT A District Agreement No. 03-0467

11. To be responsible for the investigation of potential hazardous material sites within and outside existing SHS right of way that could impact PROJECT. If CALTRANS is not reasonably satisfied with TTD’s investigation of hazardous material sites, it may request further action by TTD. If TTD discovers hazardous material or contamination within the PROJECT study area during said investigation, TTD shall notify CALTRANS as soon as practicable.

SECTION II

CALTRANS AGREES:

1. At no cost to TTD, if NEPA applies, to provide review, comment and approval as the NEPA Lead Agency of the environmental documentation prepared entirely by TTD and to provide IQA of all TTD’s WORK necessary for completion of the environmental documentation and PR for PROJECT done by TTD, including, but not limited to, investigation of potential hazardous material sites undertaken by TTD or its designee, and to provide prompt reviews, comments, concurrence, and/or approvals as appropriate, of submittals by TTD, while cooperating in timely processing of documents necessary for completion of the environmental documentation and the PRs for PROJECT.

2. To provide encroachment permits at no cost to TTD and its staff, agents, and contractors.

SECTION III

IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:

1. All obligations of CALTRANS under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the appropriation of necessary resources by the Legislature, State Budget Act authority and the allocation of funds by the California Transportation Commission (CTC).

2. CALTRANS invoices support costs including all direct and applicable indirect costs. Applicable indirect costs are determined by the type of funds being used to pay for support. State and federal funds are subject to the Program Functional Rate. Local funds (measure money, developer fees, special assessments, etc.) are subject to the Program Functional Rate and the Administration Rate. CALTRANS establishes the Program Functional Rate and the Administration Rate annually according to State and Federal regulations.

3. The parties to this Agreement understand and agree that CALTRANS’ Independent Quality Assurance (IQA) is to ensure TTD’s activities result in WORK being developed in accordance with the standards and procedures agreed to in this Agreement. IQA does not include any work necessary to actually develop or deliver WORK nor any validation by verifying nor rechecking work performed by TTD, nor providing guidance to TTD and no liability will be assignable to CALTRANS, its officers and employees by TTD under the terms of this Agreement or by third parties by reason of CALTRANS’ IQA activities.

4. The Project Study Report (PSR) for PROJECT, approved on March 12, 2002, is by this reference, made an express part of this Agreement. The description of PROJECT is defined in the PSR.

3 AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VIII.B.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 20- ATTACHMENT A District Agreement No. 03-0467

5. The investigative studies and technical reports for PROJECT shall be performed in accordance with all applicable Federal and CALTRANS standards and practices current as of the date of performance.

6. The preparation of the environmental documentation, including the investigative studies and technical environmental reports, shall be performed in accordance with all State and Federal laws, regulations, policies, procedures, and standards current as of the date of performance including, but not limited to, the guidance provided in the Standard Environmental Reference available at www.dot.ca.gov/ser and if applicable, the guidance provided in the FHWA Environmental Guidebook available at www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/index.htm.

7. TTD will be the CEQA Lead Agency and CALTRANS will be a CEQA Responsible Agency. CALTRANS will be the NEPA Lead Agency, if NEPA applies. TTD will assess PROJECT impacts on the environment and TTD will prepare the appropriate level of environmental documentation and necessary associated supporting investigative studies and technical environmental reports in order to meet the requirements of CEQA and if NEPA applies, NEPA. TTD will submit to CALTRANS all investigative studies and technical environmental reports for CALTRANS’ review, comment, and concurrence as the CEQA Responsible Agency and if NEPA applies, CALTRANS’ review, comment and approval as the NEPA Lead Agency. The environmental document and/or categorical exemption/exclusion determination, including the administrative draft, draft, administrative final, and final environmental documentation, as applicable, will require CALTRANS’ review, comment, and concurrence as the CEQA Responsible Agency and if NEPA applies, CALTRANS’ review, comment, and approval as the NEPA Lead Agency, prior to public availability.

If, during preparation of preliminary engineering, preparation of the PS&E, performance of right of way activities, or performance of PROJECT construction, new information is obtained which requires the preparation of additional environmental documentation to comply with CEQA and if NEPA applies, NEPA, this Agreement will be amended to include completion of those additional tasks by TTD.

8. TTD shall be responsible for preparing, submitting, publicizing and circulating all public notices related to the CEQA environmental process, including, but not limited to, notice(s) of availability of the environmental document and/or determinations and notices of public meetings/hearings. TTD, as a PROJECT cost, shall be responsible for preparing, submitting, publicizing and circulating all public notices related to the NEPA environmental process if NEPA applies, including, but not limited to, notice(s) of availability of the environmental document and/or determinations and notices of public meetings/hearings. If CALTRANS is not reasonably satisfied with TTD’s notice related to the NEPA, it may request further action by TTD. Public notices shall comply with all State and Federal laws, regulations, policies and procedures. TTD shall provide CALTRANS the opportunity to provide comments on any public notices at least ten (10) days prior to circulation of such notices. CALTRANS maintains final editorial control of public notices for NEPA, if NEPA applies. The cost to review, approve, prepare, submit, publicize and/or circulate the public notice(s) is a WORK cost. CALTRANS will work with the appropriate Federal agency to publish notices in the Federal Register, if NEPA applies.

4 AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VIII.B.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 21- ATTACHMENT A District Agreement No. 03-0467 TTD shall be responsible for planning, scheduling and holding of all public meetings/hearings related to the CEQA environmental process. CALTRANS shall be responsible for overseeing the planning, scheduling and holding of all public meetings/hearings related to the NEPA environmental process, if NEPA applies. TTD, to the satisfaction of CALTRANS and subject to all of CALTRANS’ and FHWA’s policies and procedures, shall be responsible for performing the planning, scheduling and details of holding all public meetings/hearings related to the NEPA environmental process, if NEPA applies. TTD will participate as the CEQA Lead Agency, and CALTRANS, will participate as the NEPA Lead Agency, if NEPA applies, in all public meetings/hearings related to the CEQA environmental process and if NEPA applies, the NEPA environmental process, for PROJECT. TTD shall provide CALTRANS the opportunity to provide comments on any public meeting/hearing exhibits, handouts or other materials at least ten (10) days prior to any such public meetings/hearings. CALTRANS maintains final editorial control of exhibits, handouts or other materials to be used at public meetings/hearings for NEPA, if NEPA applies. The cost to oversee, plan, schedule, hold, and participate in the public meetings/hearings related to the CEQA environmental process and if NEPA applies, the NEPA environmental process, for PROJECT is a WORK cost

9. CALTRANS and TTD, as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, will coordinate, obtain, implement, renew and amend the necessary regulatory agency permits, agreements, and/or approvals. The reasonable cost to coordinate, obtain, implement, renew and amend the necessary regulatory agency permits, agreements, and/or approvals is a WORK cost.

10. TTD will prepare the applications for any required regulatory agency permits, agreements and/or approvals for PROJECT, unless otherwise set forth in Exhibit A. TTD will submit all said applications to CALTRANS for review, comment and approval. TTD will submit the final applications to the appropriate regulatory agencies, unless otherwise set forth in Exhibit A. The costs to prepare, review, comment, and submit the application to the appropriate regulatory agency is a WORK cost.

13. CALTRANS and TTD will comply with all of the commitments and conditions set forth in the environmental documentation, permits, approvals, and applicable agreements as those commitments and conditions apply to each parties’ responsibilities in this Agreement.

14. If there is a legal challenge to the environmental documentation, including investigative studies and/or technical environmental report(s), permits, agreements, and/or approval(s) for PROJECT, all legal costs associated with those said legal challenges shall be a WORK cost.

15. All administrative draft and administrative final reports, studies, materials, and documentation relied upon, produced, created or utilized for WORK will be held in confidence to the extent permitted by law, and where applicable, the provisions of California Government Code section 6254.5(e) shall govern the disclosure of such documents in the event said documents are shared between the Parties. Parties will not distribute, release, or share said documents with anyone other than employees, agents, and consultants who require access to complete the work described herein this Agreement without the written consent of the party authorized to release them, unless required or authorized to do so by law.

16. The party that discovers hazardous material (HM) will, as soon as practicable, notify the other party to this Agreement.

5 AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VIII.B.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 22- ATTACHMENT A District Agreement No. 03-0467

HM-1 is defined as hazardous material (including but not limited to hazardous waste) that requires removal and disposal pursuant to federal or state law, whether it is disturbed by PROJECT or not.

HM-2 is defined as hazardous material (including but not limited to hazardous waste) that may require removal and disposal pursuant to federal or state law, only if disturbed by PROJECT.

17. CALTRANS, independent of PROJECT, is responsible for any HM-1 found within existing SHS right of way. CALTRANS will undertake HM-1 management activities with minimum impact to PROJECT schedule and will pay all costs associated with HM-1 management activities.

CALTRANS has no responsibility for management activities or costs associated with HM-1 found outside the existing SHS right of way.TTD is responsible for any HM-1 found within PROJECT limits outside existing SHS right of way. TTD will undertake, or cause to be undertaken, HM-1 management activities with minimum impact to PROJECT schedule, and TTD will pay, or cause to be paid, all costs associated with HM-1 management activities.

18. If HM-2 is found within the limits of PROJECT, the public agency responsible for advertisement, award, and administration of the PROJECT construction contract will be responsible for HM-2 management activities. Any management activity cost associated with HM-2 is a PROJECT construction cost.

19. Management activities associated with either HM-1 or HM-2 include, without limitation, any necessary manifest requirements and designation of disposal facility.

20. CALTRANS’ acquisition of or acceptance of title to any property on which any hazardous material is found will proceed in accordance with CALTRANS’ policy on such acquisition.

21. A separate Cooperative Agreement or agreements will be required to cover responsibilities and funding for the PS&E, R/W and construction phases of PROJECT.

22. Nothing within the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create rights in third parties not parties to this Agreement or to affect the legal liability of either party to the Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the development, design, construction, operation, or maintenance of the SHS and public facilities different from the standard of care imposed by law.

23. Neither CALTRANS nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by TTD and/or its agents under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction conferred upon TTD under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that TTD and/or its agents shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless CALTRANS and all its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under, including, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by TTD and/or its agents under this Agreement.

24. Neither TTD nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CALTRANS and/or its agents, 6 AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VIII.B.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 23- ATTACHMENT A District Agreement No. 03-0467 under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction conferred upon CALTRANS under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that CALTRANS and/or its agents shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless TTD and all its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under, including, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CALTRANS and/or its agents under this Agreement.

25. Prior to the commencement of any WORK pursuant to this Agreement, either CALTRANS or TTD may terminate this Agreement by written notice to the other party.

26. No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made by a formal amendment executed by the parties hereto and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the parties hereto.

8. The terms of this Agreement shall supersede any inconsistent terms of any prior Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or agreement relating to WORK.

9. Computation of time for the purposes of this Agreement shall be done in accordance with Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

12. This Agreement will terminate when WORK is completed and all parties have met all scope, cost, and schedule commitments included in this Agreement and have signed a cooperative agreement closure statement, which is a document signed by parties that verifies the completion of WORK.

However, all indemnification, document retention, audit, claims, environmental commitment, legal challenge, hazardous material, operation, maintenance and ownership articles will remain in effect until terminated or modified in writing by mutual agreement.

