Supervisor Vito Chiesa, Chair, Stanislaus County Alternate Richard O’Brien, City of Riverbank Councilmember Patrick Hume, Vice-Chair, City of Elk Grove Alternate Don Nottoli, Sacramento County Alternate Melissa Hernandez, City of Dublin Councilmember David Hudson, City of San Ramon Alternate Diane Burgis, Contra Costa County Supervisor Rodrigo Espinoza, Merced County Alternate Daron McDaniel, Merced County Alternate Doug Kuehne, City of Lodi Supervisor Doug Verboon, Kings County Supervisor Brett Frazier, Madera County Supervisor Sal Quintero, Fresno County Alternate Rey Leon, City of Huron Supervisor Amy Shuklian, Tulare County
TELECONFERENCE BOARD MEETING
January 22, 2021 – 9:00 AM
Call-In Information: 1 (646) 749-3112 Conference Access Code: 928-641-597 GoToMeeting Link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/928641597
SPECIAL NOTICE Coronavirus COVID-19
In accordance with the Governor’s Executive Orders N-25-20, N-29-20 and N-35-20, San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Board Members will be attending this meeting via teleconference or videoconference. Members of the public may observe the meeting by dialing 1 (646) 749-3112 with access code: 928-641-597 or log-in using a computer, tablet or smartphone at GoToMeeting.com using link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/928641597.
Please note that all members of the public will be placed on mute until such times allow for public comments to be made. If a person wishes to make a public comment during the meeting, to do so they must either 1) use GoToMeeting and will have the option to notify SJJPA staff by alerting them via the “Chat” function or they can 2) contact SJJPA staff via email at [email protected] in which staff will read the comment aloud during the public comment period. Public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per comment and no more than 240 words.
This Agenda shall be made available upon request in alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12132) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code § 54954.2). Persons requesting a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in the meeting should contact San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission staff, at 209-944-6220, during regular business hours, at least twenty- four hours prior to the time of the meeting.
All proceedings before the Authority are conducted in English. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Authority regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the offices of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission located at 949 E. Channel Street, Stockton, California, 95202 during normal business hours or by calling (209) 944-6220. The Agenda and meeting materials are also available on the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Website: http://www.sjjpa.com/Home.
1. Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance, Roll Call Chair Chiesa 2. Consent Calendar 2.1 Approve Minutes from November 20, 2020 Board Meeting ACTION 2.2 Appoint New Members to San Joaquin Valley Rail ACTION Committee 2.3 Next Board Meeting Location INFORMATION 2.4 SJJPA Operating Expense Report INFORMATION
2.5 Blue Ribbon Task Force Letter INFORMATION 2.6 Washington Update INFORMATION 2.7 Administrative Items INFORMATION
3. Public Comments Persons wishing to address the Authority on any item of interest to the public regarding SJJPA and the San Joaquin Rail Service shall state their names and addresses and make their presentation. The Authority cannot take action on matters not on the agenda unless the action is authorized by Section 54954.2 of the Government Code. If a person wishes to make a public comment during the meeting, to do so they must either 1) use GoToMeeting using link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/928641597 and will have the option to notify SJJPA staff by alerting them via the “Chat” function or they can 2) contact SJJPA staff via email at [email protected] in which staff will read the comment aloud during the public comment period. Public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per comment and no more than 240 words.
4. Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin ACTION Joint Powers Authority Adopting the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Final IS/MND) for the Madera Station Relocation Project (Project), Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, Approving the Madera Station Relocation Project, Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Execute and File a Notice of Determination
2 of 103 Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Project, and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project (Dan Leavitt)
5. Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin ACTION Joint Powers Authority Authorizing the Chair to Accept and Sign Waiver of Potential and Actual Conflicts of Interest Letters with SJJPA Counsel, Neumiller and Beardslee (N&B), Arising from Concurrent Representation of San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority and San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Regarding 1) a Joint Use Agreement and 2) Rail Maintenance Facility (RMF) Use Agreement and Electing to Waive the Conflict and allow N&B to prepare the Agreements for both SJJPA and SJRRC (Stacey Mortensen/Dan Schroeder)
6. Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin ACTION Joint Powers Authority Approving a Reimbursement Agreement with Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) for Design, Installation, Operation, and Maintenance of California Passenger Information Display System for an Amount Not-to-Exceed $700,000 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Projects (Brian Schmidt/Autumn Gowan)
7. San Joaquins Operations and Ridership/Revenue Update INFORMATION (David Lipari)
8. Update on the 2021 SJJPA Business Plan INFORMATION (Paul Herman)
9. Election of Officers ACTION (Chair Chiesa)
10. Executive Director’s Report
3 of 103 11. Board Member Comments
12. Adjournment The next regular meeting is scheduled for: March 26, 2021 – 9:00 am
4 of 103 SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of January 22, 2021
Item 2.1 ACTION
Minutes of SJJPA Board Meeting November 20, 2020
The regular meeting of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) was held at 9:00 am on November 20, 2020 in accordance with the Governor’s Executive Orders N-25-20, N-29-20 and N-35- 20. The San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Board Members attended this meeting via teleconference.
1 Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance/Roll Call Chair Vito Chiesa called the meeting to order at 9:00 am and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Board Members Present: Chair Chiesa, Alternate Kuehne, Espinoza, Frazier, Vice-Chair Haggerty, Alternate Hernandez, Vice-Chair Hume, Alternate Leon, Romick, Shuklian, and Verboon.
2 Consent Calendar 2.1 Approve Minutes from September 25, 2020 Board Meeting ACTION 2.2 Approve 2021 SJJPA Board Meeting Calendar ACTION 2.3 Next Board Meeting Location INFORMATION 2.4 SJJPA Operating Expense Report INFORMATION 2.5 Administrative Items INFORMATION
There were no comments on this item.
M/S/C (Haggerty/Romick) to approve Items 2.1-2.5. Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority on November 20, 2020, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: 9 Chair Chiesa, Alternate Kuehne, Espinoza, Vice-Chair Haggerty, Vice- Chair Hume, Alternate Leon, Romick, Shuklian, Verboon NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 1 Frazier
5 of 103 3 Public Comments
Doug Kerr with RailPac thanked the SJJPA Board and staff for always welcoming public comments and suggestions during SJJPA board meetings and for proving a service that the public wants and needs.
Mike Barnbaum thanked SJJPA staff and consultant HDR Inc. for conducting an informative Stockton Diamond Grade Separation Project virtual scoping meeting earlier in September.
Steve Roberts with Rail Passenger Association of California and Nevada commented via email and recommended that the Board approve a resolution for item 5 on the agenda, approving the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CalSTA, SJJPA, and California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), outlining the roles and responsibilities of each agency. Mr. Robert’s email stated that this MOU is an important first step in creating an enhanced, integrated transportation network, linking Northern California with Southern California through the Valley. This will also facilitate the approval of CHSRA 2021 Business Plan, leading to high speed rail service in California.
4 Recognition of SJJPA Board Members’ Service INFORMATION Executive Director, Stacey Mortensen, and Dan Leavitt recognized outgoing SJJPA Board Members and thanked them for their service. The content of Ms. Mortensen’s and Mr. Leavitt’s presentation is summarized in the Board Briefing Materials and in the PowerPoint slides for this agenda item, available on the SJJPA website at https://sjjpa.com. Vice Chair Haggerty thanked Ms. Mortensen and Mr. Leavitt for their continued professionalism and support. Vice Chair Haggerty also thanked Chair Chiesa and stated that he considers Chair Chiesa to be a true friend. Vice Chair Haggerty commented that this is not goodbye, and that he hopes to be involved with Valley Link again. Vice Chair Haggerty stated that he was awarded the California Transit Association’s Distinguished Service Award and prior to that, he was awarded the California Transit Foundation Award for Person of the Year. Vice Chair Haggerty
6 of 103 commented that these awards were received because of the people he mentioned earlier and because they helped him be better. Member Romick thanked SJJPA staff and SJJPA Board members for their continued support and that he is looking forward to the completion of the construction of the Oakley Station in Contra Costa County. Chair Chiesa thanked everyone for their comments.
5 ACTION Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving an Initial Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) and California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) Outlining Roles and Responsibilities Regarding Interim Service Operations on the Merced- Bakersfield HSR Segment and Integration with Existing Intercity and Regional Rail Systems Dan Leavitt gave a presentation on this item. The content of Mr. Leavitt’s presentation is summarized in the Board Briefing Materials and in the PowerPoint slides for this agenda item, available on the SJJPA website at https://sjjpa.com. After his presentation, Mr. Leavitt thanked Ms. Mortensen for her help with putting together the MOU. Mr. Leavitt also thanked Paul Herman for his help with putting together the MOU. Mr. Leavitt thanked Chad Edison with CalSTA, Frank Vacca with High Speed Rail, their Chief Program Manager, Brian Annis, the Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Leavitt thanked Bruce Armistead, Director of Operations and Maintenance with High Speed Rail Authority. Mr. Armistead thanked the Board for considering the MOU and commented that it is a significant step forward for the High-Speed Rail Authority. Mr. Armistead commented that it has been a pleasure working with Ms. Mortensen and Mr. Leavitt on the MOU. Alternate Member Hernandez asked for more detail on role as the joint operator between ACE, SJJPA and HSR. Mr. Leavitt responded that SJJPA would take on the role as the operating agency, very much like SJJPA is doing with the San Joaquins service. SJJPA would do a competitive bid process to bring on an operator for the service. A desire would be to look for an operator to operate not only the High-Speed Rail trains, but also ACE and the San Joaquins. Alternate Member Hernandez thanked Mr. Leavitt for his response. David Schonbrunn, President of Train Riders Association, expressed concern of potential violation of Prop 1A. Hiring the SJJPA to operate these trains and this service will lose money. Mr. Schonbrunn said they would rather not see the JPA in an obvious attempt to violate the law. If
7 of 103 the JPA operated a non-electrified service, at less than 125 miles per hour, those issues go away. Mr. Schonbrunn suggested SJJPA staff conform to Prop 1A and commented that the Train Riders Association of California does not support the funding of the High-Speed Rail segment between Merced and Bakersfield. They are convinced that there are more effective uses of the funds in supporting intercity rail. Mr. Schonbrunn said that the foundation of the MOU is based on something that they contend is in direct violation of Prop 1A. Ms. Mortensen explained Prop 1A compliance issue is an issue for the High-Speed Rail Authority and their discussion with the legislature. The action before the SJJPA today is an MOU, which is an agreement to keep working on this project together. Prop 1A compliance is not something that the SJJPA Board needs to worry about or contemplate and this is not a binding agreement, it’s an agreement to move forward on the roles and responsibilities. Chair Chiesa thanked Ms. Mortensen for her response. Member Frazier commented that no matter what happens with the overall HSR project, he’d like to see some local control. What this body is here for is to work and to use the infrastructure available to us. Regardless of your views on High Speed Rail, this will make our service better, it will use the infrastructure that is in place, and that is why I am seconding in support of it. Chair Chiesa thanked Member Frazier for his comments.
M/S/C (Verboon/Frazier) to Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving an Initial Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the California High- Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) and California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) Outlining Roles and Responsibilities Regarding Interim Service Operations on the Merced-Bakersfield HSR Segment and Integration with Existing Intercity and Regional Rail Systems.
Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority on November 20, 2020 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: 10 Chair Chiesa, Alternate Kuehne, Espinoza, Frazier, Alternate Hernandez, Vice-Chair Hume, Alternate Leon, Romick, Shuklian, Verboon NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 0
8 of 103 Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint ACTION 6 Powers Authority Approving Agreements with Caltrans for the Truck Overhaul Project and Other Future Projects Related to the State Owned Rolling Stock Maintenance and Overhaul Work and Authorizing the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) to Perform the Procurement, Contracting, Reporting, and Project Management on behalf of SJJPA and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Projects Brian Schmidt and Autumn Gowan presented this item. The content of Mr. Schmidt’s and Ms. Gowan’s presentation is summarized in the Board Briefing Materials and in the PowerPoint slides for this agenda item, available on the SJJPA website at https://sjjpa.com. Chair Chiesa thanked Mr. Schmidt and Ms. Gowan for their presentation on this item. There were no comments on this item.
M/S/C (Kuehne/Espinoza) Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Power Authority Approving Agreements with Caltrans for the Truck Overhaul Project and Other Future Projects Related to the State Owned Rolling Stock Maintenance and Overhaul Work and Authorizing the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) to Perform the Procurement, Contracting, Reporting, and Project Management on behalf of SJJPA and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Projects.
Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority on November 20, 2020 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: 9 Chair Chiesa, Alternate Kuehne, Espinoza, Frazier, Alternate Hernandez, Alternate Leon, Romick, Shuklian, Verboon NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 1 Vice Chair Hume
9 of 103 7 San Joaquins Operations and Ridership/Revenue Update INFORMATION David Lipari presented this item. The content of Mr. Lipari’s presentation is summarized in the Board Briefing Materials, and in the PowerPoint slides for this agenda item, available on the SJJPA website at https://sjjpa.com. Alternate Member Kuehne asked how the Governor’s recent statement on curfews is anticipated to impact ridership. Mr. Lipari responded that with the recent restrictions and curfews in place, we immediately saw a decrease in numbers compared to what we were seeing in previous weeks. We do anticipate that this will impact our ridership in the near term. Mike Barnbaum addressed the SJJPA Board with suggestions to re-install former 714 and 717 roundtrips back into the San Joaquins schedule. Mr. Barnbaum recommended deferring 701, 702, 703, and 704 until a much later time. With the essential population relying on the San Joaquins service, he thinks that a meeting with the California State Transportation Agency, which is the one that added the guideline about operating at a certain percentage level, is essential now more than ever and it will help our case over the next four years, and help make Amtrak great again. Chair Chiesa thanked Mr. Barnbaum for his comments and for the public comment email. There were no additional comments on this item.
8 Update on San Joaquins Thruway Bus Network INFORMATION Paul Herman presented this item. The content of Mr. Herman’s presentation is summarized in the Board Briefing Materials and in the PowerPoint slides for this agenda item, available on the SJJPA website at https://sjjpa.com. Mr. Barnbaum commented that it is unfortunate that Compass Transportation is leaving San Francisco and will no longer be able to operate the service. Mr. Barnbaum suggested the service be transitioned over to AC Transit and commented that a minor adjustment to Route F would work in our benefit. There were no Board Member comments on this item.
10 of 103 9 Update on Hispanic Outreach during COVID-19 INFORMATION Rene Gutierrez presented this item. The content of Mr. Gutierrez’s presentation is summarized in the Board Briefing Materials and in the PowerPoint slides for this agenda item, available on the SJJPA website at https://sjjpa.com. Alternate Member Leon requested to assist in Hispanic outreach efforts through his non-profit organization. Mr. Gutierrez acknowledged the request.
10 Update on San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee INFORMATION
Executive Director, Stacey Mortensen, moved this item to a future Board Meeting.
11 Update on Valley Rail Program INFORMATION
Kevin Sheridan presented this item. The content of Mr. Sheridan’s presentation is summarized in the Board Briefing Materials and in the PowerPoint slides for this agenda item, available on the SJJPA website at https://sjjpa.com.
Chair Chiesa thanked Mr. Sheridan for his presentation and for all of the work he has completed on this project.
12 Executive Director’s Report INFORMATION
Ms. Mortensen wished everyone a safe holiday and stated that our staff has worked very hard to keep the service safe during COVID for essential workers. Mr. Mortensen and staff wished everyone well.
13 Board Member Comments
Alternate Member Kuehne wished everyone a very happy Thanksgiving.
Alternate Member Leon wished everyone a safe holiday season.
11 of 103 14 Adjournment
Chair Chiesa called the meeting to adjournment at 10:15 am.
The next regular meeting is scheduled for: January 22, 2021 – 9:00 am
12 of 103 SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY January 22, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 2.2 ACTION
Appoint New Members to the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee
Background: 1) Staff proposes to appoint Ryan Kelly, David Ayers and Cheyne Strawn to fill vacancies on the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee (SJVRC).
Ryan Kelly
Staff has received a recommendation from Mariposa County District 1 Supervisor, Rosemarie Smallcombe, on this matter to have Ryan Kelly represent Mariposa County on the Committee. Mariposa County has three vacancies, two members and one alternate, to represent County interests in the San Joaquins rail and Thruway Bus corridor. Regular Members must be a resident of the county they represent and cannot be an elected official.
Ryan Kelly’s letter of recommendation is attached.
David Ayers and Cheyne Strawn
Staff has received a recommendation from Kings County Association of Governments Executive Director, Terri King, on this matter to have David Ayers as a SJVRC Member and Cheyne Strawn as a SJVRC Alternate to represent Kings County on the Committee. Mr. Ayers has previously served as an SJJPA Alternate for Tulare County and formally the Mayor of Hanford from 2014 through 2018. Kings County has two vacancies, one member and one alternate, to represent County interests in the San Joaquins rail and Thruway Bus corridor.
David Ayers and Cheyne Strawn’s SJVRC appointment recommendation from Kings County Association of Government and bio’s is attached.
13 of 103 Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact.
Recommendation: Appoint Ryan Kelly, David Ayers and Cheyne Strawn to fill vacancies on the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee (SJVRC).
14 of 103 Mariposa County DALLIN KIMBLE County Administrative Officer
Board of Supervisors RENE LAROCHE Clerk of the Board District 1 ... ROSEMARIE SMALLCOMBE District 2 ...... MERLIN JONES P. 0. Box 784 Mariposa, CA 95338 District 3 ...... MARSHALL LONG (209) 966-3222 District 4 ...... KEVIN CANN (800) 736-1252 District 5 ...... MILES MENETREY Fax (209) 966-5147 www.mariposacounty.org/board
San Joaquin Valley Rail Joint Powers Authority Attn: Rene Gutierrez, Associate Planner 949 East Channel St. Stockton, CA 95202
Dear Authority Members,
I write to encourage you to accept Mr. Ryan Kelly's application to represent Mariposa County's interests on the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee. Mr. Kelly is an active member of the El Portal community. He has participated in the El Portal Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) since the latter part of 2016 and became Chair of the PAC in the first part of 2017. He is very engaged in the El Portal community and works hard to ensure communication among PAC members and with the broader community. He serves as liaison with the Park Service for the Yosemite Conservancy and also is an important link between Mariposa County and the El Portal community. He is very good at identifying resources and pulling partners and community members together to find solutions to identified concerns.
Should you confirm his membership in the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee, I am certain you will find him to be a proactive, articulate and intelligent member. I therefore encourage you to favorably consider his application.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Rosemarie Smallcombe, District I Mariposa County Board of Supervisors
15 of 103 Mariposa County -- An Equal Opportunity Employer 339 W. D Street, Suite B Kings County Lemoore, CA 93245 Tel. (559) 852-2654 Association of Governments Fax (559) 924-5632 www.kingscog.org Member Agencies: Cities of Avenal, Corcoran, Hanford and Lemoore, County of Kings
Chair: Joe Neves Vice-Chair: Francisco Ramirez
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if, you need special assistance to participate in this meeting please contact the KCAG Office at (559) 852-2654 by 4:00 on the Friday prior to this meeting. Agenda backup information and any public records provided to the Commission after the posting of the agenda for this meeting will be available for public review at 339 West D Street, Suite B, Lemoore, CA. In addition most documents will be posted on www.kingscog.org. M E E T I N G
Agenda: KINGS COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS COMMISSION
Place: Board of Supervisors Chambers Kings County Government Center 1400 W. Lacey Blvd., Hanford, CA
Time: 4:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 26, 2019
ITEM PAGE ACTION
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER - Chairman
A. Roll Call
B. Unscheduled Appearances
Any person may address the Commission on any subject matter within the jurisdiction or responsibility of the Commission at the beginning of the meeting; or may elect to address the Commission on any agenda item at the time the item is called by the Chair, but before the matter is acted upon by the Commission. Unscheduled comments will be limited to three minutes.
C. Minutes
1. Minutes of May 22, 2019 1-7 Action
II. KCAG TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE
A. General Transportation Items
1. Valley Electric Vehicle Aviation-Ground Innovations Coalition 8-18 Information
2. San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee Appointments 19 Action
3. FY 2017-18 Transportation Development Act Financial and 20-49 Action Compliance Audit and Release of Allocations - Corcoran Attachment
4. Final Triennial Performance Audit Reports 50-51 Action Attachments
5. FY 2019-20 Transportation Development Act 52-62 Information a. Unmet Transit Needs Determination 63-67 Action (Resolution No. 19-07) b. Local Transportation Fund 68-71 Action (Resolution No. 19-08) c. State Transit Assistance 72-74 Action (Resolution No. 19-09) 16 of 103 ITEM PAGE ACTION
B. Caltrans Reports
C. Correspondence
D. Staff Comments
E. Commissioner Comments
III. KCAG COMMISSION
A. General Commission Items
1. Reaffirm all Actions Taken by the TPC on June 26, 2019 - Action
2. Areawide Planning Review No. 19-01 75-78 Action Alta Irrigation District USDA Rural Development Community Facilities Grant
3. Out of State Travel to Washington DC 79 Action
4. KCAG Executive Director Compensation 80-81 Action (Resolution No. 19-02)
5. Election of New Officers 82 a. Chair Action b. Vice Chair Action
B. Closed Session Report
Public report of action taken in closed session, pursuant Government Code section 54957.1
IV. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Correspondence
B. Staff Comments
C. Commissioner Comments
V. ADJOURNMENT: Next meeting scheduled for July 24, 2019
17 of 103 339 W. D Street, Suite B Kings County Lemoore, CA 93245 Tel. (559) 852-2654 Association of Governments Fax (559) 924-5632 www.kingscog.org Member Agencies: Cities of Avenal, Corcoran, Hanford and Lemoore, County of Kings
TO: KCAG Transportation Policy Committee FROM: Terri King, Executive Director DATE: June 26, 2019
SUBJECT: San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee Appointments
Introduction
Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) is a member of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA). The SJJPA is a regional government agency formed to take over the governance and management of the existing San Joaquin intercity passenger rail service between Bakersfield- Fresno- Modesto- Stockton- Sacramento- Oakland. To help provide direction to the SJJPA, a San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee was transformed from a prior Caltrans rail committee and established in 2015.
San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee Vacancies
The purpose of the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee is to discuss and formulate plans, suggestions, and ideas for changes and improvements to passenger train service in the San Joaquin Rail corridor and then pass on to the SJJPA. The San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee meets 2-4 times a year at various locations along the San Joaquin rail corridor with meeting times varied to coordinate with the train schedule, and members should be able to attend meetings in person.
The San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee is citizen-based, with two voting members and one alternate selected from the Kings County region. The members of the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee must be a resident of the county they represent and cannot be an elected official, nor staff of SJJPA Member Agencies. The current membership representing Kings County includes Alan Scott as a regular member, with the remaining regular member and alternate positions vacant.
KCAG began accepting application forms of interested members of the public to fill one vacancy for a regular member and one vacancy for the alternate member of the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee through June 7, 2018. Two persons, David Ayers and Cheyne Strawn, both from Hanford, expressed interest. Based on David Ayer’s prior experience as a SJJPA Board member, KCAG staff recommends the appointment of David Ayers as the regular member; and recommends that Cheyne Strawn be appointed as the alternate member. The approved appointees list of Kings County names will be submitted to the SJJPA for formal action at one of their future meetings.
Recommendation
KCAG staff and the KCAG Technical Advisory Committee recommend that the KCAG Transportation Policy Committee approve David Ayers as the regular member and Cheyne Strawn as the alternate member representing Kings County on the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee for consideration by the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority.
18 of 103 H:\RTPA\RAIL\San Joaquins JPA\SJV Rail Committe Appointment 2019 TPC.docx DAVID G. AYERS - BIO
Personal: Born. raised. and livin2:in Hanford California Married to wife,Julie. Have two sons, Sean and Colin.