[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]

7 AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VIII.B.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 24- ATTACHMENT A District Agreement No. 03-0467

STATE OF CALIFORNIA TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT

______CINDY McKIM Director

GARY S. SIDHU, Deputy District Director CARL HASTY D3 Programming & Project Management District Manager, Tahoe Transportation District

Approved as to form and procedure: Approved as to form and procedure:

MEERA DANDAY PAUL G. TAGGART Department of Transportation Attorney Legal Counsel

Certified as to funds:

REBECCA PIKE District Project Control Officer

Certified as to financial terms and policies:

ANGIE VILORIA Accounting Administrator

8 AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VIII.B.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 25- ATTACHMENT A District Agreement No. 03-0467

EXHIBIT A

ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS, APPROVALS, & AGREEMENTS REQUIRED N/A COORDINATE PREPARE OBTAIN IMPLEMENT RENEW AMEND PERMITS, APPLICATION APPROVALS, & AGREEMENTS 404 USACOE TTD TTD TTD TTD TTD TTD 401 RWQCB TTD TTD TTD TTD TTD TTD NPDES SWRCB TTD TTD TTD TTD TTD TTD State Waste TTD TTD TTD TTD TTD TTD Discharge Requirements (Porter Cologne) RWQCB FESA Section 7 CALTRANS TTD CALTRANS TTD CALTRANS CALTRANS USFWS BO Section 7 CALTRANS TTD CALTRANS TTD CALTRANS CALTRANS USFWS FESA Section 7 CALTRANS TTD CALTRANS TTD CALTRANS CALTRANS NOAA/NMFS BO Section 7 CALTRANS TTD CALTRANS TTD CALTRANS CALTRANS NOAA/NMFS EFH - CALTRANS TTD CALTRANS TTD CALTRANS CALTRANS NOAA/NMFS Coastal N/A Development Permit CCC Fed. Coastal N/A Zone Mgt. Act – Consistency Determination CCC BCDC Permit N/A Fed. Coastal N/A Zone Mgt. Act – Consistency Determination BCDC 1602 DFG TTD TTD TTD TTD TTD TTD 2080.1 DFG TTD TTD TTD TTD TTD TTD 2080(B) DFG TTD TTD TTD TTD TTD TTD Air Quality CALTRANS TTD CALTRANS TTD CALTRANS CALTRANS Permits Section 106 CALTRANS TTD CALTRANS TTD CALTRANS CALTRANS

9 AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VIII.B.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 26- ATTACHMENT A District Agreement No. 03-0467 EXHIBIT B RESPONSIBILITY WBS Code WBS Description STATE TTD

PERFORM PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING STUDIES AND DRAFT PROJECT 2.160 REPORT X 2.160.05 UPDATED PROJECT INFORMATION X 2.160.05.05 APPROVED PID REVIEW X 2.160.05.10 GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION REVIEW X 2.160.05.15 MATERIALS INFORMATION REVIEW X 2.160.05.20 TRAFFIC DATA AND FORECASTS REVIEW X 2.160.05.25 GEOMETRICS REVIEW X 2.160.05.30 PROJECT SCOPE REVIEW X 2.160.05.35 PROJECT COST ESTIMATE REVIEW X 2.160.05.99 OTHER UPDATED PROJECT INFORMATION PRODUCTS X 2.160.10 ENGINEERING STUDIES X 2.160.10.10 TRAFFIC FORECASTS/MODELING X 2.160.10.15 GEOMETRIC PLANS FOR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES X 2.160.10.20 VALUE ANALYSIS X 2.160.10.25 HYDRAULICS/HYDROLOGY STUDIES X 2.160.10.30 HIGHWAY PLANTING DESIGN CONCEPTS X 2.160.10.35 TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS X 2.160.10.40 UPDATED RIGHT OF WAY DATA SHEET X 2.160.10.45 UTILITY LOCATIONS DETERMINED FOR PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING X 2.160.10.50 RAILROAD STUDY X 2.160.10.55 MULTI‐MODAL STUDY X 2.160.10.60 PARK & RIDE STUDY X 2.160.10.65 RIGHT OF WAY RELINQUISHMENT AND VACATION STUDY X 2.160.10.70 TRAFFIC STUDIES X 2.160.10.75 UPDATED MATERIALS INFORMATION X 2.160.10.80 UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION X STRUCTURES ADVANCE PLANNING STUDY [APS] AND PRELIMINARY X 2.160.10.85 ENGINEERING 2.160.10.90 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE REPORT X 2.160.10.95 UPDATED PRELIMINARY TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN X 2.160.10.99 OTHER ENGINEERING STUDIES X 2.160.15 DRAFT PROJECT REPORT X 2.160.15.05 COST ESTIMATES FOR ALTERNATIVES X 2.160.15.10 FACT SHEET FOR EXCEPTIONS TO DESIGN STANDARDS X 2.160.15.15 APPROVED EXCEPTIONS TO ENCROACHMENT POLICY X 2.160.15.20 DRAFT PROJECT REPORT X 2.160.15.25 DRAFT PROJECT REPORT CIRCULATION REVIEW & APPROVAL X 2.160.15.99 OTHER DRAFT PROJECT REPORT PRODUCTS X 2.160.20 ENGINEERING AND LAND NET SURVEYS X 2.160.20.25 EXISTING RECORDS X 2.160.20.30 LAND NET SURVEYS X 2.160.20.35 LAND NET MAP X

10 AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VIII.B.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 27- ATTACHMENT A District Agreement No. 03-0467 2.160.20.40 RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING PRODUCTS X 2.160.20.50 CONTROL SURVEYS X 2.160.20.55 PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MAPS AND PRODUCTS X 2.160.20.60 ENGINEERING SURVEYS X 2.160.20.65 AS‐BUILT CENTERLINE SURVEYS X 2.160.20.70 PAVEMENT SURVEYS X 2.160.30 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REQUEST [ESR] X 2.160.30.05 MAPS FOR ESR X 2.160.30.10 SURVEYS AND MAPPING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES X 2.160.30.15 PROPERTY ACCESS RIGHTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL/ENGINEERING STUDIES X 2.160.40 NEPA DELEGATION X NA 2.160.45 BASE MAPS AND PLAN SHEETS FOR PA&ED DEVELOPMENT X X PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND PREPARE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL X 2.165 DOCUMENT ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING OF ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED FOR STUDIES IN THE X 2.165.05 PID 2.165.05.05 PROJECT INFORMATION REVIEW X 2.165.05.10 PUBLIC AND AGENCY SCOPING PROCESS X 2.165.05.15 ALTERNATIVES FOR FURTHER STUDY X OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING OF ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED FOR X 2.165.05.99 STUDIES IN PID 2.165.10 GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES X 2.165.10.15 COMMUNITY IMPACT ANALYSIS LAND USE AND GROWTH STUDIES X 2.165.10.20 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND SCENIC RESOURCE EVALUATION X 2.165.10.25 NOISE STUDY X 2.165.10.30 AIR QUALITY STUDY X 2.165.10.35 WATER QUALITY STUDIES X 2.165.10.40 ENERGY STUDIES X 2.165.10.45 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT X 2.165.10.55 DRAFT RIGHT OF WAY RELOCATION IMPACT DOCUMENT X 2.165.10.60 LOCATION HYDRAULIC & FLOODPLAIN STUDY REPORTS X 2.165.10.65 PALEONTOLOGY STUDY X 2.165.10.70 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS COORDINATION X 2.165.10.75 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD X 2.165.10.80 HAZARDOUS WASTE INITIAL SITE ASSESSMENTS/INVESTIGATIONS X 2.165.10.85 HAZARDOUS WASTE PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATIONS X 2.165.10.99 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES X 2.165.15 BIOLOGICAL STUDIES X 2.165.15.05 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT X X 2.165.15.10 WETLANDS STUDY X 2.165.15.15 RESOURCE AGENCY PERMIT RELATED COORDINATION X X 2.165.15.20 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT STUDY [NES] REPORT X X 2.165.15.99 OTHER BIOLOGICAL STUDIES X 2.165.20 CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES X 2.165.20.05 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY X 2.165.20.05.05 AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS/STUDY AREA MAPS X X 2.165.20.05.10 NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION X

11 AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VIII.B.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 28- ATTACHMENT A District Agreement No. 03-0467 2.165.20.05.15 RECORDS AND LITERATURE SEARCH X 2.165.20.05.20 FIELD SURVEY X 2.165.20.05.25 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT [ASR] X 2.165.20.05.99 OTHER ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY PRODUCTS X 2.165.20.10 EXTENDED PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES X 2.165.20.10.05 NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION X 2.165.20.10.10 EXTENDED PHASE 1 PROPOSAL X 2.165.20.10.15 EXTENDED PHASE I FIELD INVESTIGATION X 2.165.20.10.20 EXTENDED PHASE I MATERIALS ANALYSIS X 2.165.20.10.25 EXTENDED PHASE I REPORT X 2.165.20.10.99 OTHER EXTENDED PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY PRODUCTS X 2.165.20.15 PHASE II ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES X 2.165.20.15.05 NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION X 2.165.20.15.10 PHASE II PROPOSAL X 2.165.20.15.15 PHASE II FIELD INVESTIGATION X 2.165.20.15.20 PHASE II MATERIALS ANALYSIS X 2.165.20.15.25 PHASE II REPORT X 2.165.20.15.99 OTHER EXTENDED PHASE II ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY PRODUCTS X 2.165.20.20 HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES X PRELIMINARY AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS/STUDY AREA MAPS FOR X 2.165.20.20.05 ARCHITECTURE 2.165.20.20.10 HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION REPORTS ‐ ARCHAEOLOGY X 2.165.20.20.15 HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION REPORTS ‐ ARCHITECTURE X 2.165.20.20.20 BRIDGE EVALUATION X 2.165.20.20.99 OTHER HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCE STUDY PRODUCTS X 2.165.20.25 CULTURAL RESOURCE COMPLIANCE CONSULTATION DOCUMENTS X 2.165.20.25.05 FINAL AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS/STUDY AREA MAPS X 2.165.20.25.10 PRC 5024.5 CONSULTATION X HISTORIC PROPERTY SURVEY REPORTS / HISTORIC RESOURCE COMPLIANCE X 2.165.20.25.15 REPORTS 2.165.20.25.20 FINDING OF EFFECT [FOE] X 2.165.20.25.25 ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA RECOVERY PLAN/TREATMENT PLAN X 2.165.20.25.30 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT [MOA] X 2.165.20.25.99 OTHER CULTURAL RESOURCE COMPLIANCE CONSULTATION PRODUCTS X 2.165.25 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT X 2.165.25.05 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT ANALYSIS X 2.165.25.10 SECTION 4[F] EVALUATION X X 2.165.25.15 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION / CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION [CE] DETERMINATION X 2.165.25.20 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL & OTHER REVIEWS X 2.165.25.25 APPROVAL TO CIRCULATE RESOLUTION X 2.165.25.30 ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION X 2.165.25.99 OTHER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PRODUCTS X 2.165.30 NEPA DELEGATION X NA 2.170 PERMITS AGREEMENTS AND ROUTE ADOPTIONS DURING PA&ED COMPONENT X 2.170.05 REQUIRED PERMITS X 2.170.10 PERMITS X 2.170.10.05 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT [404] X