Education: Graduate of HanfordHigh School A.A. College of the Sequoias B.S University of California, Santa Barbara B.S. Physical Therapy, CaliforniaState University, Fresno
Professional: Practicing as a physical therapist in Kings, Fresno, and Tulare Counties for42 years
Government Involvement:
Kings County PlanningCommi ssion 1994-98
HanfordCity Council 1998-2010, served three years as Vice Mayor, three years as Mayor
Hanford City Council 2014-2018, served one year as Vice Mayor, two years as Mayor
Hanford Planning Commission 2012-14
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District GoverningBoard Member 2007-2010, 2016 to 2018
Kings Waste and Recycling Authority, JPA GoverningBoard member 2002-10, 2014 to 2018. Chairperson 2017-18
League of CaliforniaCities South San Joaquin Valley Division, Executive Board member Kings County representative 2007-10, 2014-15 President 2015 to 2017
CommunityInvolvement:
CarnegieMuseum GoverningBoard member for12 years, served as Vice Chairperson two years, servedas Chairperson two years
Carnegie Museum of Kings County Board member 2020 to present
Bov Scouts of America. Troon 413 in Hanford. adult leader for 12 vears
Boy Scouts of America, Kings River District, served for six years, two years as Committee Chair
19 of 103 Cheyne Strawn, Hanford, CA As a transplant from Tulare County almost 5 years ago, Mr. Strawn got involved with the Hanford community almost immediately. Mr. Strawn serves on the Longfield Recreation Center Advisory Committee and serves on ad-hoc playground approval committees. Mr. Strawn’s previous accomplishments have been serving as a past District Field Representative for the California State Assembly, graduating in 2009 from the Leadership Tulare Program that was presented by the Tulare Chamber of Commerce, served 2 terms on the Tulare County Grand Jury, a member of the Tulare Kings Hispanic Chamber serving on the legislative Committee, and served as the Student Senate President for College of the Sequoias. Mr. Strawn has always been a railroad enthusiast. At a young age, his parents would take him across the country riding on many of America’s historic rail lines such as the Durango and Silverton, Chama and San Antonito, the Grand Canyon Railway, and Eureka Springs railway.
20 of 103 SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of January 22, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 2.3 INFORMATION
Next Board Meeting Location
Background: The next SJJPA Board Meeting will be held on March 26, 2021, with the exact location to be determined based on availability. The meeting time will be coordinated with the San Joaquins schedule and in accordance with Federal, State and local ordinances related to COVID-19.
Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact.
Recommendation: Advise on the next Board Meeting location.
21 of 103 SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of January 22, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 2.4 INFORMATION
SJJPA Operating Expense Report
Please see the attached SJJPA Operating Expense Report for the following period:
• Fiscal Year Start 2020/21 (July 1, 2020 – November 30, 2020)
Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact.
Recommendation: This is an informational item. There is no action requested.
22 of 103 San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Operating Expense Report November 2020 42% of Budget Year Elapsed
SJJPA EXPENSE YTD FY 20-21 TO PERCENT OPERATING EXPENSES ALLOCATION DATE EXPENDED
Administrative Expenses Salaries/Benefits/Contract Help 2,361,112 592,825 25% Office Expense 24,517 1,745 7% Subscriptions/Periodicals/Memberships 5,000 - 0% Computer Systems 5,000 - 0% Communications 28,977 3,847 13% Motor Pool 29,779 2,205 7% Transportation/Travel 5,000 8 0% Training 7,605 - 0% Audits Regulatory Reporting 17,000 11,750 69% Professional Services Legislative 34,486 10,417 30% Professional Services Legal 75,000 20,771 28% Professional Services General 281,015 65,177 23% Professional Services Grants 67,000 - 0% Publications/Legal Notices 10,000 115 1% Professional Services Operations 20,000 13,682 68% Communications, Operations 11,016 4,114 37% Maintenance of Headquarters Structures/Grounds 109,623 31,461 29% Insurance 93,850 18,495 20% Insurance Management Fees 2,500 - 0% Security Services/Safety Program 59,109 28,391 48% Administrative Expenses Subtotal 3,247,589 805,001 25% Marketing Expense Marketing & Outreach 2,410,000 336,338 14% Marketing Expenses Subtotal 2,410,000 336,338 14% Amtrak Contract Expense San Joaquin Intercity Rail Operations (All Contracts) 60,205,207 14,253,031 24% Amtrak Contract Expense Subtotal 60,205,207 14,253,031 24%
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 65,862,796 15,394,370 23%
23 of 103 SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of January 22, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 2.5 INFORMATION
Blue Ribbon Task Force Letter
Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact.
Recommendation: This is an informational item. There is no action requested.
24 of 103 December 24, 2020
Mr. Vito Chiesa Chair, Board San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority 949 East Channel Street Stockton, CA 95202
RE: Blue Ribbon Transit Recovery Task Force
Dear Chair Chiesa:
I wanted to provide you and your colleagues an update on the activities of the Blue Ribbon Transit Recovery Task Force (Task Force) convened by MTC as part of our action last spring to distribute the first phase of CARES Act funding to transit operators. After focusing initially on COVID-19 health and safety protocols and encouraging the adoption of common messaging that all of the region’s transit operators could agree upon, the Task Force has now moved to the next critical stage—long-term recovery and transformation. The Task Force’s vision of transit transformation is to:
Design, adequately invest in and effectively manage a public transit network that is equitable, inclusive, frequent, affordable, accessible, reliable; is integrated with unified service, fares, schedules, customer information and identity; and serves all Bay Area populations, resulting in increased transit ridership and reduced growth in vehicle miles traveled.
At its meeting on November 16, the Task Force adopted four specific goals and objectives for the Transformation Action Plan, attached. Goals 1 and 2 are foundational to the remainder of the plan: First, acknowledge the fiscal crisis facing operators and defer post-recovery service planning to allow agencies to prioritize difficult fiscal and service choices in the midst of increasing uncertainty. Second, prioritize equity. Third, identify near-term actions to implement network management & governance reforms, and fourth, identify how current MTC and state initiatives can help advance those reforms.
Notably, this effort is related to, but separate from, two other initiatives that MTC is working on with the Bay Area’s transit operators of which you may also be aware: A Fare Coordination/Integration Study and a Transit Mapping and Wayfinding Project, both of which seek to improve the transit rider experience and encourage ridership as we recover from the pandemic. Work on those efforts is ongoing, with updates to the Task Force planned for January 2021.
The Task Force currently consists of 32 members, including California State Transportation Agency Secretary David Kim and, Assemblymember David Chiu, eight MTC Commissioners, nine transit agency general managers and 9 stakeholders representing various interests, including labor, business, social equity, and persons with disabilities. Knowing what a difficult time this is for your agency, we very much appreciate the time your staff are devoting to this effort.
25 of 103 MTC staff will schedule a virtual meeting for the region’s transit agency board members early next year to provide an opportunity for you to learn more and ask questions. In the meantime, meetings of the Task Force are open to the public and held via Zoom. Prior meeting materials are available for review on MTC’s website here. The final Transformation Action Plan, anticipated to be completed in June 2021, will likely include legislative recommendations and Assemblymember Chiu has made it clear he is interested in authoring legislation on this subject. If you have questions or would like to request a presentation regarding the work of the Task Force work at a future board meeting, please contact Rebecca Long, MTC Manager of Government Relations at [email protected] or 510-504-7914.
Sincerely,
Scott Haggerty Chairman cc: MTC Commissioner Jim Spering (Blue Ribbon Transit Recovery Task Force Chair) Stacey Mortensen, Executive Director, San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority
26 of 103 Transformation Action Plan Goals & Objectives Adopted November 16, 2020
Transit Transformation Definition: Design, adequately invest in and effectively manage a public transit network that is equitable, inclusive, frequent, affordable, accessible, and reliable; is integrated with unified service, fares, schedules, customer information and identity; and serves all Bay Area populations, resulting in increased transit ridership and reduced growth in vehicle miles traveled.
Goal 1: Recognize Critical Recovery Challenges Facing Transit Agencies Defer post-recovery service planning to allow Bay Area transit agencies to prioritize difficult fiscal and service choices in the midst of increasing uncertainty. A. Encourage timely additional MTC funding and regulatory relief during the Transit Recovery period. B. Advocate for timely additional federal and state funding to support Recovery. C. Receive quarterly Stage 2 updates from Operators and MTC. D. Support regional funds for inclusive rider research and return-to-transit communications.
Goal 2: Advance Equity Integrate and be accountable to equity in policy, service delivery and advocacy recommendations, as embodied in MTC’s Equity Platform. A. Develop specific Equity Principles to guide Transit Transformation planning. B. Include focused outreach to current riders, underserved populations, and persons with disabilities to inform the Transformation Action Plan.
Goal 3: Identify near-term actions to implement beneficial long-term Network Management & Governance reforms Develop business case and identify specific next steps to deliver public transit network management and governance reforms that will fulfill long-term transit transformation. A. Develop a clear Problem Statement that addresses what issues or problems Network Management reforms seek to resolve. B. Using prior MTC analyses and qualified professionals, evaluate regionwide network management alternatives, addressing issues of legal authority, labor, scope of duties, oversight, and increased budget requirements and savings. Recommend near-term reform actions. C. Using MTC staff and qualified professionals, identify and support near-term consolidation opportunities focused in but not limited to smaller transit markets with multiple transit operators to provide a more connected service to the customer, where feasible. D. Propose state and regional policy and legislative actions to support transit transformation and expedite implementation of transit priority advantages on streets and highways.
Goal 4: Establish how current MTC and state transit initiatives should integrate with Network Management & Governance reforms Review the scope, timing, and decision process of current MTC and state transit initiatives and identify specific actions to integrate them with Management & Governance reforms. A. Receive presentations on several current MTC transit initiatives and comment on their relationship to Management & Governance reforms. B. Receive state presentation on CalSTA initiatives that inform management and governance reform.
27 of 103 SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of January 22, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 2.6 INFORMATION
Washington Update
Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact.
Recommendation: This is an informational item. There is no action requested.
28 of 103 Tai Ginsberg & Associates, LLC Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC 810 7th Street, NE 1700 K Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20002 Washington, DC 20006 T 202 415 9703 T 202 452 7900
TO: San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) FROM: TG&A Staff SUBJECT: Monthly Progress Report for DECEMBER 2020 DATE: December 31, 2020
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION/EXECUTIVE BRANCH December 11-27, 2020. President Donald Trump signed into law the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021” (Omnibus) the evening of December 27, 2020, before the expiration of the Continuing Resolution (CR) [HR 1520 - 5th CR] at 12:01 am on December 29, 2020. Prior to enactment of the Omnibus bill the President had signed into law several other CRs to maintain the funding of government operations since the beginning of FY 2021 on October 1, 2020, i.e. [HR 8337 - 1st CR], [HR 8900 - 2nd CR], [HJ Res. 107 - 3rd CR], and [HJ Res. 110 - 4th CR].
December 9, 2020. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, Andrew R. Wheeler, signed a Final Rule [also see Fact Sheet] and submitted it for publication in the Federal Register. The rule establishes processes that the EPA will be required to undertake in promulgating regulations under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to ensure that information regarding the benefits/costs of regulatory decisions is provided and considered in a consistent and transparent manner. Also see EPA Resources Page.
December 8, 2020. The Administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy (SOAP) strongly opposing passage of the conference report to Accompany H.R. 6395, i.e. the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The SOAP stated that, “Unfortunately, this conference report fails to include critical national security measures, includes provisions that fail to respect our veterans and our military’s history, and contradicts efforts by this Administration to put America first in our national security and foreign policy actions.” The President vetoed the bill on 12/23/2020. The House voted to override the President’s veto on December 28, 2020.
PRESIDENT-ELECT BIDEN ADMINISTRATION December 15, 2020. President-elect Joe Biden announced Pete Buttigieg as his nominee to serve as the 19th Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Buttigieg has served as the 32nd Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, for eight years. Buttigieg was also an intelligence officer in the U.S. Navy Reserve who was deployed to Afghanistan in 2014, eventually earning the rank of Lieutenant. A native of South Bend, Buttigieg graduated from Harvard University and was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) applauded the nomination of Pete Buttigieg as Secretary of Transportation. AASHTO congratulates Pete Buttigieg on his nomination to be U.S. Secretary of Transportation. In a tweet on December 22, 2020, the nominee provided a glimpse of one of his future policy initiatives (see below).
29 of 103 2019-2020 TRANSPORTATION-RELATED NOMINATIONS/CONFIRMATIONS/RESIGNATIONS Type in name at this URL: Nominations Since the November 2020 Report, following are the only changes in status (RED TYPE) to transportation-related nominees. A full 2019/2020 listing of “Nominations” is available from TG&A upon request. NOMINEE US DOT ADMINISTRATOR / OTHER STATUS Eric J. Soskin (VA) Inspector General, Department of Received in the Senate and referred sequentially to the Committee Soskin Transportation. [Calvin L. Scovel, on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on 6/22/2020. resigned.] Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Hearings held on 8/6/2020. Approved by the Senate Commerce Committee on 9/16/2020 by a vote of 14-12. Confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 48 – 47 on 12/21/2020.
2020 GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS–See Addendum A. - at the end of the report.
HR 133 - FINAL FY 2021 APPROPRIATIONS / COVID-19 AID PACKAGE / AND OTHER MEASURES President Donald Trump signed into law the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021” (Omnibus) the evening of December 27, 2020. The massive bill (5,593 pages) packaged together twelve annual appropriation bills valued at $1.4 trillion (including US DOT), a pandemic aid package valued at $900 billion (which included $45 billion in transportation aid) and several other add-on measures. Below are brief sketches of some of the transportation-related measures contained in the Omnibus bill.
US DOT Appropriations - HR 133 The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies (THUD) appropriations bill provided $75.35 billion in discretionary budget authority - $1 billion more than in FY 2020. See US DOT funding Chart below.
FY 2021 US DOT Appropriation Highlights - Omnibus Division L
(Omnibus) (Enacted) Omnibus FY 2021 Vs. FY 2020 Enacted Omnibus FY 2021 Vs. FY 2020 Enacted Office of the Secretary FY 2021 FY 2020 + / - "$" Difference + / - "%" Difference National Infrastructure Investments (BUILD Grants) 1,000,000,000 1,000,000,000 No Change No Change Essential Air Service 319,331,553 312,512,000 6,819,553 2.18% Small Community Air Service Development Pgm. 10,000,000 10,000,000 No Change No Change Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) 70,000,000 - 70,000,000 100% Transportation Demonstration Program 100,000,000 - 100,000,000 100%
Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic "Contract" Control Tower 172,800,000 170,000,000 2,800,000 1.65% Airport Improvement Program 3,350,000,000 3,350,000,000 No Change No Change Grants-In-Aid For Airports (Supplemental G.F.) 400,000,000 400,000,000 No Change No Change
Federal Highway Administration Highway Obligation Limitation 46,365,092,000 46,365,092,000 No Change No Change Highway Infrastructure Programs (Supplemental G.F.) 2,000,000,000 2,166,140,392 (166,140,392) -7.67%
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program 308,700,000 308,700,000 No Change No Change Commercial Driver’s License Program 33,200,000 33,200,000 No Change No Change High Priorities Activities Program 45,900,000 45,900,000 No Change No Change Commercial Motor Vehicles Operations Grant Pgm. 2,000,000 3,335,561 (1,335,561) -40.04%
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Highway Safety Programs (Sec. 402) 279,800,000 279,800,000 No Change No Change National Priority Safety Programs (Sec. 405) 285,900,000 285,900,000 No Change No Change High Visibility Enforcement Program 30,500,000 30,500,000 No Change No Change
Federal Railroad Administration Northeast Corridor 700,000,000 700,000,000 No Change No Change National Network Grants 1,300,000,000 1,300,000,000 No Change No Change Federal-State Partnership - State/Good Repair Grants 200,000,000 200,000,000 No Change No Change Consolidated Rail Infrastructure/Safety Improvement Gnts. 375,000,000 325,000,000 50,000,000 15.38% Restoration and Enhancement 4,720,000 2,000,000 2,720,000 136.00% Magnetic Levitation Tech. Deployment Program 2,000,000 2,000,000 No Change No Change
Federal Transit Administration Transit Obligation Limitation 10,150,348,462 10,150,348,462 No Change No Change Capital Investment Grants 2,014,000,000 1,978,000,000 36,000,000 1.82% Transit Infrastructure Grants (Supplemental G.F.) 516,220,000 510,000,000 6,220,000 1.22%
Maritime Administration America's Marine Highway (Short Sea Transportation Pgm.) 10,819,000 9,775,000 1,044,000 10.68% Assistance to Small Shipyards 20,000,000 20,000,000 No Change No Change Port Infrastructure Development Program 230,000,000 225,000,000 5,000,000 2.22%
National Transportation Safety Board NTSB 118,400,000 110,400,000 8,000,000 7.25%
Surface Transportation Board STB 37,500,000 37,100,000 400,000 1.08%
30 of 103 In the absence of a “Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act” or the “FAST Act” reauthorization agreement (which expired on September 30, 2020), the Omnibus assumed the continuation of the FAST Act highway, highway safety and transit program structure as if extended through FY 2021. A thorough 10-page analysis of FY 2021 US DOT appropriations is available from TG&A upon request. See Division by Division Summary, Division L - Transportation Joint Explanatory Statement and see Congressional Research Service (CRS) updated Report entitled, “Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies (THUD) Appropriations for FY 2021: In Brief.” Also, see NACo Analysis 12/22/2020.
COVID-19 RELIEF PROVISIONS (General and Transportation) - HR 133 The COVID-aid portion of the bill totals around $900 billion (see circle diagram below from the WSJ) and provides a new round of direct payments worth up to $600 (for individuals making up to $75,000 per year and $1,200 for couples making up to $150,000 per year), as well as a $600 payment for each child dependent, and jobless aid of $300 per week for worker receiving unemployment benefits through March 14, 2021. The bill also includes $45 billion in aid to the transportation sector. See Division by Division Summary.
COVID-19 Relief Transportation funding splits on the next page.
31 of 103 CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE AND RELIEF SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2021 (DIVISIONS M and N) US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ET AL. FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS/AGENCIES Notes: $ FUNDING Federal Aviation Administration Grants-In-Aid For Airports 1./ 2,000,000,000 Primary Airports (1,750,000,000) General Aviation/Commercial Airports (45,000,000) Primary Airports - Rent Relief/Car Rental/Concessions (200,000,000) Small Community Air Service Development Program (5,000,000) Federal Highway Administration 2./ 10,000,000,000 Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (9,840,057,332) Tribal Transportation Program (114,568,862) Puerto Rico Highway Program (35,845,307) Territorial Highway Program (9,528,499) Federal Railroad Administration 1,000,000,000 Northeast Corridor Grants to Amtrak 3./ 4./ (655,431,000) National Network Grants to Amtrak 3./ 4./ 5./ (344,569,000) Federal Transit Administration 14,000,000,000 Urbanized Areas (Formula) 6./ (13,271,310,572) Seniors and Persons with Disabilities (Formula) (50,034,973) Rural Areas (Formula) (678,654,455) PASSENGER AIR CARRIERS 15,000,000,000 AVIATION WORKERS - CONTRACTORS 1,000,000,000 TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 2,000,000,000 (Over-the-Road Bus/School Bus/Passenger Vessel) TOTAL: 45,000,000,000 1./ Federal Share of 100 percent. 2./ Federal Share of 100 percent; FHWA may retain up to $10 million for oversight. 3./ Not less than $109.805 million can be used by Amtrak in lieu of payments from states/commuter rail passenger providers subject to the cost allocation payments. 4./ US DOT may retain up to $2.030 million to fund the costs of project management and oversight activities. 5./ Amtrak may utilize up to $174.850 million to be apportioned toward State payments required by the cost methodology policy adopted per Section 209 of PRIIA. 6./ No recipient may receive more than $4 million.
SELECTED CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS/BUSINESS December 18, 2020. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) issued a Statement in response to the news that all freight, Amtrak, intercity, and commuter railroads will meet the December 31, 2020 deadline for implementing positive train control (PTC).
December 8-28, 2020 – National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). On December 28, the House voted 322 to 87 to override President Trump’s veto; the bill was sent to the Senate for an override vote which may occur on December 30. On December 23, 2020 (Wednesday) President Donald Trump vetoed the $740.5 billion the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2021 [HR 6395 / Conference Rpt 116-617]. The President issued a Veto Message in which he highlighted several reasons for vetoing the bill. The $740.5 billion NDAA contains several transportation provisions, such as: o SEC. 2833 LAND CONVEYANCE, SHARPE ARMY DEPOT, LATHROP CALIFORNIA. – which would transfer the Sharpe Army Depot to the Port of Stockton; o SEC. 3504. ASSISTANCE FOR INLAND AND SMALL COASTAL PORTS AND TERMINALS. – which decreases the set-aside to 18 percent from 25 percent from the port and intermodal improvement program (small ports program);
32 of 103 o SEC. 9007. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY LARGE SCALE NON-INTRUSIVE INSPECTION SCANNING PLAN – which requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop a plan for increasing to 100 percent the rate of high-throughput scanning of commercial and passenger vehicles and freight rail traffic entering the US at land ports of entry and rail-border crossings along the border using large-scale non-intrusive inspection systems or similar technology to enhance border security.
December 10, 2020. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation held a hearing to discuss and receive testimony on, “The Logistics of Transporting a COVID-19 Vaccine.” Committee Link and Testimony.
TRANSPORTATION-RELATED FULL COMMITTEE ROSTERS FOR 117TH CONGRESS (1st Session) Note: The Chairmanship/Ranking member selections for the Full Senate are dependent upon which party attains the majority after the two runoff elections in Georgia on January 5, 2020. Democrats need to win both seats to split control of the chamber 50-50. The Vice President (Democrat Kamala Harris beginning in January 2021) would then cast tie-breaking votes in the Senate. Republicans need to win at least one seat to maintain their majority.
House Full Committee Selections for the 117th Congress (As of December 6, 2020)
APPROPRIATIONS Rosa DeLauro Chairwoman (D-CT) Kay Granger Ranking (R-TX)
BUDGET John Yarmuth Chairman (D-KY) Jason Smith Ranking (R-MO)
ENERGY AND COMMERCE Frank Pallone, Jr. Chairman (D-NJ) Cathy McMorris Rodgers Ranking (R-WA)
HOMELAND SECURITY Bennie Thompson Chairman (D-MS) John Katko (TBD) Ranking (R-NY)
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Peter DeFazio Chairman (D-OR) Sam Graves Ranking (R-MO)
WAYS AND MEANS Richard Neal Chairman (D-MA) Kevin Brady Ranking (R-TX)
December 1, 2020. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation convened an executive session to consider the following nominations: Mr. Greg Autry, of California, to be Chief Financial Officer of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Mr. Daniel Huff, of Massachusetts, to be Assistant Secretary of the Department of Commerce, and Mr. Nathan Simington, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission. Committee Link and Webcast.
December 1, 2020. Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE), and Congressmen Peter DeFazio (D-OR), and Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) filed an Amicus Brief vs. the Council On Environmental Quality (CEQ) concerning the regulations issued by the CEQ Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on July 16, 2020.
33 of 103 The Administration or (CEQ) argued that the final NEPA rule would “modernize and accelerate environmental reviews” while the plaintiffs argue that the rule will narrow the range of impacts and alternatives that agencies consider in environmental impact analyses, impede public involvement in the NEPA process, and make it harder for amici’s constituents to challenge flawed NEPA analyses in court. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the rule is “is inconsistent with decades of judicial decisions, CEQ regulations and guidance, and agency practice.” The brief request that the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia Charlottesville Division grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (to seek a judgement without a full trial because the other party has no case).
December 1, 2020. The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs met in Open Session to conduct a hearing entitled “The Quarterly CARES Act Report to Congress.” See Mike Crapo (R-ID) Statement and Committee Link, Testimony and Webcast.
SELECTED CONGRESSIONAL “TRANSPORTATION-RELATED” BILLS – DECEMBER HOUSE & SENATE - CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) LEGISLATION See S. Amendment to HR 133 below. OTHER SENATE BILLS S 979 M. Rubio (R-FL) “Federal Advance Contracts S 4961 T. Baldwin (D-WI) to improve the efficiency and reliability of rail Enhancement Act” or the ‘‘FACE Act.” transportation by reforming the Surface Transportation Board. Introduced 4/2/2019. The bill will improve Introduced 12/3/2020. FEMA’s advance contracting process, based on recommendations from the GAO, and will require FEMA to ensure more effective use/management of its advance contracts for goods/services. Passed the House on 12/18/2020 and the bill passed the Senate last year. The bill was presented to the President on 12/21/2020. OTHER HOUSE BILLS HR 6395 A. Smith (D-WA) “National Defense S Amendment H. Cuellar (D-TX) “FY 2021 Omnibus Appropriations and COVID Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.” to HR 133 Relief and Response Act.” The House passed the bill on HR 6395 Introduced 3/26/2020. Passed House 12/21/2020, 359-53 and the Senate passed the bill 92-6. The Summary 7/21/2020 295–125 and Passed Senate on President signed HR 133 into law on 12/27/2020. 11/16/2020 with an amendment by Voice Vote. House passed the Conference Report by a vote of 335 to 78 on 12/8/2020 and the Senate passed the bill on 12/11/2020 by a vote of 84-13. The President vetoed the bill on 12/23/2020. House voted 322 to 87 to override President Trump’s veto on 12/28/2020. H. Res 1258 J. "Chuy" Garcia (D-IL) Declaring that public HR 8926 S. Moulton (D-MA) “American High-Speed Rail Act.” The bill will transit is a national priority which requires Press Release help build a national high-speed rail system by Investing $41 funding equal to the level of highway funding. Related billion annually in high-speed/higher-speed rail through grants Congress uses a formula set in 1982 that White Paper administered by the FRA over 5 years, with incentives for $38 allocates 80 percent of federal transportation billion in non-federal funding. Introduced 12/9/2020. dollars to highways, and the remaining 20 percent to public transit. The resolution calls for transit funding to be equal to highway funding. Introduced 12/10/2020. HR 5152 N. Velazquez (D-NY) “Transportation Equity Act.” To establish a grant program under which the Secretary of Transportation will reimburse public transportation agencies that offer free unlimited transportation passes to eligible individuals. Introduced 11/18/2020.