12 AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VIII.B.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 29- ATTACHMENT A District Agreement No. 03-0467 2.170.10.10 U.S. FOREST SERVICE PERMIT[S] X 2.170.10.15 UA COAST GUARD PERMIT NA NA 2.170.10.20 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 1600 AGREEMENT[S] X 2.170.10.25 COASTAL ZONE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NA NA 2.170.10.30 LOCAL AGENCY CONCURRENCE/PERMIT X 2.170.10.40 WASTE DISCHARGE [NPDES] PERMIT[S] X 2.170.10.45 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE APPROVAL X X 2.170.10.50 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 401 PERMIT X 2.170.10.60 UPDATED ECR X 2.170.10.95 OTHER PERMITS X 2.170.15 RAILROAD AGREEMENTS X 2.170.15.05 PLAN APPROVAL X 2.170.15.10 SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND INSURANCE CLAUSES X 2.170.15.15 SERVICE CONTRACT FOR RAILROAD SERVICES X 2.170.15.20 CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT X 2.170.15.25 PUC EXHIBITS AND APPLICATION X 2.170.15.99 OTHER RAILROAD AGREEMENT PRODUCTS X 2.170.20 FREEWAY AGREEMENTS X X 2.170.20.05 DRAFT FREEWAY AGREEMENT X X 2.170.20.10 DRAFT FREEWAY AGREEMENT REVIEW X X 2.170.20.15 FINAL FREEWAY AGREEMENT X X 2.170.20.20 EXECUTED FREEWAY AGREEMENT X X 2.170.20.99 OTHER FREEWAY AGREEMENT PRODUCTS X 2.170.25 AGREEMENT FOR MATERIAL SITES X 2.170.30 EXECUTED MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT NA NA 2.170.40 ROUTE ADOPTIONS X 2.170.40.05 ROUTE ADOPTION MAP X 2.170.40.10 NEW CONNECTION REQUEST AND ROUTE ADOPTION CTC SUBMITTAL X 2.170.40.15 ROUTE ADOPTION AND PUBLIC ROAD CONNECTION PLACED ON CTC AGENDA X 2.170.40.99 OTHER ROUTE ADOPTION PRODUCTS X 2.170.45 MOU FROM TRIBAL EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OFFICE [TERO] X 2.170.55 NEPA DELEGATION X NA CIRCULATE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT AND SELECT PREFERRED X 2.175 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE X 2.175.05 DED CIRCULATION X 2.175.05.05 MASTER DISTRIBUTION AND INVITATION LISTS X NOTICES REGARDING PUBLIC HEARING & AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT X 2.175.05.10 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT 2.175.05.15 DED PUBLICATION AND CIRCULATION X 2.175.05.20 FEDERAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION [COASTAL ZONE] NA NA 2.175.05.99 OTHER DED CIRCULATION PRODUCTS X 2.175.10 PUBLIC HEARING X 2.175.10.05 NEED FOR PUBLIC HEARING DETERMINATION X 2.175.10.10 PUBLIC HEARING LOGISTICS X 2.175.10.15 DISPLAYS FOR PUBLIC HEARING X 2.175.10.20 SECOND NOTICES OF PUBLIC HEARING AND AVAILABILITY OF DED X 2.175.10.25 MAP DISPLAY AND PUBLIC HEARING PLAN X

13 AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VIII.B.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 30- ATTACHMENT A District Agreement No. 03-0467 2.175.10.30 DISPLAY PUBLIC HEARING MAPS X 2.175.10.35 PUBLIC HEARING X 2.175.10.40 RECORD OF PUBLIC HEARING X 2.175.10.99 OTHER PUBLIC HEARING PRODUCTS X 2.175.15 PUBLIC COMMENT RESPONSES AND CORRESPONDENCE X 2.175.20 PROJECT PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE X 2.175.20 NEPA DELEGATION X NA PREPARE AND APPROVE PROJECT REPORT AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL X 2.180 DOCUMENT 2.180.05 FINAL PROJECT REPORT X 2.180.05.05 UPDATED DRAFT PROJECT REPORT X 2.180.05.10 APPROVED PROJECT REPORT X 2.180.05.15 UPDATED STORM WATER DATA REPORT X 2.180.05.99 OTHER FINAL PROJECT REPORT PRODUCTS X 2.180.10 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT X 2.180.10.05 APPROVED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT X 2.180.10.05.05 DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT REVIEW X 2.180.10.05.10 REVISED DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT X 2.180.10.05.15 SECTION 4[F] EVALUATION X 2.180.10.05.20 FINDINGS X 2.180.10.05.25 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS X 2.180.10.05.30 CEQA CERTIFICATION X 2.180.10.05.35 FHWA APPROVAL X 2.180.10.05.40 SECTION 106 CONSULTATION AND MOA X 2.180.10.05.45 SECTION 7 CONSULTATION X 2.180.10.05.50 FINAL SECTION 4[F] STATEMENT X 2.180.10.05.55 FLOODPLAIN ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE FINDING X 2.180.10.05.60 WETLANDS ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE FINDING X 2.180.10.05.65 SECTION 404 COMPLIANCE X 2.180.10.05.70 MITIGATION MEASURES X 2.180.10.10 PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION OF FED AND RESPOND TO COMMENTS X 2.180.10.15 FINAL RIGHT OF WAY RELOCATION IMPACT DOCUMENT X 2.180.10.99 OTHER FED PRODUCTS X 2.180.15 COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT X 2.180.15.05 RECORD OF DECISION [NEPA] X 2.180.15.10 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION [CEQA] X 2.180.15.20 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD X 2.180.15.99 OTHER COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PRODUCTS X 2.180.20 NEPA DELEGATION X NA

14 AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VIII.B.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 31-

MEMORANDUM

Date: January 17, 2011

To: Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) Board of Directors

From: TTD Staff

Subject: Approval of Cooperative Agreement Between Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) and Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) Related to the State Route 28/State 431 Intersection Improvement Project

Action Requested: It is requested the Board authorize the District Manager to execute a Cooperative Agreement between the Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) and Nevada Department of Transportation related to the State Route 28/State 431 Intersection Improvement Project upon final review from District Legal Counsel.

Background: In April 2009, TTD staff attended a Project Kick-off meeting at NDOT Headquarters held to initiate the planning, design, and construction of the State Route 28/State 431 Intersection Improvement Project (Project). To facilitate progress on the project and to assist in offsetting expenditures of state funds which could otherwise be available for construction, TTD representatives discussed the possibility of providing NDOT with reimbursement costs related to 30% preliminary engineering costs, in an amount not to exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00). Additional project development support provided by the TTD was also discussed in the form of public outreach provided by the TTD at no cost to NDOT. This project development assistance is consistent with the TTD’s role as regional partner, whose role is to implant and facilitate implementation of regional significant transportation projects. Since that time, TTD staff has participated in several Project Development Team (PDT) meetings, reviewed and commented on project deliverables, and assisted in public outreach efforts.

Nevada Revised Statues (NRS) Chapter 277 states that “two or more public agencies may enter into a cooperative agreement for the joint exercise of any power, privilege and authority exercised or capable of exercise by one of those public agencies.” NRS Chapter 277 further states that the purpose of a Cooperative Agreement is “to define each party’s responsibilities.”

AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VIII.C.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 32-

Discussion: NDOT recently completed the preliminary engineering and design phase of the Project and is currently in the process of developing 100% plans and specifications for the Project. NDOT has already identified the necessary funding complete final design, bid and award, and construction. This funding will come in the form of State funds and includes the two million dollars ($2,000,000) estimated by the design engineer to complete construction. This State financial commitment is also outlined in the draft co-op. The current schedule identifies utility relocation during the 2011 construction season, with project construction slated for the 2012 construction season.

A co-op has been drafted by NDOT Headquarters and has been submitted to the TTD for review and approval (see Attachment A). At present time, the co-op has been submitted to TTD Legal Counsel for review and consideration. In an effort to maintain the project schedule, Staff is recommending approval and execution of the co-op following final review by TTD Legal Counsel. An initial review of the co-op has been conducted by TTD Staff and all language is consistent with NODT boilerplate co-op’s. In an effort to maximize the use of State Funds for final design and construction, staff recommends the TTD enter into a Cooperative Agreement with NDOT to provide with reimbursement costs related to 30% preliminary engineering costs, in an amount not to exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) which is an eligible activity under the half percent funding agreement and associated legislation.

Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impact associated with this item is approximately $100,000. All expenditures associated with this item are accounted for in the existing and proposed budget and/or TTD Capital Improvement Program with all funding coming from Federal Land’s Highway funds.

Work Program Impact: All work associated with this effort will be captured Work Element 3.5 of the existing FY 10/11 Work Program and corresponding allotted staff time.

Additional Information: If you have any questions or comments regarding this item, please contact Alfred Knotts at [email protected] or (775) 589-5503.

Attachment: A. Draft Cooperative Agreement Between NDOT and TTD

AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: VIII.C.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 33- ATTACHMENT A

Agreement Number ______

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT

This Agreement is made and entered into this ______day of ______, _____, by and between the STATE OF NEVADA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter called the DEPARTMENT, and the TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, hereinafter called the DISTRICT.

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, Nevada Revised Statues chapter 277 provides that two or more public agencies may enter into a cooperative agreement for the joint exercise of any power, privilege and authority exercised or capable of exercise by one of those public agencies; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions contained in Chapter 408 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, the Director of the DEPARTMENT may enter into agreements necessary to carry out the provisions of that chapter; and

WHEREAS, NRS 277.110 authorizes any two or more public agencies to enter into agreements for joint or cooperative action; and

WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement are public agencies and authorized to enter into agreement in accordance with NRS 277.080 to 277.110; and

WHEREAS, the purpose of this Agreement is to define each party’s responsibilities concerning the preliminary engineering and design, utility relocation/adjustments, construction, cooperation, public outreach, and cost participation for a roundabout at the intersection of State Route (SR 28) and State Route (SR 431), hereinafter called the PROJECT; and

WHEREAS, the PROJECT will be of benefit to the DEPARTMENT, the DISTRICT and to the people of the State of Nevada; and

WHEREAS, the DEPARTMENT will advertise, award, and administer the PROJECT; and

WHEREAS, the parties hereto are willing and able to perform the services described herein;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants herein contained, it is agreed as follows:

ARTICLE I - DISTRICT AGREES

1. To reimburse the DEPARTMENT within thirty (30) days after receipt of the DEPARTMENT’s invoice for 30% of the preliminary engineering costs, in an amount not to exceed One Hundred Thousand and NO/100 Dollars ($100,000.00), provided that such funds are actually received by DISTRICT for pass-through purposes.

2. To provide, at no expense to the DEPARTMENT, public outreach services for the PROJECT in advance of the DEPARTMENT’s standard public meeting with the

1 TTD BOARDAK/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 34- AGENDA ITEM: VIII.C. ATTACHMENT A

DEPARTMENT’s concurrence that the public outreach strategies conform to the DEPARTMENT’s standard outreach practice. The DISTRICT will work in conjunction with the DEPARTMENT to coordinate schedules and communicate content about the PROJECT to be presented by the DISTRICT.

3. To obtain approval by the DEPARTMENT for all information that will be presented to the public for the PROJECT as part of the DISTRICT’s public outreach services.

4. To invite the DEPARTMENT to all public meetings presented by the DISTRICT.

ARTICLE II - DEPARTMENT AGREES

1. To fund the PROJECT preliminary engineering with State funds, estimated to be Two Hundred and Sixty Thousand and NO/100 Dollars ($260,000.00).

2. To fund the PROJECT’s construction and construction engineering costs with State Funds, estimated to be Two Million and NO/100 Dollars ($2,000,000).

3. To establish a Project Identification Number to track all PROJECT costs.

4. To prepare preliminary and final contract plans, specifications and estimates concerning engineering and construction of the PROJECT.

5. To advertise, award and administer the PROJECT.

6. To provide three (3) copies of the preliminary plans and specifications for review and comment, and to invite the DISTRICT to the specification review meeting to address said comments.

7. To bill the DISTRICT for 30% of the preliminary engineering costs, in an amount not to exceed One Hundred Thousand and NO/100 Dollars ($100,000.00).

8. To review and approve the content that the DISTRICT will be presenting as part of the DISTRICT’s public outreach services for the PROJECT.

9. To require all utilities under revocable permit to relocate, adjust or remove those utility facilities in conflict with the PROJECT at no cost to the PROJECT.

ARTICLE III - IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED

1. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first written above through and including the _____ day of ______, ____, or until construction of all improvements contemplated herein have been completed and accepted by the DEPARTMENT, save and except the responsibility for maintenance as specified herein, whichever occurs first.

2. This Agreement may be terminated by either party prior to the date set forth above, provided that a termination shall not be effective until thirty (30) days after a party has served written notice upon the other party. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual consent of both parties or unilaterally by either party without cause.

2 TTD BOARDAK/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 35- AGENDA ITEM: VIII.C. ATTACHMENT A

3. The parties expressly agree that the funding obligations of the parties under this Agreement shall be reduced to the extent that Federal and/or State funding is withdrawn, limited, or impaired for any reason.

4. All notices or other communications required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given if delivered personally in hand, by telephonic facsimile or electronic mail with simultaneous regular mail, or mailed certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid on the date posted, and addressed to the other party at the address set forth below:

FOR DEPARTMENT: Susan Martinovich, P.E., Director Attn.: Nick Johnson, P.E. Nevada Department of Transportation Roadway Design Division 1263 South Stewart Street Carson City, NV 89712 Phone: (775) 888-7653 Fax: (775) 888-7401 E-mail: [email protected]

FOR DISTRICT: Carl Hasty, District Manager Tahoe Transportation District P.O. Box 499 Zephyr Cove, NV 89448 128 Market Street, Suite 3-F Stateline, NV 89449 Phone: (775) 589-5501 Fax: (775) 588-0917 E - mail: [email protected]

5. The total PROJECT costs shall be determined by adding together the total costs incurred by the DEPARTMENT. The DEPARTMENT does not provide any warranty that the estimate of costs is an accurate reflection of the final cost. The DEPARTMENT disclaims any such warranty. The final costs may vary widely depending on the contractor’s actual bid prices.

6. The DEPARTMENT will award a contract or contracts for the PROJECT in accordance with its rules and procedures under the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. The DEPARTMENT has the right to reject any and all bid proposals determined not to be in the best interest of the State.

7. Construction engineering costs will be the actual construction engineering costs incurred by the DEPARTMENT during the construction of the PROJECT.

8. Should this Agreement be terminated by the DISTRICT prior to completion of the PROJECT preliminary engineering, the DISTRICT will reimburse the DEPARTMENT for all preliminary engineering costs incurred up to the point of Agreement termination, and all costs incurred by the DEPARTMENT because of the termination. The amount of such reimbursement shall not exceed the amount of funds which have actually been received by the DISTRICT for pass-through purposes, and shall never exceed $100,000.

9. Neither party shall be deemed to be in violation of this Agreement if it is

3 TTD BOARDAK/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 36- AGENDA ITEM: VIII.C. ATTACHMENT A

prevented from performing any of its obligations hereunder due to strikes, failure of public transportation, civil or military authority, act of public enemy, accidents, fires, explosions, or acts of God, including without limitations, earthquakes, floods, winds or storms. In such an event the intervening cause must not be through the fault of the party asserting such an excuse, and the excused party is obligated to promptly perform in accordance with the terms of the Agreement after the intervening cause ceases.

10. To the fullest extent of NRS Chapter 41 liability limitations, each party shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend, not excluding the other’s right to participate, the other from and against all liability, claims, actions, damages, losses, and expenses, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, caused by the negligence, errors, omissions, recklessness or intentional misconduct of its own officers, employees and agents. Such obligation shall not be construed to negate, abridge, or otherwise reduce any other right or obligation of indemnity which would otherwise exist as to any party or person described herein. This indemnification obligation is conditioned upon the performance of the duty of the party seeking indemnification (indemnified party), to serve the other party (indemnifying party) with written notice of actual or pending claim, within thirty (30) days of the indemnified party’s notice of actual or pending claim or cause of action. The indemnifying party shall not be liable for reimbursement of any attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the indemnified party due to said party exercising its right to participate with legal counsel.

11. The parties do not waive, and intend to assert, available NRS Chapter 41 liability limitations in all cases. Any potential liability of the parties under this Agreement shall not include punitive damages. Actual damages for any DEPARTMENT breach shall never exceed the amount of funds which have been appropriated for payment under this Agreement, but not yet paid, for the fiscal year budget in existence at the time of the breach. Actual damages for any DISTRICT breach shall not exceed the amount of funds which have actually been received by the DISTRICT for pass-through purposes, and shall never exceed $100,000.

12. Failure to declare a breach or the actual waiver of any particular breach of the Agreement or its material or nonmaterial terms by either party shall not operate as a waiver by such party of any of its rights or remedies as to any other breach.

13. An alteration ordered by the DEPARTMENT which substantially changes the services provided for by the expressed intent of this Agreement will be considered extra work, and shall be specified in an Amendment which will set forth the nature and scope thereof. The method of payment for extra work shall be specified at the time the amendment is written.

14. This Agreement and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall be governed by, and construed according to, the laws of the State of Nevada. The parties consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Nevada state district courts for enforcement of this Agreement.

15. The illegality or invalidity of any provision or portion of this Agreement shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the Agreement and this Agreement shall be construed as if such provision did not exist. The unenforceability of such provision shall not be held to render any other provision or provisions of this Agreement unenforceable.

16. Except as otherwise expressly provided within this Agreement, all or any property presently owned by either party shall remain in such ownership upon termination of this Agreement, and there shall be no transfer of property between the parties during the course of this Agreement.

4 TTD BOARDAK/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 37- AGENDA ITEM: VIII.C. ATTACHMENT A

17. It is specifically agreed between the parties executing this Agreement that it is not intended by any of the provisions of any part of the Agreement to create in the public or any member thereof a third party beneficiary status hereunder, or to authorize anyone not a party to this Agreement to maintain a suit for personal injuries or property damage pursuant to the terms or provisions of this Agreement.

18. Each party agrees to keep and maintain under generally accepted accounting principles full, true and complete records and documents pertaining to this Agreement and present, at any reasonable time, such information for inspection, examination, review, audit and copying at any office where such records and documentation is maintained. Such records and documentation shall be maintained for three (3) years after final payment is made.

19. The parties are associated with each other only for the purposes and to the extent set forth in this Agreement. Each party is and shall be a public agency separate and distinct from the other party and shall have the right to supervise, manage, operate, control and direct performance of the details incident to its duties under this Agreement. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to create a partnership or joint venture, to create relationships of an employer-employee or principal-agent, or to otherwise create any liability for one agency whatsoever with respect to the indebtedness, liabilities, and obligations of the other agency or any other party.

20. In connection with the performance of work under this Agreement, the parties agree not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation or age, including, without limitation, with regard to employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including, without limitation, apprenticeship. The parties further agree to insert this provision in all subcontracts hereunder, except subcontracts for standard commercial supplies or raw materials.

21. Neither party shall assign, transfer or delegate any rights, obligations or duties under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party.

22. The parties hereto represent and warrant that the person executing this Agreement on behalf of each party has full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and that the parties are authorized by law to engage in the cooperative action set forth herein.

23. Pursuant to NRS 239.010, information or documents may be open to public inspection and copying. The parties will have the duty to disclose unless a particular record is confidential by law or a common law balancing of interests.

24. Each party shall keep confidential all information, in whatever form, produced, prepared, observed or received by that party to the extent that such information is confidential by law or otherwise required to be kept confidential by this Agreement.

25. This Agreement shall not become effective until and unless approved by appropriate official action of the governing body of each party.

26. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties and such is intended as a complete and exclusive statement of the promises, representations, negotiations, discussions, and other agreements that may have been made in connection with the subject

5 TTD BOARDAK/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 38- AGENDA ITEM: VIII.C. ATTACHMENT A

matter hereof. Unless an integrated attachment to this Agreement specifically displays a mutual intent to amend a particular part of this Agreement, general conflicts in language between any such attachment and this Agreement shall be construed consistent with the terms of this Agreement. Unless otherwise expressly authorized by the terms of this Agreement, no modification or amendment to this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties unless the same is in writing and signed by the respective parties hereto and approved by the Attorney General.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written.

TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT State of Nevada, acting by and through its BOARD OF DIRECTORS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

______Andrew Strain, Chair Susan Martinovich, Director

Approved as to Form: Approved as to Legality & Form:

______Attorney Deputy Attorney General

6 TTD BOARDAK/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 39- AGENDA ITEM: VIII.C.

MEMORANDUM

Date: January 17, 2011

To: Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) Board of Directors

From: TTD Staff

Subject: Update on Program of Projects Outreach Campaign - Completion of Phase I and Phase II Initiation

Action Requested: No action is requested with this item. This item is informational and for discussion.

Background: The District has adopted and implemented a long-term public information/education campaign approach for its program of projects. The campaign elements include research to understand public awareness in a measurable way; multi-media communication, including website and internet based; on-the-ground outreach; and follow-up analysis. The campaign also addresses two levels of public focus - local interest and regional or system perspective.

Discussion: The consultant team has been busy establishing the campaign over the last year and began implementing the first stage of outreach activities in conjunction with Staff, project consultants, and District partner agencies. The team first conducted community research to understand the differences and similarities between the communities of the south shore, Incline Village, and the north shore in Placer County. See Attachment A for a summary and graphs of the research. A series of press releases and an informational pamphlet were produced and released to highlight District actions over the last year (see Attachment B).

The case study for the District’s on-the-ground approach is found in Incline. The consultant team has a field person working with the community on local outreach for the roundabout project at SR28 and 431. Lee Koch is the consulting field representative and has been doing an outstanding job of working with local community members and NDOT to educate folks on the project, roundabouts in general, and soliciting input on the center feature of the roundabout as this will be an Incline Village gateway. The strategy for this approach reflects what was learned from the research and working with the local community. It is also a novel approach for our partner NDOT, as it is taking place well in advance and much more involved than their typical process. Staff and the team works with NDOT’s Public Information Office (PIO) in consultation and coordination on this project. The Incline project approach is an exemplar of the approach CH/jw AGENDA ITEM: IX.A.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 40- the District plans to take at the south and north shore communities. Ms. Koch will be present at the meeting to present the Incline outreach process.

The campaign team has also developed a revised website giving it a new look reflecting our new logo, tag line and mission statement. New features will include the use of social media, Facebook and Twitter, links which the District will use to reach new public audiences. Project links and applications are also being developed, giving the entire suite of online tools a streamlined coordinated look.

Lastly, Staff and the team have been preparing for its first open houses at the south and north shores. The District invited its transportation partner agencies and project consultants to join in a transportation system themed set of open houses, to be held on January 19 and 20 at the south and north shores respectively. The open houses will showcase the various road improvements, bike trail and pedestrian trail improvements, and transit improvements. Project materials were submitted by project consultants and agencies and the campaign team produced coordinated displays, executed a media plan, arranged the open houses, and made invitations to the community and partners (see Attachment C for announcements).

With the conclusion of the open houses and Incline outreach this spring, Staff and the campaign team will conclude the first phase of the campaign implementation. The next phase is to initiate an on-the-ground outreach presence and activity at the south and north shores; to develop a regional or system level focus to coincide with the programmatic EIR/EIS document development, and to develop the research needed for the next phase of the bike trail project plan implementation. A request for change of contract capacity in next item on the agenda is related to this next phase. The District also needs to begin considering what is needed to integrate the BlueGo transit system with the capital program and how to implement a successful outreach campaign for it.

Additional Information: If you have any questions or comments regarding this item, please contact Carl Hasty at (775) 589-5501 or [email protected].

Attachments: A. Research Summaries and Graphs B. Press Release copies and Project Pamphlet C. Open House Announcements

CH/jw AGENDA ITEM: IX.A.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 41- ATTACHMENT A

DATE: January 2011

TO: Tahoe Transportation District Staff

FROM: ESI

RE: Placer County Research and Outreach Summary

In preparation for the Placer County SR 89 Fanny Bridge Preservation Project and possible waterborne transportation project, E.S.I. reviewed past outreach moving towards implementation of these projects by community leaders. Additionally, in Fall 2009, a poll was conducted to determine attitudes towards transportation and transit among the registered voters in the Lake Tahoe portion of Placer County.