34 of 103 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITY (NOFOs) - GRANT AWARDS See Addendum B. - Calendar Year NOFO/AWARDS SCORECARD – at end of report.
December 16, 2020. The US DOT launched a new demonstration program to establish several Regional Infrastructure Accelerators (Accelerators), which will expedite delivery of transportation infrastructure projects through innovative finance and delivery methods. The Department’s Build America Bureau (the Bureau) issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) to solicit applications to designate Accelerators that will serve defined geographic areas, act as a resource to qualified entities within the designated areas, and demonstrate the effectiveness of these Accelerators to expedite the delivery of eligible projects through Federal credit assistance programs, including Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) and other innovative financing methods. There is no requirement for cost sharing or matching the grant funds and the Bureau intends to select at least three but no more than five RIAs, based on the number of applications. The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, enacted on December 20, 2019, appropriated $5 million for this Program. Applications are due by 11:59 p.m. EST 90 days after publication of the Federal Register notice [not yet published].
November 27, 2020. [Note: This is the official Federal Register Notice – this NOFO was also covered in the November TG&A Report per a US DOT Press Release.] The US DOT Office of the Secretary issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for the Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing Program (RRIF) Express Pilot Program expanding eligibility criteria and extending the deadline for submission of Letters of Interest. The eligibility criteria is revised to increase the total project size limit to $150 million, broaden project scope consistent with the RRIF statute, and expand the proportion of refinancing allowed to 75 percent. Letters of Interest from prospective RRIF borrowers for the RRIF Express Program will be accepted on a rolling basis until available funding is expended or the notice is superseded by another notice.
November 26, 2020. The National Science Foundation (NSF), an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1950, issued an unrestricted (open to any type of entity) Discretionary Grant Opportunity making available $23,500,000 under the Smart and Connected Communities (S&CC) program. The goal of the NSF S&CC program solicitation is to accelerate the creation of the scientific and engineering foundations that will enable smart and connected communities to bring about new levels of economic opportunity and growth, safety and security, health and wellness, accessibility and inclusivity, and overall quality of life. For the purposes of this solicitation, communities are defined as having geographically-delineated boundaries—such as towns, cities, counties, neighborhoods, community districts, rural areas, and tribal regions—consisting of various populations, with the structure and ability to engage in meaningful ways with proposed research activities. The closing date for applications is February 24, 2021.
OTHER TRANSPORTATION-RELATED FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES December 28, 2020. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued a Final Rule to establish the regulations governing the DOT Program for Eliminating Duplication of Environmental Reviews (Pilot Program). This final rule is effective January 27, 2021.
December 22, 2020. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) proposes to issue regulations requiring certain railroads to develop and implement a Fatigue Risk Management Program, as one component of the railroads’ larger railroad safety risk reduction programs. Written comments must be received by February 22, 2021.
35 of 103 December 18, 2020. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to revise its regulations governing changes to positive train control (PTC) systems and reporting on PTC system functioning. The FRA is proposing to modify the process by which a host railroad must submit a request for amendment (RFA) to FRA before making certain changes to its PTC Safety Plan (PTCSP) and FRA-certified PTC system. Second, to enable more effective FRA oversight, FRA proposes to: Expand an existing reporting requirement by increasing the frequency from annual to biannual; broaden the reporting requirement to encompass positive performance-related information, not just failure-related information; and require host railroads to utilize a new, standardized Biannual Report of PTC System Performance form. Written comments must be received by February 16, 2021.
December 15, 2020. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a Notification of Determination announcing FRA’s minimum annual random drug and minimum annual random alcohol testing rates for covered service and maintenance-of-way (MOW) employees for calendar year 2021. The determination takes effect December 15, 2020.
December 14, 2020. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a Final Rule in response to the FAST Act mandate that FRA issue a rule requiring 40 States and the District of Columbia to develop and implement highway-rail grade crossing action plans. The final rule requires ten States that were previously required to develop Action Plans by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA) and other FRA regulation to update their plans and submit reports describing the actions they have taken to implement their plans. All 50 states and the District of Columbia are required to submit individual highway-rail grade crossing action plans to FRA for review and approval no later than 14 months after the final rule’s publication date of December 14, 2020. The final rule is effective January 13, 2021.
December 9, 2020. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a Final Rule amending regulations that modify the way it calculates periodic adjustments to the reporting threshold and the way it communicates each calendar year’s threshold to railroads. The final rule will improve the accuracy of accident/incident data gathered from the railroads. The rule may require the railroads to report slightly more accidents/incidents in any year; however, FRA expects the results will provide more accurate and consistent train accident data for analyzing railroad safety. The final rule is effective January 8, 2021.
November 23, 2020. The US DOT proposes to update and codify its internal order establishing the responsibilities and procedures for complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), currently found in DOT Order 5610.1C, “Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts,” which was issued in 1979 and last updated in 1985. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) would update the DOT NEPA procedures in response to the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) final rule [Final Rule] updating its NEPA procedures and also incorporate provisions of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21); and the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act related to the Department’s environmental review process. Persons interested in submitting written comments on this NPRM must do so by [TBD - 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
November 24, 2020. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) requesting comments on a proposed revision to the design standards and standard specifications applicable to new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing (except for maintenance resurfacing), restoration, and rehabilitation projects on the National Highway System (NHS). FHWA Administrator Nicole Nason noted that, “The FHWA proposes to provide regulatory relief to states to address the immediate repair needs of our nation’s roadways without compromising safety and efficiency.” The proposed rule would incorporate the latest versions of design standards and standard specifications previously adopted and incorporated by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the American Welding Society (AWS) and were adopted by FHWA.
36 of 103 OTHER REPORTS/NOTICES/NEWS ARTICLES December 23, 2020. Amtrak’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a Report entitled, “GOVERNANCE: Quality Control Review of the Independent Audit of Amtrak’s Consolidated Financial Statements for Fiscal Year Ended 2020.” Because Amtrak receives federal assistance, it must obtain an audit performed in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
December 18, 2020. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a Report entitled, “AUTOMATED TECHNOLOGIES - DOT Should Take Steps to Ensure Its Workforce Has Skills Needed to Oversee Safety.” A survey found that DOT lacks critical information needed to identify skill gaps and ensure key relevant staff are equipped to oversee the safety of these technologies now and in the future.
December 16, 2020. Amtrak’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a Report entitled, “SAFETY AND SECURITY: Amtrak Expects Positive Train Control will be Interoperable with Other Railroads but Could Better Measure System Reliability.” The OIG noted that Amtrak expects its Positive Train Control (PTC) systems to operate with other railroads where the company runs on their tracks or it allows them to use the company’s tracks. Effective program management has helped the company achieve this progress. However, the OIG also found that Amtrak cannot fully measure PTC reliability because it does not have the electronic tools to easily access the data necessary for it and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to monitor system performance. As a result, reports on PTC reliability are incomplete and Amtrak cannot easily identify potential problems it may need to address promptly or longer-term.
December 15, 2020. Amtrak’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a Report entitled, “GOVERNANCE: Final Observations on Amtrak’s Use of CARES Act Funds.” The OIG’s objective for the report was to complete a review of the company’s use of Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act funds and its controls to accurately track and report on them.
December 14, 2020. The National Academies Press released a Report entitled, “Improving the Health and Safety of Transit Workers with Corresponding Impacts on the Bottom Line (2020).”
December 11, 2020. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a final rule, extending the amount of time freight rail equipment can be left off-air (meaning parked with its air brake system depressurized) before requiring a new brake inspection, which is expected to reduce the number of idling locomotives. The final rule incorporates longstanding waivers for brake inspections, tests and equipment, while clarifying existing regulations and removing outdated provisions. These revisions contemporize Brake System Safety requirements by incorporating safer, newer technologies, reduce unnecessary costs and increase consistency between U.S. and Canadian regulations. The final rule is effective December 11, 2020.
December 9, 2020. The Competitive Enterprise Institute issued a Report entitled, “Reforming Surface Transportation for Long-Term Sustainability - How Restructuring Federal Highway Funding Can Prepare Us for Future Transportation Challenges.” The report delves into the problems—namely, a long-term Highway Trust Fund shortfall (with inevitable bailouts) and a fundamental mismatch between who pays for roads and who uses them.
December 8, 2020. The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) and the Transit app released the APTA Ridership Trends dashboard, a new resource providing up-to-date, week-by-week estimations of public transit ridership for agencies across the United States.
December 7, 2020. The National Academies Press released a Report entitled, “Maintenance Planning for Rail Asset Management Current Practices (2020).”
37 of 103 December 2, 2020. The National Association of Counties (NACo) sent a letter [link] to Congressional leaders “urge[ing] our federal partners to ensure that counties of all sizes have access to additional direct, flexible funding to fight this pandemic, rebuild the economy and strengthen our communities. To give counties certainty as we grapple with a nationwide spike in infections, we urge Congress to also immediately pass legislation that would extend the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) deadline.” The letter also states that, “if Congress fails to act on coronavirus relief, millions of jobs will be lost, small businesses will permanently close and vital government services will be cut.”
December 1, 2020. The US DOT today announced that all of its necessary regulatory measures have been taken for the safe, rapid transportation of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine by land and air. With the unprecedented pace of vaccine development through Operation Warp Speed, the Department has made preparations to enable the immediate mass shipment of the COVID-19 vaccine.
November 30, 2020. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) urged Congressional leadership in a Letter to “to provide as much supplemental general fund revenue as possible to support the Federal-aid highway and transit formula grants programs as you finalize the full- year FY 2021 appropriations packages this week.”
November 30, 2020. Amtrak CEO Bill Flynn Announced that Stephen Gardner has been appointed President, effective December 1, 2020. Gardner currently serves as Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Operating and Commercial Officer. Prior to Amtrak, Gardner worked on rail and transportation policy for the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Senator Tom Carper (DE) and others. He is widely recognized as the principal author of PRIIA (Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008). Early in his transportation career, Gardner held various positions with Guilford Rail System, now Pan Am Railways, and the Buckingham Branch Railroad in Virginia.
November 24, 2020. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a Memorandum entitled, “Expiring Provisions in the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act).” The memorandum presents information on provisions that were included in the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (P.L. 116-127; FFCRA) or in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (P.L. 116-136; CARES Act) that are set to expire by the end of calendar year 2020. The Memo is not available by URL but is available via a request to TG&A.
November 23, 2020. Amtrak Reported preliminary results for FY 2020 (October 2019 – September 2020).
November 19, 2020. U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin sent a Letter to the Federal Reserve Chairman requesting that any unused funds from the Municipal Liquidity Facility (MLF) be returned to the U.S. Treasury. The MLF, established under the CARES Act, is currently set to expire on December 31, 2020. To date, the amount returned to the Treasury would be $455 billion dollars. Secretary Mnuchin stated in the letter that the return of the funds, “will allow Congress to re-appropriate $455 billion, consisting of $429 billion in excess Treasury funds for the Federal Reserve facilities and $26 billion in unused Treasury direct loan funds.”
UPCOMING CONGRESSIONAL CALENDAR – JANUARY 2021 House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) released the US House Legislative Calendar for the 117th Congress. In his press release, Congressman Hoyer states, “As stated in the 20th Amendment to the Constitution, a new Congress begins on January 3 unless otherwise specified by law. At this time, it is expected that the House will convene on Sunday, January 3, 2021.”
38 of 103 Moreover, Hoyer continued by saying in the press release that, “The House is scheduled to have 101 voting days and 59 committee work days, for a total of 160 days.” Likewise, the Senate calendar for January was released and it includes just one day of session prior to the inauguration, i.e. to accept the results of the Electoral College.
UPCOMING DEADLINES/EVENTS Note: Given the recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, many upcoming events have/are being cancelled or conducted “virtually” to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
January 6-9 NRC - 2021 ANNUAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION; January 5-29 TRB 100th Annual Meeting - a virtual event over a series of dates throughout January 2021; April 6, 7 & 8 TRB - Measuring and Managing Freight System Resilience Workshop; May 18-21 American Public Transportation Association Legislative Conference; TBA 17th Annual NRC Railroad Equipment Auction.