Previous polling had been conducted for TRPA since 2003, which included some transportation questions. Therefore, we were able to quantify to some extent shifts in the electorate's attitudes. Almost as many people walk and more bike today in this area than previously. More people ride the transit service and more people believe that transit service is critical to their community.

Today, a majority of people in Placer understand the link between the water quality of Lake Tahoe and transportation improvements. Likewise, the people see a link between transportation systems and their personal safety as residents within the Basin. They support expansion of the transportation system and the connectivity of that system.

While there was support for transportation, there was not wide-spread knowledge of the SR 89 Fanny Bridge Preservation Project. In particular, less than half the people in Tahoe City had knowledge of the project. Since there was a lack of knowledge about the project and since Tahoe City was the site of a significant challenge to EIP Project #856, we determined that additional information was required to package the project. In October 2010, two Focus Groups were convened specifically in Tahoe City- one of men and one of women - to conduct qualitative research for the project.

Our goal in the Focus Groups was to re-brand the project in a manner that would garner the greatest support. The thought was to shift the Focus from a By-pass to the Fanny Bridge Core of Tahoe City. We determined in the Focus Groups that this shift did indeed garner considerable support from the residents. They take huge pride in their historic components, as well as the character of Tahoe City itself. Hence, ESI recommends the project be known as the Fanny Bridge Preservation Project.

An Outreach Specialist will begin in Tahoe City, the area with the least knowledge of the project. The implementation is much the same as for the Incline Project - develop a speaker's bureau amongst local leaders and saturate the community with information about the project. Like Incline, the local community will be solicited for input on the center of the proposed round-about at the intersection of SR 89 and SR 28

TTD BOARDCH/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 42- AGENDA ITEM: IX.A. ATTACHMENT A

DATE: January 2011

TO: Tahoe Transportation District Staff

FROM: ESI

RE: El Dorado County Research and Outreach Summary

For many years, local people have been proposing changes to US 50 in El Dorado County and Douglas County at Stateline. In anticipation of this major project and its impact on Douglas County at Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County Fifth Supervisor District and the City of South Lake Tahoe, we conducted three focus groups in June and a follow-up quantitative survey in September 2010. One Focus Group was specific to the seasonal aquabus and the connectivity of the proposed improvements and comprised voters proportionately from outside the City limits, but within El Dorado County's 5th Supervisor District, the City of South Lake Tahoe and Douglas County, in Basin. One Focus Group was for those living closest to the casino core area where these changes will occur. The third Focus Group was made up of business owners along US 50 and immediate arterials from Stateline to Al Tahoe.

The poll results revealed a very discontent electorate in this Supervisor District. Most of the people in this area have been here for ten years or more and they are not comfortable with the direction things are going in the City or the County. As opposed to the rest of the Lake, fewer walk or bike here. They feel their infrastructure is not conducive to either. Most telling is that less than half the people even believe that the overall well-being of the Lake personally affects them. These results are almost 20 points less than in Placer County and Incline Village. Additionally, almost one-quarter believe that the TTD is part of TRPA. And, they do not like TRPA.

This is also the area serviced by Blue-Go, which was acquired by the TTD in Fall 2010. Ridership for the transit system is significantly higher in El Dorado County than any other county contiguous to the Basin.

From the Focus Groups, we learned that success of their transit system - dependability, improved parking, lighting and shelters - was closely tied with their views of any transportation system improvements in their community. This presents TTD an opportunity to lead.

Before approaching the US 50 project, the TTD needs to build trust in the community and awareness of the organization. To do this, it is important to share the research and four messages from the research, in order of their importance to the electorate with local leaders:

1. Implementing transportation system improvements directly impacts the clarity of the Lake. 2. The transportation improvements proposed for US 50 will positively impact safety. 3. Transportation improvements have the capacity to positively impact the economic condition of South Lake Tahoe. 4. The proposed transportation system improvements are connected.

TTD BOARDCH/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 43- AGENDA ITEM: IX.A. ATTACHMENT A

Placer County In-Basin Walking Habits Placer County In-Basin Bicycling Habits

100% 100% 86% 90% 90% 80% 78% 80% 80% 70% 70% 63% 60% 60% 54% 54% 50% 50% 46% 45% 40% 40% 35% 30% 30% 19% 22% 20% 13% 20% 10% 1% 0% 1% 10% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% Placer In-Basin 9/2009 Incline Village 9/2009 Placer In-Basin 4/2003 Placer In-Basin 9/2009 Incline Village 9/2009 Placer In-Basin 4/2003

Frequently/Infrequently Walk Do Not Walk Much Can’t Say Frequently/Infrequently Bicycle Do Not Bicycle Much Can’t Say

Placer County In-Basin Transit Habits Tahoe City Awareness of SR89 "Have You Read or Heard About the Fannie Bridge 100% Re-alignment Project or Not?" 80% 80% 72% 62% 100% 60% 35% 40% 80% 19% 18% 20% 60% 50% 3% 1% 3% 44% 0% 40% Placer In-Basin 9/2009 Incline Village 9/2009 Placer In-Basin 4/2003 20% 6% 0% Frequently/Infrequently Take The Shuttle Bus Do Not Take The Shuttle Bus Can’t Say Yes No Can’t Say

TTD BOARDCH/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 44- AGENDA ITEM: IX.A. ATTACHMENT A

Comparative Mood of South Lake Tahoe Mood of South Lake Tahoe Toward Their End of the Lake, Toward the Entire Basin Comparative to Placer and Incline Village Toward Their Respective Communities 100%

80% 70% 100% 58% 62% 60% 48% 45% 80% 73% 60% 40% 25% 28% 60% 51% 17% 19% 41% 20% 8% 11% 11% 40% 27% 21% 13% 0% 20% 8% 6% South Lake Placer In-Basin Incline 9/2009 In-Basin All 0% 9/2010 9/2009 South Lake 9/2010 Placer In-Basin 9/2009 Incline 9/2009 Right Direction Wrong Direction Can’t Say Right Direction Wrong Direction Can’t Say

Lake Tahoe Walking Habits Lake Tahoe Bicycling Habits

100% 100% 86% 90% 90% 77% 80% 80% 78% 80% 70% 70% 63% 56% 60% 60% 54% 54% 46% 45% 50% 50% 43% 40% 40% 35% 30% 21% 19% 22% 30% 20% 13% 20% 10% 2% 1% 0% 1% 10% 2% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% South Lake Placer In-Basin Incline Village Placer In-Basin South Lake Placer In-Basin Incline Village Placer In-Basin 9/2010 9/2009 9/2009 4/2003 9/2010 9/2009 9/2009 4/2003

Frequently/Infrequently Walk Do Not Walk Much Can’t Say Frequently/Infrequently Bicycle Do Not Bicycle Much Can’t Say

TTD BOARDCH/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 45- AGENDA ITEM: IX.A. ATTACHMENT A

Personal Attitudes Toward the Well-Being of the Lake

100% 90% 80% 70% 63% 63% 60% 44% 50% 42% 40% 28% 31% 30% 20% 23% 17% 20% 19% 8% 9% 7% 8% 10% 7% 3% 2% 3% 1% 2% 0% Directly Affects Indirectly Affects Affects Community Doesn't Affect At All Can't Say But Not You

South Lake 9/2010 Placer In-Basin 9/2009 Incline Village 9/2009 Placer In-Basin 4/2003

Is the TTD Part of TRPA or a Stand-Alone Agency? El Dorado Attitudes Toward TRPA "Among the Ninety Six Percent Aware of TRPA" 100% 90% 100% 80% 90% 68% 70% 80% 60% 53% 47% 70% 62% 50% 60% 40% 34% 30% 29% 50% 30% 23% 40% 20% 13% 30% 30% 10% 3% 20% 0% 8% South Lake 9/2010 Placer In-Basin 9/2009 Incline Village 9/2009 10% 0% Part of TRPA Stand Alone Can’t Say Favorable Unfavorable Can’t Say

TTD BOARDCH/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 46- AGENDA ITEM: IX.A. ATTACHMENT B

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Sept. 7, 2010

$20 MILLION FEDERAL GRANT FOR BIKEWAY AROUND LAKE TAHOE PURSUED BY TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT

(Stateline, Nev.) – A $20 million federal grant to fund a 75-mile bike path around Lake Tahoe is being pursued by the Tahoe Transportation District (http://www.tahoetransportation.org). Long- term community benefits of the proposed Lake Tahoe Bikeway include an increase to the estimated $23 million tourism dollars currently spent by cyclists in the Basin, the creation of 295 jobs, a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 1,400 metric tons per year, as well as vehicle miles traveled, increased property values near the trail, and promotion of active and healthy Lake Tahoe communities for visitors and residents to enjoy.

A decision on the bi-state regional grant request being submitted to the U.S. Department of Transportation is expected by September 30, 2010. If awarded, $15 million will be used for construction of numerous bike trail segments in both the California and Nevada portions of the Lake Tahoe Basin, with $4.5 million slated for planning of additional regional bike networks. The Tahoe Transportation District facilitates community infrastructure projects to increase safety throughout the Tahoe Basin including roadways, sidewalks, public transportation and bike trails.

The goal of Lake Tahoe Bikeway Project also is to provide numerous communities with the following pedestrian and bike path improvements:

• Stateline area at North Shore to the Stateline, Nev. area at South Shore, with bikeway segments in Crystal Bay, South Lake Tahoe and along the east shore • Ski Run Marina and El Dorado Beach extension providing 4 new miles of path • El Dorado Beach to Ski Run Blvd Bike Trail with .75 miles of lake access enhancement • West Shore, Truckee River and North Shore trails by creating a continuous 18-mile network of pathway • Creating more than 30 miles of new trails to connect existing trails in Dollar Hill and Tahoe Vista • Improvements along SR 28 to include bicycle lanes and 10-foot sidewalks to enhance pedestrian and bicycle mobility and safety

TTD BOARDCH/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 47- AGENDA ITEM: IX.A. ATTACHMENT B

• An additional 1.1 miles of new pathway along the Kings Beach Commercial Corridor to complete future redevelopment efforts

“The Lake Tahoe Bikeway project will connect Tahoe Basin communities and increase tourism dollars in our area,” said Carl Hasty, TTD District Manager. “In addition to increasing public safety, health and air quality, the project positively affects the area’s transportation system sustainability through reduced greenhouse gas emissions, less dependence on oil and reduced traffic congestion.”

Overnight and day visitors to Lake Tahoe for cycling purposes generate an estimated $6 million to $23 million in local direct expenditures annually. This represents a favorable return on investment when compared to the average of $3 million per year (over the last 10 years) spent on construction of the existing network.

Lake Tahoe visitors utilizing bicycle paths show an average daily expenditure per visitor of approximately $30 to $124 per day, according to a regional survey by the Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization, Lake Tahoe Visitors Authority, North Lake Tahoe Resort Association and TRPA/Tahoe Coalition of Recreation Providers.

Other resort destination areas have conducted studies to understand the extent of direct expenditures related to bicycling on state and local economies. For example, the Colorado Department of Transportation found the total economic benefit from bicycling to the State of Colorado exceeding $1 billion annually.

For details pertaining to the Tahoe Transportation District and its current projects, visit www.TahoeTransportation.org or call (775) 589-5500.

Visitors coming to Lake Tahoe primarily for cycling purposes are estimated to bring between $6 and $23 million in local direct expenditures annually to local communities.

TTD BOARDCH/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 48- AGENDA ITEM: IX.A. ATTACHMENT B

Tahoe Transportation District has submitted for a $20 Million grant from the US Department of Transportation to fund the completion of the 75 mile bike path around Lake Tahoe.

# # # # #

Media Contact:

Alfred Knotts Principal Planner/Project Manager Tahoe Transportation District (775) 589-5503, or Jenna Palacio Weidinger Public Relations (775) 588-2412 [email protected]

Tahoe Transportation District

TTD BOARDCH/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 49- AGENDA ITEM: IX.A. ATTACHMENT B

The Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) is responsible for the implementation and management of transportation projects and programs in the Tahoe Basin. The organization has facilitated many area safety infrastructure projects, including bicycle paths, roadway improvements, pedestrian thoroughfares, water quality and water shed improvements and public transit solutions.

TTD BOARDCH/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 50- AGENDA ITEM: IX.A. ATTACHMENT B

November 10, 2010

TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT ASSUMES MANAGEMENT OF BLUEGO

Goal of New Administration to Provide Effective Transportation to Meet Community Needs

(Stateline, Nev.) - The Tahoe Transportation District has officially assumed administration of South Lake Tahoe’s regional transportation provider, Blue Go, following a court ruling issued earlier last week. Rates and routes will remain the same during the management transition as the Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) develops a long range plan for efficient, effective, and transparent operations. “With the introduction of an experienced management team, the Tahoe Transportation District will make efficient and convenient transportation a top priority,” said Carl Hasty, District Manager. “Our business model places several checks and balances on the team to ensure administration is responsible and held accountable.” Toward that end, TTD has established a local management team including district, operations, and fiscal managers to oversee organizational structure and ensure appropriate checks and balances are in place. This new team will keep service on track both fiscally and operationally by working directly on future applications for transportation grants, overseeing daily services, and working together to develop plans for the future. In addition to the these three managers, TTD’s board of directors bring years of proven and regionally relevant expertise to the table, with help from eleven transportation veterans hailing from organizations such as NDOT, Caltrans, and local representatives from districts in Carson City and Placer County. Delivering a breadth of knowledge in the transportation world from infrastructure development to transit operation, the TTD board will encourage participation from all members including representatives from regional authorities. “Carson City and Placer County already run their own transit systems,” said Andrew Strain, the TTD board chairman. “We are very fortunate to have that expertise on hand to help us in the restructuring of Blue Go.”

TTD BOARDCH/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 51- AGENDA ITEM: IX.A. ATTACHMENT B

TTD has begun seeking community input from Blue Go employees and riders in the reshaping of local transportation. Initial input has been incorporated into the development of a five-year plan that will be presented to board members November 12. The public is invited to attend the meeting and encouraged to provide additional comment. The board’s experience and organizational structure will emphasize the function of Blue Go as an effective regional service and business enterprise. With a structured budget and operational plan outlining the next five years of service, the board plans to address the community need for those who utilize public transportation by working with riders through surveys, focus groups and community meetings. “Building a stable and integrated transit system is a long term venture, one that starts with a good team, dependable service and solid community support,” said Hasty. For details pertaining to the Tahoe Transportation District and its current projects, visit www.TahoeTransportation.org or call (775) 589-5500.

Media Inquiries:

Alfred Knotts Principal Planner/Project Manager Tahoe Transportation District [email protected] (775) 589-5503, or

Carl Hasty District Manager Tahoe Transportation District [email protected] (775) 589-5501

#####

Tahoe Transportation District

TTD BOARDCH/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 52- AGENDA ITEM: IX.A. ATTACHMENT B

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

OUTREACH SPECIALIST APPOINTED FOR UPCOMING INCLINE VILLAGE HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

Nov. 4, 2010 (Stateline, Nev.) – Lee Weber-Koch of Weber & Associates was selected as the outreach specialist for community involvement and educational programs for various highway projects, including the Incline Gateway Roundabout at the intersection of State Routes 431 and 28.

Weber-Koch will work with the Tahoe Transportation District (http://www.tahoetransportation.org) in conjunction with the Nevada Department of Transportation (http://www.nevadadot.com) to develop a speaker’s bureau and organize recommendations for the roundabout centerpiece. Weber-Koch will schedule opportunities for community members to share their feedback, ideas and discuss the project’s benefits to the area.

The Incline Gateway Roundabout project is a safety solution for an intersection that has been the scene of numerous accidents and is slated for fall of 2011 with utility work. The roundabout completion is set for late 2012. NDOT will oversee the project and construction in partnership with TTD. The development is before the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency for permit approval and the utility relocation will require a permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Weber-Koch a 24-year Incline resident was chosen for her knowledge of the community and participation with local non-profits including: Arts Culture Heritage Committee of the Parasol Community Collaboration (Chairman); Incline Community Business Association (Corporate Member); Lake Tahoe Music Festival (Fund-raising Committee); Nevada Special Olympics (Marketing Consultant); Sierra Nevada Ballet (Board of Directors) and Tahoe Business Exchange (Educator).

Based on research, the Incline Gateway Roundabout was determined the best solution for the intersection due to notable safety increases and traffic flow benefits:

• Increased safety rating – higher than signalized intersections • Reduces frequency and severity of crashes • Reduces traffic delays/increases traffic capacity • Slows excessive traffic speeds while still improving traffic flow • Reduces long-term operational costs

TTD BOARDCH/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 53- AGENDA ITEM: IX.A. ATTACHMENT B

• More environmentally-friendly than traditional intersections due to less vehicle emissions, fuel use and noise

While other intersection alternatives were also reviewed, they neither met federal requirements nor did they provide the benefits of roundabouts. A comprehensive study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has determined that roundabouts are much safer than other types of intersections. The Institute examined 24 intersections in eight states that were converted from stop signs or traffic signals. The results that emerged were remarkably favorable: vehicular accidents overall declined 39 percent; accidents resulting in injuries fell 76 percent; and accidents resulting in death or incapacitating injury plunged 90 percent.

Driving in roundabouts is easy and follows many of the same principles of other traffic intersections. Drivers yield to approaching vehicles already in the roundabout and only have to stop if there is a vehicle in the roundabout approaching to their left.

NDOT is responsible for planning, construction and maintenance of highway operations within the state. They oversee 5,400 miles of highway and over 1,000 bridges and various allied projects from the Adopt-a-Highway program to the maintenance of State Historical Markers.

TTD was created under Article IX of a Congressional Compact. Its board includes representatives from the public and private sectors. TTD is responsible for implementing transportation plans and projects, and can own and operate transportation systems and/or facilities.

“NDOT and TTD have utilized a great deal of research, area experience and commons sense to determine an effective safety solution for a troublesome area,” said Nick Johnson, NDOT project manager.

“We are striving to bring a new level of public safety to the area, and the roundabout at Hwy 28 and 431 will do just that,” said Carl Hasty, TTD District Manager.

A community meeting to present details on the project will be hosted by NDOT and TTD this spring.

Information about roundabouts, construction and scheduling may be accessed through NDOT: www.NevadaDOT.com/roundabout.

For details on the Tahoe Transportation District and current projects, visit www.TahoeTransportation.org or call (775) 589-5500. For general information regarding the Nevada Department of Transportation, visit www.NevadaDOT.com or call (775) 888-7000.

TTD BOARDCH/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 54- AGENDA ITEM: IX.A. ATTACHMENT B

Lee Weber-Koch has been selected as the outreach specialist for various highway projects along the corridor between Highways 28 and 431.

# # # # #

Media Contact: Alfred Knotts Principal Planner/Project Manager Tahoe Transportation District [email protected] (775) 589-5503

The Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) is responsible for the implementation and management of transportation projects and programs in the Tahoe Basin. The organization has facilitated many area safety including bicycle paths, roadway improvements, pedestrian thoroughfares, water quality and water shed improvements and public transit solutions. www.TahoeTransportation.org

The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) is responsible for the planning, construction, operation and maintenance of the 5,400 miles of highway and over 1,000 bridges which make up the state highway system. The department also oversees various allied projects from the Adopt-a-Highway program to the maintenance of State Historical Markers. www.NevadaDOT.com

TTD BOARDCH/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 55- AGENDA ITEM: IX.A. ATTACHMENT B

TRAIL AND TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS PREVIEW AT OPEN HOUSE, JANUARY 19

“The Road Ahead for Lake Tahoe” Highlights Proposed Stateline – U.S. Highway 50 Loop, Tahoe Lakeview Trail

Jan. 12, 2010 (South Lake Tahoe, Calif.) – The Tahoe Transportation District (http://www.tahoetransportation.org) is partnering with local, state, regional and federal agencies to host an Open House regarding various projects, with public comment invited, Wed., Jan. 19 from 5p.m. to 7p.m. Exhibits will feature the Stateline – U.S. Highway 50 Loop, Tahoe Lakeview Trail and others intended to reinforce the connection between area trails, roads and transit while promoting sustainable communities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The free event is open to all South Lake Tahoe community members for informational and input purposes on proposed and planned trail and transportation improvements affecting the South Shore. The Open House is from 5p.m. to 7p.m. at the Lake Tahoe Community College Theatre, located near the intersection of Al Tahoe Blvd. and College Dr. at 1 College Dr., South Lake Tahoe, Calif. Complimentary beverages and appetizers will also be offered.

Attendees will have the opportunity to talk with representatives from the Tahoe Transportation District and project partners from federal, state and local planning, public works and engineering departments. Event co-hosts scheduled to attend include representatives from BlueGo, California Tahoe Conservancy, Caltrans, City of South Lake Tahoe, Douglas County, El Dorado County, HDR, Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, United States Forest Service and Wood Rodgers.

Members of the North Lake Tahoe Community are invited to a similar Open House on Thurs., Jan. 20 from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the Tahoe City Public Utility District. Exhibits will highlight proposals for the Fanny Bridge Preservation Byway, Tahoe Lakeview Trail and more. The Tahoe City PUD is located at 221 Fairway Dr., Tahoe City, Calif., near the intersection of Highway 89 and W. River Rd.

For maps and more details on the open houses, visit www.TahoeTransportation.org/openhouse or call (775) 589-5500.

# # # # #

TTD BOARDCH/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 56- AGENDA ITEM: IX.A. ATTACHMENT B

Media Contact: Alfred Knotts Principal Planner/Project Manager Tahoe Transportation District [email protected] (775) 589-5503

The Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) is responsible for the implementation and management of transportation projects and programs in the Tahoe Basin. The organization has facilitated many area safety including bicycle paths, roadway improvements, pedestrian thoroughfares, water quality and water shed improvements and public transit solutions. www.TahoeTransportation.org

TTD BOARDCH/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 57- AGENDA ITEM: IX.A. ATTACHMENT B

TRAIL AND TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS PREVIEW AT OPEN HOUSE, JANUARY 20

“The Road Ahead for Lake Tahoe” Highlights Proposed Fanny Bridge Preservation Byway, Tahoe Lakeview Trail

Jan. 12, 2010 (Tahoe City, Calif.) – The Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) (http://www.tahoetransportation.org) is partnering with local, state, regional and federal agencies to host an Open House regarding various projects, with public comment invited, Thurs., Jan. 20 from 5p.m. to 7p.m. Exhibits will feature the Fanny Bridge Preservation Byway, Tahoe Lakeview Trail and others intended to reinforce the connection between area trails, roads and transit while promoting sustainable communities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The free event is open to all North Lake Tahoe and Truckee community members for informational and input purposes on proposed and planned trail and transportation improvements affecting the North Shore. The Open House is from 5-7pm at the Tahoe City Public Utility District located near the intersection of Highway 89 and W. River Road at 221 Fairway Dr., Tahoe City, Calif. Complimentary beverages and appetizers will also be offered. Attendees will have the opportunity to talk with representatives from the Tahoe Transportation District and project partners from federal, state and local planning, public works and engineering departments. Event co-hosts scheduled to attend include representatives from California Tahoe Conservancy, Caltrans, HDR, North Lake Tahoe Resort Association, Placer County, Tahoe Area Regional Transit, Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization, Tahoe City Public Utility District, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Truckee North Tahoe Transportation Management Association, United States Forest Service and Wood Rodgers.