SCUTTLEBUTT November 30, 2020. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai Announced that he intends to leave the FCC on January 20, 2021. The FCC regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. The FCC is an independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress. The five-person commission currently has three Republican members (Ajit Pai, Michael O’Rielly, and Brendan Carr) and two Democratic members (Jessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks – both contenders to replace Mr. Pai). President-elect Joe Biden will choose a successor to fill Mr. Pai’s Chairman Seat on the FCC. Update December 8, 2020 – The Senate confirmed Nathan A. Simington (a Republican lawyer currently serving in the Trump Administration) to the FCC for a five-year term by a vote of 49-46.
39 of 103 Addendum A.
2020 GENERAL ELECTION – HOUSE CONTESTS RESULTS AS OF 12/28/2020
The Electoral College met on December 14, 2020, as a result of the November 3, 2020 General Election for President and Vice-President, and formally fulfilled its Constitutional role wherein 538 electors, met in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and cast their “Electoral Vote” for, separately, President and Vice President of the United States. The tally of electors determined on December 14, that Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. and Kamala Devi Harris are ascertained as President-elect and Vice-president-elect, respectively having amassed more than the 270 votes needed with a total of 306 electoral votes to Donald John Trump, Sr.’s tally of 232 electoral votes. On Monday, January 6, 2021 the Electoral Votes are to be tabulated, with Vice President Mike Pence presiding over a joint session of Congress, in which the totals from each state will be counted and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are to be declared elected. As per the US constitution, inauguration day is Wednesday January 20, 2021, and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will be sworn in as President and Vice-President, respectively.
U.S. CONGRESS - GENERAL ELECTION 2020 BALANCE OF POWER SCORECARD
As of 12/28/2020 HOUSE - 218 NEEDED FOR CONTROL
Republican Democrat Libertarian Independent Vacancies/Undecided Total Before Election (116th- 2nd Session) 197 232 1 ¥ 0 5 435
After Election (117th- 1st Session) 211 222 0 0 2 Ø 435
House Notes: All 435 House Seats are up for election on 3 November 2020. ¥ Justin Amash (L–MI). Peter Meijer won Amash's seat in the 2020 election after Amash decided not to seek reelection. Ø U.S. House contests to close to call: Iowa CD 2 and NY CD 22.
SENATE - 51 NEEDED FOR CONTROL
Republican Democrat Libertarian Independent Vacancies/Undecided Total Before Election (116th- 2nd Session) 53 45 0 2 Ğ 100
th After Election (117 - 1st Session) 50 46 0 2 Ğ 2 Æ 100
Senate Notes: There were 35 Senate Seats up for election, including AZ and GA special elections, with 23 belonging to Republicans and 12 to Democrats. Ğ Two independents caucus with the Democrats, i.e. Bernie Sanders (VT) and Angus King (ME). Æ Incumbent Senator Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) fell short of the 50%-plus-one threshold needed against Raphael Warnock (D) - a January 5, 2021 runoff election is scheduled. Æ Incumbent Senator David Perdue (R-GA) fell short of the 50%-plus-one threshold needed against Jon Ossoff (D) - a January 5, 2021 runoff election is scheduled.
40 of 103 Addendum B. – Calendar Year NOFO/AWARDS SCORECARD. An Excel spreadsheet with “hot-links” is available from TG&A upon request. SELECTED TRANSPORTATION NOTICE OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES (NOFOs) &/OR AWARDS (SCORECARD for CY 2020) 12/30/2020 TYPE NOFO NOFO $s APPLICATION NOFO $ NOFO TITLE (NOFO / AWARD) ISSUANCE DATE NOFO URL MADE AVAILABLE DEADLINE AWARDS AWARDS URL AWARDED - DATE COMMENTS US DOT FY 2020 INFRA Grants NOFO/AWARD 1/13/2020 NOFO URL 906,000,000 2/25/2020 906,000,000 Awards URL 6/18/2020 $150 m. in prior year available. FY 2020 National Infrastructure Investments (BUILD) NOFO/AWARD 2/19/2020 NOFO URL 1,000,000,000 5/18/2020 1,000,000,000 Awards URL 9/16/2020 Press Release FY 2020 University Transportation Centers Program NOFO 3/30/2020 NOFO URL 4,925,000 5/29/2020 TBD TBD TBD Inclusive Design Challenge (FY 2018 Funding) NOFO 4/21/2020 NOFO URL 5,000,000 10/30/2020 TBD TBD TBD $5 m. prize purse from FY 2018 “Highly Automated Vehicle Research & Dev. Pgm." Regional Infrastructure Accelerators Program NOFO 12/16/2020 NOFO URL 5,000,000 TBD - 3/??/21 TBD TBD TBD US DOT Announcement US DHS/ FEMA FY 2019 Assistance to Firefighter Grants NOFO 1/27/2020 NOFO URL 315,000,000 3/20/2020 TBD TBD TBD FY 2020 Transit Security Grant Program NOFO 2/15/2020 NOFO URL 88,000,000 4/15/2020 TBD TBD TBD FY 2020 Port Security Grant Program NOFO 2/15/2020 NOFO URL 100,000,000 4/15/2020 TBD TBD TBD FY 2020 Intercity Bus Security Grant Program NOFO 2/15/2020 NOFO URL 2,000,000 4/15/2020 TBD TBD TBD FY 2020 Intercity Passenger Rail - Amtrak NOFO 2/15/2020 NOFO URL 10,000,000 4/15/2020 TBD TBD TBD FY 2020 Nonprofit Security Grant Program NOFO 2/15/2020 NOFO URL 90,000,000 4/15/2020 TBD TBD TBD FY 2019 Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) NOFO 4/7/2020 NOFO URL 350,000,000 5/15/2020 TBD TBD TBD Due date extended to 5/27/2020. FY 2019 Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) grants NOFO 4/21/2020 NOFO URL 35,000,000 5/29/2020 TBD TBD TBD FY 2020 Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program - CARES Act NOFO/AWARD 4/23/2020 NOFO URL 100,000,000 5/15/2020 TBD Award URL 6/19/2020 FY 2020 Flood Mitigation Assistance program NOFO 8/4/2020 NOFO URL 160,000,000 1/29/2021 TBD TBD TBD FY 2020 Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Program NOFO 8/4/2020 NOFO URL 500,000,000 1/29/2021 TBD TBD TBD FY 2020 Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program - Round 2 NOFO 10/6/2020 NOFO URL 31,000,000 11/13/2020 TBD TBD TBD Notice of Availability FR 17 Nov 2020 FY 2020 Assistance to Firefighters Grant NOFO 12/30/2020 NOFO URL 319,500,000 2/12/2021 TBD TBD TBD DOE FY 2020 Bioenergy Technologies Multi-Topic FOA NOFO 1/23/2020 NOFO URL 97,000,000 4/30/2020 TBD TBD TBD FY 2020 Advanced Vehicle Technologies Research FOA NOFO 1/23/2020 NOFO URL 133,200,000 4/14/2020 TBD TBD TBD FY 2020 H2@Scale New Markets FOA NOFO 1/23/2020 NOFO URL 64,000,000 4/20/2020 TBD TBD TBD 2/25/20 Deadline/Concept Papers. FY 2021 Vehicle Technologies Office Research Funding Opportunity NOFO 12/10/2020 NOFO URL 60,200,000 4/7/2021 TBD TBD TBD Additional Resources Link EPA FY 2020 – FY 2021 Pollution Prevention Grant Program NOFO 1/29/2020 NOFO URL 9,380,000 3/31/2020 TBD TBD TBD FY 2020 Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act NOFO 7/17/2020 NOFO URL 50,000,000 10/15/2020 TBD TBD TBD FY 2020 State Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act NOFO 7/17/2020 NOFO URL 5,000,000 9/15/2020 TBD TBD TBD FY 2021 Brownfield Assessment Grants NOFO 8/18/2020 NOFO URL 32,000,000 10/28/2020 TBD TBD TBD FY 2021 Brownfield Multipurpose Grants NOFO 8/18/2020 NOFO URL 8,000,000 10/28/2020 TBD TBD TBD FY 2021 Brownfield Cleanup Grants NOFO 8/18/2020 NOFO URL 13,000,000 10/28/2020 TBD TBD TBD Technical Assistance to Brownfields Communities Program NOFO 11/10/2020 NOFO URL 11,000,000 12/22/2020 TBD TBD TBD FAA FY 2018 Small Community Air Service Development Program NOFO/AWARD 5/6/2019 NOFO URL 12,500,000 7/15/2019 12,500,000 Award URL 2/24/2020 FAA Aviation Research Grants Program NOFO 9/8/2020 NOFO URL 6,000,000 9/7/2027 TBD TBD TBD FY 2021 Military Airport Program NOFO 11/2/2020 NOFO URL 8,500,000 12/17/2020 TBD TBD TBD FY 2019 Small Community Air Service Development Program NOFO 11/25/2020 NOFO URL 13,000,000 1/26/2021 TBD TBD TBD FHWA Accelerated Innovative Deployment Demonstration Program NOFO/AWARD 10/21/2019 Amended NOFO URL 10,000,000 Rolling 8,091,503 Award URL 1/21/2020 Initial NOFO URL Solicitation FY 2020 Dwight David Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship Program NOFO 1/31/2020 NOFO URL 1,000,000 3/16/2020 TBD TBD TBD FY 2020 Dwight David Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship Program NOFO 3/10/2020 NOFO URL 720,000 4/27/2020 TBD TBD TBD Highway Use Tax Evasion Program NOFO 3/17/2020 NOFO URL 8,000,000 5/22/2020 TBD TBD TBD Work Zone Data Exchange Demonstration Program NOFO 6/17/2020 NOFO URL 2,400,000 8/3/2020 TBD TBD TBD FY 2019 Advanced Transpo. & Congestion Mgt. Tech. Deployment Initiative NOFO/AWARD 6/6/2019 NOFO URL 60,000,000 8/5/2019 43,311,364 Award URL 6/16/2020 FY 2020 Advanced Transpo. & Congestion Mgt. Tech. Deployment Initiative NOFO 7/2/2020 NOFO URL 60,000,000 8/31/2020 TBD TBD TBD FY 2019/FY 2020 Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives NOFO/AWARD 8/8/2019 NOFO URL 38,020,000 See Comment 15,120,000 Award URL 7/9/2020 10/15/2019 and 4/3/2020. Commuter Authority Rail Safety Improvement (CARSI) Grants Program NOFO 8/26/2020 NOFO URL 50,000,000 10/26/2020 TBD TBD TBD Accelerated Innovative Deployment Demonstration Program AWARD Amended NOFO URL 10,000,000 Rolling 6,468,025 Award URL 10/22/2020 Solicitation Highway Research and Development Program NOFO 12/16/2020 URL Not Functioning 2,500,000 2/15/2021 TBD TBD TBD AASHTO only eligible applicant. 41 of 103 SELECTED TRANSPORTATION NOTICE OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES (NOFOs) &/OR AWARDS (SCORECARD for CY 2020) 12/30/2020 TYPE NOFO NOFO $s APPLICATION NOFO $ NOFO TITLE (NOFO / AWARD) ISSUANCE DATE NOFO URL MADE AVAILABLE DEADLINE AWARDS AWARDS URL AWARDED - DATE COMMENTS FRA FY 2019/2020 Restoration and Enhancement Grants NOFO/AWARD 1/2/2020 Amended NOFO URL 26,337,600 2/5/2020 22,414,816 Award URL 5/5/2020 Initial NOFO URL FY 2019 Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements NOFO/AWARD 8/19/2019 NOFO URL 244,621,500 10/18/2019 248,500,000 Award URL 3/12/2020 Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) NOFO 3/16/2020 NOFO URL 35,000,000,000 6/15/2020 TBD TBD TBD Deadline extended to 8/15/2020. FY 2020 Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements NOFO/AWARD 4/20/2020 NOFO URL 311,772,500 6/19/2020 320,600,000 Award URL 9/23/2020 FRA Press Release FY 2020 Supplemental State-Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail Committee NOFO 5/7/2020 NOFO URL 4,000,000 5/15/2020 TBD TBD TBD Northern New England Passenger Rail Auth. FY 2018-2020 Special Transportation Circumstances Projects NOFO 5/8/2020 NOFO URL 23,108,458 7/7/2020 TBD TBD TBD Funding - AK, WY, and SD. FY 2020 Short Line Safety Institute Program NOFO 5/20/2020 NOFO URL 2,500,000 5/29/2020 TBD TBD TBD FY 2020 Rail Safety Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis NOFO 5/27/2020 NOFO URL 400,000 6/5/2020 TBD TBD TBD Nat'l. Academy/Sciences only eligible to apply. FY 2019 State of Good Repair Program (Partnership Program) AWARD 10/8/2019 NOFO URL 396,000,000 12/9/2019 302,600,000 Award URL 5/27/2020 Remaining $93 m. per NOFO/FY 2020 SOGR. FY 2019/2020 Railroad