Members of the South Lake Tahoe Community are invited to attend a similar Open House, Wed., Jan. 19 from 5p.m. to 7p.m. at Lake Tahoe Community College Theatre. Exhibits will highlight proposals for the Stateline – U.S. Highway 50 Loop and the Tahoe Lakeview Trail including the Nevada Stateline to Stateline Bikeway. Lake Tahoe Community College is located at 1 College Dr., South Lake Tahoe, Calif.

# # # # #

TTD BOARDCH/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 58- AGENDA ITEM: IX.A. ATTACHMENT B

Media Contact: Alfred Knotts Principal Planner/Project Manager Tahoe Transportation District [email protected] (775) 589-5503

The Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) is responsible for the implementation and management of transportation projects and programs in the Tahoe Basin. The organization has facilitated many area safety improvements, including bicycle path, roadway and pedestrian thoroughfare projects, water quality and water shed projects, and public transit solutions. www.TahoeTransportation.org

TTD BOARDCH/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 59- AGENDA ITEM: IX.A. ATTACHMENT B

Comments Welcome Five Transportation Projects

Please visit tahoetransportation.org for more information. Profiles of Needed System Improvements We encourage public input on these projects, as well as suggestions for others.

Tahoe Transportation District Board of Directors

Andrew Strain, Chair, Member At Large Representing Public & Private Transit Services in the Basin Will Garner, Vice Chair, Placer County Don Morehouse, Washoe County Ron McIntyre (Primary), Jan Colyer (Alternate), Truckee-North Tahoe Transportation Management Association Patrick Pittenger (Primary), Dan Doenges (Alternate), Carson City Nancy McDermid (Primary), Travis Lee (Alternate), Douglas County Bruce Grego (Primary), Bill Crawford (Alternate), City of South Lake Tahoe Norma Santiago, El Dorado County Steve Teshara, South Shore Transportation Management Association Cassandra Evenson, California Department of Transportation (Ex-Offico) Leif Anderson, Nevada Department of Transportation (Ex-Offico)

128 Market Street, Suite 3F, Stateline, Nevada 89449 PO BOX 499, Zephyr Cove, NV 89448 Connecting our communities [email protected] | 775.589.5500 Hours: Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm TTD BOARDCH/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 60- AGENDA ITEM: IX.A. ATTACHMENT B 431 Incline Village 267

PROPOSED Kings Bounded by the Sierra Nevada crest to the west Beach *ODMJOF and the Carson Range to the east, the Tahoe TRANSPORTATION 28 (BUFXBZ Basin straddles the California/Nevada border. SYSTEM For generations, Lake Tahoe has drawn people IMPROVEMENTS to the region, where 89% of the land is public with attractive communities along the shoreline. 4BOE)BSCPS With over 3,000,000 visitors per year and counting, the need to maximize Basin 28 transportation efficiency, while minimizing

its impact on the environment, is becoming Tahoe City increasingly critical. Responding to these 89 circumstances and its charter, the Tahoe 5BIPF$JUZ Transportation District (TTD) is currently (BUFXBZ partnering with local communities to implement five priority projects. Sunnyside The (TTD) was established as a special purpose 28 district by an amendment to a bistate compact - B L between California and Nevada. Congressional F 5 B representatives from each state developed the I P agreement and amendments, which became F " R law in 1980, after ratification by the U.S. V B Congress and approval by the President. C Homewood V T

As tasked by “The Compact,” the TTD’s current projects are designed to safely and conveniently Tahoma connect the Basin’s cities and towns as well 89 as protect the lake and its surroundings. These roadway, waterway and bike/trailway projects share the goal of increasing transportation 5BIPF-BLFWJFX5SBJM efficiency to improve Lake Tahoe water quality &YJTUJOH#JLF5SBJM and reduce air pollution, while addressing 1SPQPTFE#JLF5SBJM the need for an innovative multi-modal transportation system.

207

Stateline

Emerald Bay 4UBUFMJOF 1MB[B )XZ-PPQ

Camp Richardson

TTD BOARDCH/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 61- AGENDA ITEM: IX.A. South Lake Tahoe ATTACHMENT B

Bike / Pedestrian Connectivity Project Profile

Tahoe Lakeview Trail

Location: encircling the lake; two demonstration projects: east of Incline Village to south of Sand Harbor (north) and Lake Parkway/casino core to Round Hill Pines Beach (south)

Plan: a joint undertaking by local, state and federal agencies to complete a bikeway around the lake, connecting existing trail segments with approximately 162 miles of new construction, including exclusive pedestrian-bicycle, off-street right of way, striped on-road lanes and signed shared-use roadways

Response to: lack of a complete network for bicycle and pedestrian access to destinations within and adjacent to the Tahoe Basin, need for alternative to car use

Benefits: safer, better bicycling and walking opportunities that decrease private car use, improving air quality and protecting the

natural environment while enhancing recreational opportunities and 431 Incline Village 267 promoting healthier communities PROPOSED Kings Beach *ODMJOF TRANSPORTATION 28 Projected timing: draft Environmental Assessment (EA) scheduled (BUFXBZ SYSTEM Transit Connectivity Project Profile for release fall 2010; construction start date to be determined. IMPROVEMENTS Estimated per mile costs: off-street $4,000,000, striped on-road Lake Tahoe Aquabus 431 Incline Village $500,000, signed bicycle/auto roadways $300,000 (pursuing private, 4BOE)BSCPS 267 PROPOSED Kings including volunteer labor, local, state and federal funding sources). Beach Location: between Tahoe City Marina (north shore) and Ski Run Marina (south shore), with *ODMJOF 28 TRANSPORTATION 28 (BUFXBZ potential of supplemental water taxi sites SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Tahoe City Plan: construct terminals at Tahoe City Marina (North Shore) and Ski Run Marina (South Shore) 89 4BOE)BSCPS 5BIPF$JUZ for passenger pick-up and drop-off by regularly scheduled, translake passenger ferry service (BUFXBZ on high-speed catamarans. Connect to destinations/attractions with public28 transit, private shuttles and eventually water taxis Tahoe City

Sunnyside 89 Response to: need for a reliable, accessible and time-efficient5BIPF$JUZ transit alternative, particularly (BUFXBZ 28 to car use, that connects North Shore and South Shore - B L F Sunnyside 5 B I Benefits: a relatively low environmental impact alternative to building P 28 F - B " additional road capacity; an attractive alternative to private cars, L R F 5 V B B reducing emissions and landscape impact while providing a scenic I C P Homewood V F T " trip that would be approximately 20 minutes faster than driving R V B C Homewood V T Projected timing and costs: start of service summer 2015; $25 Tahoma million approximate construction costs for piers, transfer centers and 89 Tahoma parking (including permits and studies), $4.2 million estimated cost 89 of two vessels (pursuing local, state, federal and private funding) 5BIPF-BLFWJFX5SBJM 5BIPF-BLFWJFX5SBJM &YJTUJOH#JLF5SBJM &YJTUJOH#JLF5SBJM

1SPQPTFE#JLF5SBJM 1SPQPTFE#JLF5SBJM

TTD BOARDCH/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 62- AGENDA ITEM: IX.A.

207

Stateline

207 Emerald Bay 4UBUFMJOF Stateline 1MB[B )XZ-PPQ

Emerald Bay 4UBUFMJOF Camp Richardson

1MB[B 89 )XZ-PPQ South Lake Tahoe

Camp Richardson

South Lake Tahoe 431 Incline Village 267

PROPOSED Kings Beach *ODMJOF TRANSPORTATION 28 (BUFXBZ SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS

4BOE)BSCPS

Tahoe City

89 5BIPF$JUZ (BUFXBZ

Sunnyside

28 - B L F 5 B I P F " R V ATTACHMENT B B C Homewood V T

Congestion ReliefTahoma / Gateway Project Profiles

Stateline Plaza – U.S. 50 Loop 5BIPF-BLFWJFX5SBJM &YJTUJOH#JLF5SBJM

Location: 1SPQPTFE#JLF5SBJM U.S. 50 between Pioneer Trail in South Lake Tahoe, CA and 431 Incline Village 267 Nevada State Route 207 in Stateline, NV PROPOSED Kings Beach *ODMJOF Plan: realign U.S. 50 (three solutions being evaluated) around casino core, TRANSPORTATION 28 (BUFXBZ restricting/slowing traffic through the core to make it more pedestrian- SYSTEM oriented and traffic calming IMPROVEMENTS

Response to: insufficient infrastructure to safely support pedestrians, 207 4BOE)BSCPS traffic, water quality concerns associated with the existing roadway Stateline Tahoe City Gateway 28

Emerald Bay 4UBUFMJOF Benefits: developing an attractive, more pedestrian friendly, vital 1MB[B Location: intersection of State Routes 89 and 28 at the southwest downtown area while easing peak-time traffic )XZ-PPQ end of the Tahoe City, CA commercial area Tahoe City

89 Projected timing and construction cost: 2013Camp construction, Richardson $65 Plan: realign SR 89 and/or rebuild or replace the bridge across the 5BIPF$JUZ (BUFXBZ million (pursuing local, state, federal and private funding) 89 Truckee River (four solutions being evaluated)

South Lake Tahoe Sunnyside Response to: substantial and growing congestion due to high seasonal traffic volumes; conflicts between cars, pedestrians and 28 - B bicyclists; transit service delays; structurally deficient bridge L F 5 B I P Benefits: providing a more inviting western gateway to Lake Tahoe, significantly reducing F " R traffic queues and emissions from idling vehicles, encouraging pedestrian and bicycle travel, V B C building ridership with on-time transit service Homewood V T

Projected timing and construction cost: schedule to be determined, $50 million (pursuing state and federal funding through the Regional Transportation Improvement Program) Tahoma 89

Incline Gateway 5BIPF-BLFWJFX5SBJM431 Incline Village 267 &YJTUJOH#JLF5SBJM

PROPOSED Kings 1SPQPTFE#JLF5SBJM Location: intersection of State Routes 28 and 431, west end of town Beach *ODMJOF TRANSPORTATION 28 (BUFXBZ SYSTEM Plan: improve intersection operation and aesthetics IMPROVEMENTS Response to: community safety concerns (multiple traffic accidents, some fatalities), high seasonal traffic volumes 4BOE)BSCPS

207 Benefits: reducing frequency and severity of 28accidents as well as Stateline traffic queues and emissions from idling vehicles due to accident/

Tahoe City Emerald traffic delays, providing a more attractive northern Lake Tahoe gateway Bay 4UBUFMJOF 89 1MB[B 5BIPF$JUZ )XZ-PPQ Projected timing and construction(BUFXBZ cost: groundbreaking fall, 2011, construction 2012 by Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). TTD partnering as in-Basin facilitator. Design in Camp Richardson

progress and state funding construction estimated to be $2,000,000. 89 Sunnyside TTD BOARDCH/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 63- AGENDA ITEM: IX.A.

South Lake Tahoe 28 - B L F 5 B I P F " R V B C Homewood V T

Tahoma

5BIPF-BLFWJFX5SBJM &YJTUJOH#JLF5SBJM

1SPQPTFE#JLF5SBJM

207

Stateline

Emerald Bay 4UBUFMJOF 1MB[B )XZ-PPQ

Camp Richardson

South Lake Tahoe ATTACHMENT C January 20 • 5-7 pm • Tahoe CiT y p. u .D. January 19 • 5-7 pm • lake tahoe cc theatre foyer

The Road Ahead for Lake Tahoe The Road Ahead for Lake Tahoe speciAL pReviews open house speciAL pReviews open house

YouR hosTs: YouR hosTs: The Tahoe Transportation District in cooperation with Caltrans • California The Tahoe Transportation District in cooperation with BlueGo • California Tahoe Conservancy • HDR • Placer County • Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Tahoe Conservancy • Caltrans • City of South Lake Tahoe • Douglas County Organization • TART • TCPUD • TRPA • Truckee North Tahoe TMA • • El Dorado County • HDR • Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization • US Forest Service • Wood Rodgers TRPA • US Forest Service • Wood Rodgers

YouR inviTATion To: YouR inviTATion To: • Preview proposals and plans for the Fanny Bridge Preservation • Preview proposals and plans for the Stateline Plaza - U.S. 50 Loop Byway and other community transportation projects to re-enforce and other community transportation projects to re-enforce the the connection between our trails, roads and transit connection between our trails, roads and transit • Provide input to our public and private-sector partners • Provide input to our public and private-sector partners • Enjoy complimentary appetizers and beverages • Enjoy complimentary appetizers and beverages

DiRecTions AnD moRe DeTAiLs: DiRecTions AnD moRe DeTAiLs: 775.589.5500 or tahoetransportation.org/openhouse 775.589.5500 or tahoetransportation.org/openhouse map map

Connecting our Communities Connecting our Communities TTD BOARDCH/jw PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011-PAGE 64- AGENDA ITEM: IX.A. smith + jones • 526_4371_lcf smith + jones • 526_4371_lcf TTD Open house ad for TTD Open house ad for Sierra Sun and North Lake Tahoe Bonanza Tahoe Daily Tribune and Gardnerville Record-Courier quarter-page, 4.917”w. x 7”h., CMYK quarter-page, 4.917”w. x 7”h., CMYK 1/6/2011 1/11/2011 ATTACHMENT C

January 20 • 5-7 pm • Tahoe CiT y p. u .D. January 19 • 5-7 pm • lake tahoe cc theatre foyer January 20 • 5-7 pm • Tahoe CiT y p. u .D. January 19 • 5-7 pm • lake tahoe cc theatre foyer

The Road Ahead for Lake Tahoe The Road Ahead for Lake Tahoe The Road Ahead speciALfor Lake pReviews Tahoe open house The Road Ahead forspeciAL Lake pR eviewsTahoe open house speciAL pReviews open house speciAL pReviews open house YouR hosTs: YouR hosTs: TheYou TahoeR hos TransportationTs: District in cooperation with Caltrans • California TheYou TahoeR hos TransportationTs: District in cooperation with BlueGo • California TheTahoe Tahoe Conservancy Transportation • HDR District • Placer in Countycooperation • Tahoe with Metropolitan Caltrans • California Planning TheTahoe Tahoe Conservancy Transportation • Caltrans District • City in cooperation of South Lake with Tahoe BlueGo • Douglas • California County OrganizationTahoe Conservancy • TART •• HDRTCPUD • Placer • TRPA County • Truckee • Tahoe North Metropolitan Tahoe TMA Planning • •Tahoe El Dorado Conservancy County •• HDRCaltrans • Tahoe • City Metropolitan of South Lake Planning Tahoe Organization• Douglas County • OrganizationUS Forest Service • TART • Wood• TCPUD Rodgers • TRPA• NLTRA • Truckee North Tahoe TMA • TRPA• El Dorado • US Forest County Service • HDR •• WoodTahoe Rodgers Metropolitan Planning Organization • US Forest Service • Wood Rodgers TRPA • US Forest Service • Wood Rodgers YouR inviTATion To: YouR inviTATion To: •You PreviewR invi proposalsTATion and To: plans for the Fanny Bridge Preservation You• PreviewR invi proposalsTATion and To: plans for the Stateline Plaza - U.S. 50 Loop • BywayPreview and proposals other community and plans transportationfor the Fanny Bridge projects Preservation to re-enforce • and Preview other proposals community and transportation plans for the Statelineprojects toPlaza re-enforce - U.S. 50 the Loop theByway connection and other between community our trails,transportation roads and projects transit to re-enforce connectionand other community between our transportation trails, roads projectsand transit to re-enforce the • Providethe connection input to between our public our and trails, private-sector roads and transit partners • connectionProvide input between to our publicour trails, and roads private-sector and transit partners • EnjoyProvide complimentary input to our public appetizers and private-sector and beverages partners • EnjoyProvide complimentary input to our public appetizers and private-sector and beverages partners • LearnEnjoy complimentaryabout efforts to appetizers lower greenhouse and beverages gas emissions. • LearnEnjoy complimentaryabout efforts to appetizers lower greenhouse and beverages gas emissions. DiRecTions AnD moRe DeTAiLs: DiRecTions AnD moRe DeTAiLs: Di775.589.5500RecTions or AnDtahoetransportation.org/openhouse moRe DeTAiLs: Di775.589.5500RecTions or AnDtahoetransportation.org/openhouse moRe DeTAiLs: 775.589.5500 or tahoetransportation.org/openhouse 775.589.5500 or tahoetransportation.org/openhouse map map map map

Connecting our Communities Connecting our Communities Connecting our Communities Connecting our Communities

CH/jw AGENDA ITEM: IX.A. TTDsmith BOARD + jones PACKET • 526_4371_lcf - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 65- smith + jones • 526_4371_lcf smithTTD Open + jones house • 526_4371_lcf ad for smithTTD Open + jones house • 526_4371_lcf ad for TTDSierra Open Sun houseand North ad for Lake Tahoe Bonanza TTDTahoe Open Daily house Tribune ad and for Gardnerville Record-Courier Sierraquarter-page, Sun and 4.917”w. North Lake x 7”h., Tahoe CMYK Bonanza Tahoequarter-page, Daily Tribune 4.917”w. and x Gardnerville 7”h., CMYK Record-Courier quarter-page,1/6/2011 4.917”w. x 7”h., CMYK quarter-page,1/11/2011 4.917”w. x 7”h., CMYK 1/6/2011 1/11/2011

MEMORANDUM

Date: January 17, 2011

To: Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) Board of Directors

From: TTD Staff

Subject: Approval of TTD Project Task Orders and Amendments to Existing Task Orders and Contracts

Action Requested: It is requested the Board approve the issuance of Task Orders to assist in carrying out the TTD Work Program, including the TTD Capital Improvement Program, as well as approve amendments to existing contracts and one previously approved task order.

Background: In August 2009, the Board approved a short list of qualified consultants eligible for contracts, which also included a corresponding not-to-exceed amount based on anticipated project and program support related to TTD organizational mission and existing work program activities. At the December 11, 2009 Board meeting, staff provided an update regarding the District’s contracting activities to date. Also at the December meeting, revised contracting procedures were presented and approved by the Board. Since the time of both of these actions, the Board has approved numerous contracts for professional services, as well as task orders related to the respective contracts, including those related to public outreach, project branding, polling, and focus groups.

Discussion: As was previously discussed under Agenda Item IX.A., the TTD and their public outreach team have successfully completed the first phase of the Program of Projects Outreach Campaign. In anticipation of next phase of the Program of Projects Outreach Campaign, staff is proposing adjustments in contract amounts that will result in a shift in capacity from Regional Planning Partners (RPP) to ESI equating to a $100,000 reduction in the RPP contract and corresponding $100,000 increase in the ESI contract not-to-exceed amount. The transfer of capacity is a result of the re-evaluation of priorities in the public outreach and associated campaign effort. This shift in capacity will result in a no net increase in contract obligations. The contact amendments are detailed below in the following table.

AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: IX.B

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 66-

Blanket Contract Amendments:

Approved Contract Revised Contract Consultants Amount Amount Regional Planning Partners 200,000.00 100,000.00 ESI 250,000.00 350,000.00 Smith + Jones 500,000.00 500,000.00 Total 950,000.00 950,000.00

In addition to the requested contract amendments, staff also requests the Board approve the following Task Order:

New Task Orders/Contracts

Firm Work Element Type of Phase Work to be Cost Agreement Performed/Deliverable ESI 3 and 2.4 Task Order Various Focus Groups, Public Surveys- $100,000 Phase 2 Tracking Polls (Incline, US 50, SR 89, Ferry, SR 89 Public Outreach Specialist

The task order and contract amendments and request for new task order authorizations is related to the initiation of the second phase of the Program of Projects Campaign for new and ongoing project-specific outreach and additional outreach that will be required as part of the development of the TTD’s programmatic EIS/EIS/EIR. This request for authorization represents the initial efforts associated with Phase 2.

Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impact associated the task orders is approximately $100,000 with approval of the Task Order, however, this amount was accounted for in individual project budgets and Work Element 2.4 within the FY 2010/2011 Work Program. Therefore, all expenditures associated with the task orders are accounted for in the FY 2010/2011 Work Program. Specifically, funding for the work being requested for authorization will come from FHWA half percent funding.

Work Program Impact: All work associated with this effort will be captured under respective elements of the existing and proposed Work Programs and corresponding allotted staff time.

Additional Information: If you have any questions or comments regarding this item, please contact Alfred Knotts at (775) 589-5503 or [email protected].

AK/jw AGENDA ITEM: IX.B.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 67-

MEMORANDUM

Date: January 17, 2011

To: Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) Board of Directors

From: TTD Staff

Subject: Discussion of Potential Changes to the BlueGo Transit Service

Action Requested: It is requested the Board discuss with Staff the direction and need to move forward on potential changes to the District’s BlueGo transit system service.

Background: When the District made the decision to move forward with operating an independent transit service at its October 2010 meeting, it also adopted a Sustainable Service Plan and an anticipated budget. On November 1, 2010 the District withdrew from the South Tahoe Area Transit Authority (STATA) and began operating the new transit system after the agreement between the District and STATA was terminated via federal bankruptcy court action. Also, at the October meeting, the adoption of certain changes to the Sustainable Service Plan, including changes to the Carson City and Carson Valley routes, were deferred until Carson City completed the “Triangle Plan” and budget uncertainties were resolved. The plan and budget appear to now be complete. The adopted plan also accepted an on-call route approach that, with experience since its implementation, has presented problems that must be addressed.

Discussion: If implemented, the Triangle Plan would take largely inefficient routes from a passenger trip budget perspective and make the connection between Tahoe, Eagle Valley, and Carson Valley much more effective. The change would come from adding a third leg between Carson City and the Minden/Gardnerville area, and modifying route times. There are adequate federal matching funds available to operate this plan. What does not appear to be available at this time are adequate local matching funds to implement this plan. In fact, the current funding picture not only makes it impossible to implement the Triangle Plan, it makes the current connection service unsustainable.

When the budget was presented for adoption in October, it was stated there were uncertainties as to whether the budget assumptions were reliable. in particular for Harrah’s/Harvey’s participation in 2011. To date, that uncertainty has proven true. As of this date, there is no intended participation in the transit service on the part of Harrah’s/Harvey’s. Also, to date, participation by MontBleu and Lakeside remain pending. Lastly, farebox revenue has been less than assumed in the budget forecast (as shown in Attachment B of Item VIII.A). Staff would like CH/jw AGENDA ITEM: IX.C.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 68- to implement the Triangle Plan. However, given the current budget circumstances, that will not be possible,unless other matching revenue comes forward to insure the federal grant funds. At this point in time, Staff recommends concurrence from the Board to continue to seek match funds and simultaneously prepare to terminate the Carson City (Eagle Valley) and Carson Valley service connections, if those funds are not agreed upon by the next Board meeting in February. Appropriate public noticing and hearings are required and will be held prior to terminating or changing any service.

The contract consultant manager, Curtis Garner from BTMI, brought the second service issue to Staff’s attention. He has reported that the adopted Sustainable Service plan parameters for on- call service are unworkable and costly. In particular, the minimum reservation requirement or cancellation policy, and lack of a service range limit are impeding workable scheduling and cost containment. He would like to propose changes for the Board and public to consider. Staff will work with Mr. Garner to prepare a proposal for the next Board meeting in February.

Additional Information: If you have any questions or comments regarding this item, please contact Carl Hasty at (775) 589-5501 or [email protected].

CH/jw AGENDA ITEM: IX.C.

TTD BOARD PACKET - JAN. 21, 2011 -PAGE 69-