Trespassing Suicide Prevention Grant Program NOFO 6/9/2020 NOFO URL 293,000 8/10/2020 FY 2019/2020 Federal-State Partnership for State of Good Repair Program NOFO/AWARD 6/10/2020 NOFO URL 291,422,706 7/27/2020 291,422,706 Award URL 10/28/2020 Press Release FY 2020 Railroad Safety State Participation Grant Program NOFO 6/18/2020 NOFO URL 424,500 7/17/2020 TBD TBD TBD FY 2020 Magnetic Levitation Technology Deployment Program NOFO 7/1/2020 NOFO URL 2,000,000 7/31/2020 TBD TBD TBD FY 2019 - 2020 Railroad Trespassing Enforcement Grant Program NOFO/AWARD 10/22/2019 NOFO URL 150,000 12/23/2019 528,028 Award URL 7/7/2020 Press Release FY 2020 Magnetic Levitation Technology Deployment Program NOFO 7/16/2020 NOFO URL 2,000,000 7/31/2020 TBD TBD TBD FY 2020 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety Education & Enforcement Pgm. NOFO 8/4/2020 NOFO URL 1,000,000 8/31/2020 TBD TBD TBD Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Express Program NOFO 10/30/2020 NOFO URL 150,000,000 See Note TBD TBD TBD LOIs accepted until financing is exhausted. FY 2021 National Railroad Passenger Corporation Grants (National Network) NOFO 11/19/2020 NOFO URL 254,812,950 12/11/2020 TBD TBD TBD Only Amtrak is eligible to apply. FY 2021 National Railroad Passenger Corporation Grants (Northeast Corridor) NOFO 11/19/2020 NOFO URL 136,432,950 12/11/2020 TBD TBD TBD Only Amtrak is eligible to apply. FTA FY 2020 Low or No Emission Grant Program NOFO 1/24/2020 NOFO URL 130,000,000 3/17/2020 130,000,000 Award URL 6/2/2020 FY 2020 Passenger Ferry Grant Program NOFO/AWARD 1/30/2020 NOFO URL 30,000,000 3/30/2020 47,532,044 Award URL 7/24/2020 Awards included prior year funding. FY 2020 Buses and Bus Facilities Program NOFO/AWARD 1/30/2020 NOFO URL 454,600,000 3/30/2020 463,848,929 Award URL 8/11/2020 FY 2018 Public Transportation Innovation Program NOFO 2/11/2020 NOFO URL 2,000,000 3/24/2020 TBD TBD TBD FY 2018/2019 Public Transportation Innovation Funds NOFO 2/13/2020 NOFO URL 7,300,000 3/24/2020 TBD TBD TBD FY 2019 Bus/Bus Facilities Program NOFO/AWARD 5/15/2019 NOFO URL 423,350,240 6/21/2019 423,350,240 Award URL 3/2/2020 FY 2020 Helping Obtain Prosperity for Everyone (HOPE) Program NOFO/AWARD 3/3/2020 NOFO URL 8,500,000 5/4/2020 8,460,386 Award URL 10/7/2020 FY 2017/2018 Integrated Mobility Innovation Demonstration Program NOFO/AWARD 5/8/2019 NOFO URL 15,000,000 8/6/2019 20,355,847 Award URL 3/16/2020 FY 2017/FY 2018 FTA research funds. FY 2019 Accelerating Innovative Mobility (AIM) Challenge Grants NOFO/AWARD 3/18/2020 NOFO URL 11,000,000 4/17/2020 14,000,000 Award URL 8/27/2020 [email protected] Public Transportation on Indian Reservations Pgm. (Tribal Transit Pgm.) NOFO/AWARD 5/26/2020 NOFO URL 5,000,000 8/24/2020 7,720,321 Award URL 11/17/2020 Press Release FY 2016 Public Transportation Innovation Program NOFO 5/26/2020 NOFO URL 1,250,000 7/17/2020 TBD TBD TBD Real-Time Transit Infrastructure/Rolling Stock Condition Ass't. Demo. Pgm. NOFO/AWARD 5/27/2020 NOFO URL 1,250,000 7/17/2020 1,368,816 Award URL 11/20/2020 Press Release FY 2018/19/2020 Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program AWARD 891,000,000 Award URL 5/29/2020 $544 Million Award on 12/17/2020 Technical Assistance and Workforce Development Program NOFO 6/2/2020 NOFO URL 1,900,000 7/2/2020 TBD TBD TBD Option to extend funding for up to 4 years. FY 2020 Mobility for All Pilot Program Grants NOFO/AWARD 11/1/2019 NOFO URL 3,500,000 1/6/2020 3,502,820 Award URL 6/5/2020 Pilot Program for Transit-Oriented Development Planning NOFO/AWARD 9/18/2019 NOFO URL 19,190,000 11/18/2019 22,970,124 Award URL 6/11/2020 FY 20/19/17/16 Expedited Project Delivery Pilot Program NOFO 7/28/2020 NOFO URL 225,000,000 Rolling TBD TBD TBD FY 2020 Pilot Program for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Planning NOFO/AWARD 9/25/2020 NOFO URL 6,220,000 10/26/2020 6,169,568 Award URL 12/15/2020 Press Release Public Transportation COVID-19 Research Demonstration Grant Program NOFO 10/5/2020 NOFO URL 10,000,000 11/2/2020 TBD TBD TBD HUD HOPE VI Main Street Grant Program NOFO 10/30/2020 NOFO URL 1,000,000 1/19/2021 TBD TBD TBD MARAD FY 2019 Short Sea Transportation Program (America's Marine Hwy. Pgm.) NOFO/AWARD 6/14/2019 NOFO URL 7,000,000 6/14/2019 7,503,000 Award URL 1/7/2020 Deadline Extension URL FY 2020 Small Shipyard Grants NOFO/AWARD 1/6/2020 NOFO URL 19,600,000 2/18/2020 19,600,000 Award URL 4/20/2020 FY 2019 Port Infrastructure Development Program NOFO/AWARD 6/18/2019 NOFO URL 292,730,000 9/16/2019 287,303,341 Award URL 2/14/2020 FY 2020 Port Infrastructure Development Grants NOFO/AWARD 2/19/2020 NOFO URL 225,000,000 5/18/2020 221,067,194 Award URL 10/15/2020 FR NOFO 3 March 2020 FY 2020 Short Sea Transportation Program (America's Marine Hwy. Pgm.) NOFO/AWARD 3/5/2020 NOFO URL 9,481,750 4/24/2020 9,555,750 Award URL 6/15/2020 Updated NOFO URL Maritime Energy Efficiency Pilot/Demonstration Project NOFO 3/14/2020 NOFO URL 1,000,000 5/13/2020 TBD TBD TBD NAT'L. SCIENCE FOUNDATION Smart and Connected Communities NOFO 11/26/2020 NOFO URL 23,500,000 2/24/2021 TBD TBD TBD
42 of 103 SELECTED TRANSPORTATION NOTICE OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES (NOFOs) &/OR AWARDS (SCORECARD for CY 2020) 12/30/2020 TYPE NOFO NOFO $s APPLICATION NOFO $ NOFO TITLE (NOFO / AWARD) ISSUANCE DATE NOFO URL MADE AVAILABLE DEADLINE AWARDS AWARDS URL AWARDED - DATE COMMENTS NHTSA / FMCSA FY 2020 High Priority Program - Commercial Motor Vehicle (HP-CMV) NOFO 1/7/2020 NOFO URL 25,211,500 2/21/2020 TBD TBD TBD Prosecutor Support for Impaired Driving NOFO 4/15/2020 NOFO URL 1,240,743 5/14/2020 TBD TBD TBD Support for Alcohol Law Enforcement to Prevent Impaired Driving NOFO 4/15/2020 NOFO URL 500,000 5/13/2020 TBD TBD TBD Judicial Education Discretionary Grant NOFO 4/23/2020 NOFO URL 1,273,879 5/22/2020 TBD TBD TBD Support for Probation Services for DWI Offenders NOFO 4/23/2020 NOFO URL 650,000 5/25/2020 TBD TBD TBD State Ignition Interlock Support and Resources NOFO 5/7/2020 NOFO URL 650,000 6/4/2020 TBD TBD TBD An award will be made in August 2020. State Notification to Consumers of Motor Vehicle Recall Status NOFO 5/7/2020 NOFO URL 1,500,000 9/15/2020 TBD TBD TBD FY 2021 Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) NOFO 5/29/2020 NOFO URL 304,069,500 8/7/2020 TBD TBD TBD State governments eligible. FY 2020 High Priority Grant Program AWARD 45,163,660 Award URL 8/19/2020 Press Release FY 2020 Commercial Driver’s License Program Implementation Grants AWARD 32,702,000 Award URL 8/19/2020 Press Release FY 2020 – Commercial Motor Vehicle Operator Safety Training Grants AWARD 1,994,541 Award URL 8/19/2020 Press Release DOC/EDA FY 2020 EDA Public Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance Program NOFO NOFO URL 30,000,000 No Deadline. TBD TBD TBD Applications accepted ongoing until new 5/7/2020 NOFO. OSHA FY 2020 Susan Harwood Training Grants NOFO 5/19/2020 NOFO URL 11,500,000 7/20/2020 TBD TBD TBD USDA Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loan Program NOFA 5/22/2020 NOFA URL 20,500,000 9/15/2021 TBD TBD TBD
43 of 103 SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of January 22, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 2.7 INFORMATION
Administrative Items
Correspondence and Media Stories: Correspondence and several articles are included. Links to the media stories are provided below:
“CTC Awards $392.4MM for 10 Freight, Passenger Rail Projects (Updated)” https://www.railwayage.com/mw/ctc-awards-379-1mm-for-nine-freight-passenger-rail- projects/?RAchannel=news
“Stockton Diamond Grade Separation Project wins $100 million TCEP grant from State of California helping unlock largest rail bottleneck in the California” https://www.publicceo.com/2020/12/stockton-diamond-grade-separation-project-wins-100-million- tcep-grant-from-state-of-california-helping-unlock-largest-rail-bottleneck-in-the-california/
“California corridors ask Congress to revise Amtrak cost formulas” https://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2020/12/11-amtrak-accounting-system-remains-source-of- friction-with-operators-of-state-supported-services
“A bumpy ride for California’s Amtrak as pandemic surges” https://calmatters.org/transportation/2020/12/california-amtrak-pandemic-surges/
44 of 103 Chair, Christina Fugazi, City of Stockton Commissioner, Bob Elliott, San Joaquin County Vice Chair, Leo Zuber, City of Ripon Commissioner, Scott Haggerty, Alameda County Commissioner, Doug Kuehne, City of Lodi Commissioner, John Marchand, City of Livermore Commissioner, Debby Moorhead, City of Manteca Commissioner, Nancy Young, City of Tracy
Executive Director, Stacey Mortensen
November 30, 2020
Chairman Peter DeFazio Chairman Daniel Lipinski U.S. House Committee on Transportation & U.S. House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines 2165 Rayburn House Office Building and Hazardous Materials Washington, DC 20515 2165 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Ranking Member Sam Graves U.S. House Committee on Transportation & Ranking Member Rick Crawford Infrastructure U.S. House Committee on Transportation & 2165 Rayburn House Office Building Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines Washington, DC 20515 and Hazardous Materials 2165 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Chairman Lipinski, and Ranking Member Crawford,
On July 1st, the House of Representatives passed the Moving Forward Act (H.R. 2), which contained the INVEST in America Act, your committee’s reauthorization of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. The nearly $500 billion proposal contains crucial investments in intercity passenger rail maintenance and expansion, innovative new rail grant programs and expanded eligibilities, and a strong commitment to promoting cleaner and greener modes of transportation. We would like to thank you for your leadership and the Committee for this landmark legislation.
The California stated-supported routes of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA), the San Joaquins, Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA), the Capitol Corridor, and the Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency (LOSSAN), the Pacific Surfliner, carried over 5.6 million passengers throughout California in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 and all respectively rank in the top 10 in ridership in the nation. We were created by the State of California to manage, market, and maintain oversight of the Amtrak state-supported services in our state.
As your Committee once again looks to surface transportation reauthorization in the next Congress, we encourage you to consider the unique nature of the state-supported route business segment and challenges we face in cost transparency. As you are likely aware, Amtrak’s does not follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) practices and instead utilizes complex cost-allocation formulas that have limited relationship to the actual service we receive on the ground.
As structured, Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) Sec. 209 largely fails to account for the unique circumstances on each of our state routes. As detailed in a recent Amtrak Office of Inspector General report, we have requested service decreases on our lines, but have somehow seen our costs go up despite a reduction in service from Amtrak1. We have also had experience requesting service increases in which Amtrak’s budgeted numbers far exceeded the cost of actually delivering the service increase.
1 Amtrak Office of Inspector General. Governance: Observations on Amtrak’s Use of CARES Act Funds. August 2020. https://amtrakoig.gov/audit- documents/audit-reports/governance-observations-amtraks-use-cares-act-funds.
949 East Channel Street Stockton, CA 95202 (800) 411-RAIL (7245) www.acerail.com45 of 103 One idea to remedy this increasingly frustrating and unfair situation is to require that states only be charged their “direct” cost of service by Amtrak on an avoidable cost basis, similar to what made for successful state partnerships in the past. Key support services that are staffed largely in proportion to the quantity of service provided, would also be appropriate to charge to our operations at a reasonable level of justified overhead.
This change in policy would encourage Amtrak to reform their current accounting and cost allocation practices and would provide us the transparency and accountability we require to honestly advocate for continued funding of these services in our state capitals. Given the budgetary pressures the COVID-19 pandemic has placed on our states, transparency and a fair cost structure are more important than ever.
We appreciate your consideration of the unique needs and funding structure of Amtrak’s state-supported routes and we look forward to working with you as your committee considerations its reauthorization of the FAST Act.
Sincerely,
Stacey Mortensen Robert Padgette Executive Director Managing Director San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority
Donna DeMartino Managing Director LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency
46 of 103 PRIIA Sec. 209 Reform: Direct Costing
The Problem As structured, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act’s (PRIIA) Sec. 209 fails to provide states the cost transparency and service accountability they deserve as the primary funders of under 750-mile intercity rail corridor service in the United States. The Sec. 209 national cost allocation system was developed without following Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and is unable provide states basic granular cost data – like how much it would cost to add a single car to a state-supported train.1 While Congressional support and investments in a national passenger railroad system are an erstwhile policy decision, the one-size-fits-all national cost structure in PRIIA fails to provide states flexibility to effectively serve their unique corridor riders and plan their services.
Legislative Intent With PRIIA, Congress placed the burden of funding intercity rail corridor services – under 750 miles – on states. Given these regional rail corridors are primarily utilized to the benefit of state and local ridership, states have met and accepted funding responsibility for these services. However, it is highly questionable that Congress intended to create a national costing system that is controlled by the service provider, especially considering the service provider has not yet met its Congressional mandates governing the cost system.
The Amtrak Performance Tracking (APT) System – Amtrak’s financial reporting system that allocates revenues and costs to Amtrak’s routes and business units – can trace its legislative beginning to the 2005 omnibus appropriations package. Congress provided funding to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) “to retain a consultant or consultants to develop to the Secretary’s satisfaction a methodology for determining the avoidable and fully allocated costs of each Amtrak route.”2 The 2005 Congressional directive gave birth to the idea of direct costing, as avoidable costs are costs that would not be incurred if an Amtrak route were discounted. This mandate would require Amtrak to clearly define the specific costs associated with one its individual routes.3
However, despite Congressional intent, a 2009 USDOT OIG report found that Amtrak readily identifies over 90% of its revenue sources, but cannot identify more than 20% of its costs, forcing it to rely on broad and opaque cost allocations instead of utilizing an avoidable cost structure. Amtrak’s revised 2016 APT, the latest accounting system, drops all mentions of avoidable costs from its methodologies and findings. This has created a situation in which “Amtrak has complete control over APT and its methodology, APT gives Amtrak the power to charge States for whatever costs Amtrak – at its sole discretion – claims them to be”.4
Direct Costing The idea of requiring Amtrak to charge states only their direct costs for their routes is based on the avoidable cost mandate Congress placed on Amtrak in 2005. Ensuring implementation of this mandate would encourage Amtrak to reform their current accounting and cost allocation practices, as Congress intended. It would provide states greater transparency and accountability. Additionally, given the budgetary pressures the COVID-19 pandemic has placed on states, a transparent and traceable cost structure is more important than ever for passenger rail advocates around the country.
Direct costing is a solution based on Congressional intent and would represent an appropriate reform of required state- Amtrak payments for state-route services.
1 National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Office of Inspector General (2020). Governance: Observations on Amtrak’s Usage of CARES Act Funds. https://amtrakoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/OIG-MAR-2020-013%20CARES%20Act%20Review_0.pdf. 2 Rail Passengers Association (2018). Amtrak’s Route Accounting: Fatally Flawed, Misleading & Wrong. https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/5819/amtraks_route_accounting_-_fatally_flawed.pdf. 3 Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Research and Development (2009). Methodology for Determining the Avoidable and Fully Allocated Costs of Amtrak Routes. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/10667. 4 Rail Passengers Association (2020). Amtrak’s Route Accounting System: Fatally Flawed, Deceptive, Misleading. https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/5819/amtraks_route_accounting_-_fatally_flawed.pdf. 47 of 103 SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of January 22, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 2.7.3 INFORMATION
Administrative Items
December 07, 2020
CTC Awards $392.4MM for 10 Freight, Passenger Rail Projects (Updated) Written by Marybeth Luczak, Executive Editor
The $106.4 million LOSSAN-SD Intermodal Improvement Program is one of nine passenger and freight rail projects receiving support from the California Transportation Commission.
The California Transportation Commission (CTC) will distribute $392.4 million to 10 freight and passenger rail projects as part of its recent approval of $2 billion for 56 state
48 of 103 projects that will reduce traffic, improve goods movement and increase transit service, among other measures.
The funding comes from three programs under California’s Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB 1), which provides project funding of $54 billion through 2027: the Solutions for Congested Corridor Program, the Trade Corridor Enhancement Program, and the Local Partnership Competitive Program.
The Solutions for Congested Corridors Program, according to the CTC, covers projects “designed to reduce congestion in highly traveled and highly congested corridors through performance improvements that balance transportation improvements, community impacts and provide environmental benefits.” On the rail transit side, they include:
• The Bay Area Rapid Transit Train Control Modernization Program, $60 million. (Total project cost: $1.14 billion.) Through the addition of CBTC (communications-based train control), the project will enable closer headways so more trains can run per hour along the Transbay Corridor to and from San Francisco and the East Bay. (The complete Transbay project will also add 252 new railcars, a new storage yard at the Hayward Maintenance Complex to accommodate the new cars, and five substations to handle more frequent, longer trains.)
• The Placer-Sacramento Gateway project (along the I-80 Corridor), $67.1 million. (Total project cost: $135.1 million.) Work includes Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT) light rail modernization (Blue Line) and station improvements (Watt/I-80), as well as bus, highway, street and trail projects.
The Trade Corridor Enhancement Program “funds infrastructure improvements on federally designated Trade Corridors of National and Regional Significance, on the Primary Freight Network and along corridors that have a high volume of freight movement, as determined by the Commission.” Among them:
49 of 103 The East Basin Rail Gateway Expansion will increase capacity between marine terminals and the Alameda Corridor.
• East Basin Rail Gateway Expansion: Fourth Track at Ocean (Port of Long Beach; city of Long Beach), $8 million. (Total project cost: $24.8 million.) The project will add a fourth track; realign and reconfigure 3,000 feet of three existing tracks and rail crossovers; and improve rail signals to increase the reliability and capacity of the connection between marine terminals and the Alameda Corridor.
• McKinley Street Grade Separation Project (city of Corona), $10.3 million. (Total project cost: $108.3 million.) A new four-lane grade separation will be constructed over BNSF double track near the McKinley Street intersection with Sampson Avenue.
• Port of Los Angeles Fenix Container Terminal Intermodal Rail Yard Expansion and Modernization Project, $ 19.2 million. (Total project cost: $51.5 million.) The project will add five new working tracks just north of/parallel to the existing Fenix on-dock rail yard, including tail track (pavement and turnouts).
• LOSSAN-SD Intermodal Improvement Program, $106.4 million. (Total project cost: $202.4 million.) Key capital improvements along the San Diego Subdivision of the 351-mile Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor will facilitate additional freight rail service from the Port of San Diego to points state- and nation-wide and allow for future expansion of the corridor’s commuter and intercity passenger rail services. The U.S. Department of Defense has identified this corridor as part of the Strategic Rail Corridor Network (STRACNET) for its importance in providing access to the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton
50 of 103 and the Port of San Diego. (Last month, North County Transit District announced the release of the San Diego Pathing Study, outlining how to phase expansion of passenger and freight rail services along the 351-mile LOSSAN rail corridor, which moves some $1 billion in freight and more than 8 million Amtrak and COASTER and Metrolink regional/commuter rail riders in a typical year.)
• Port of Stockton Rail Bridge Replacement Project, $5.3 million. (Total project cost: $46 million.) An outdated, single-track wooden rail bridge will be replaced to serve existing and future rail traffic into and out of the port.
The Stockton Diamond Grade Separation Project will construct a flyover to grade separate the two north-south Union Pacific main line tracks from the two east-west BNSF main line tracks. • The Stockton Diamond Grade Separation Project, $100 million. (Total project cost: $237 million.) The Stockton Diamond is said to be the busiest, most congested at-grade railway junction in California. The project is designed to improve operations and safety for Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) and Amtrak San Joaquins passenger trains and BNSF and Union Pacific freight trains using the shared right-of-way. This flyover construction project will grade separate the two north-south Union Pacific main line tracks from the two east- west BNSF main line tracks.
51 of 103 The Local Partnership Competitive Program provides funding to counties, cities, districts and regional transportation agencies in which voters have approved fees or taxes dedicated solely to transportation improvements or that have imposed fees dedicated solely to transportation. On the rail side, projects include:
Safety improvement work has been funded for the Windsor extension of the 43-mile SMART (Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit) commuter rail service.
• Windsor River Road/Windsor Road Intersection Improvement and Multi-Use Pathway Connector project, $2.8 million. (Total project cost: $8.1 million.) The project includes construction of a roundabout; pedestrian crossing improvements; and a multi-use pathway to ensure safety, functionality and throughput for the Windsor extension of the 43-mile SMART (Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit) commuter rail service. The extension is expected to launch in late 2021.
• South Watt Avenue Improvement: Florin Road to Jackson Road (Sacramento), $13.3 million. (Total project cost: $35 million.) This project will relieve congestion and improve mobility on a major arterial corridor in the region by upgrading a railroad crossing, widening and rehabilitating the roadway, adding bike lanes and pedestrian walkways, deploying Intelligent Transportation System components, and replacing a bridge over Morrison Creek, among other measures.
52 of 103 CTC Chair Hilary Norton “These projects are going to benefit California in multiple important ways,” CTC Chair Hilary Norton said. “From an economic perspective, they will move people and goods more efficiently while creating over 100,000 jobs during one of the most difficult periods in our state’s history. From a climate perspective, they will move us toward a more inter-connected and multimodal transportation system that reduces greenhouse gas emissions by getting more people to take transit, walk or bike. This will be a game-changer for transportation in California, especially as the state moves toward making travel on all of these modes cleaner.”
The CTC received 130 applications for projects totaling $3.7 billion. CTC and California Department of Transportation staff evaluated them based on transportation, economic, environmental and other criteria established by legislation and through public workshops.
53 of 103 SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of January 22, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 2.7.4 INFORMATION
Administrative Items
Stockton Diamond Grade Separation Project wins $100 million TCEP grant from State of California helping unlock largest rail bottleneck in the California
•
The California Transportation Commission (CTC) has awarded a $100 Million Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP) grant for the Stockton Diamond Grade Separation Project. The TCEP grant application was prepared by the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The $237 million project would improve mobility through the busiest, most congested at-grade rail junction in California. The construction of a grade separation at this at-grade crossing will make this rail infrastructure more efficient and predictable for both current and future use.
54 of 103 “We greatly appreciate the CTC recognizing the critical nature of the Stockton Diamond Grade Separation project,” said Christina Fugazi, Chair of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC). “Matched with our recent $20 million federal BUILD award, the $100 Million TCEP award will go to untangling the largest freight bottleneck in California allowing improved, efficient goods movement through our region, state, and nation. The project will also impact our Stockton community by improving several at grade crossings for cars, bicycles, and pedestrians.”
“The San Joaquin Valley region plays an important role in California’s transportation system,” said Caltrans Director Toks Omishakin. “This critical project will help facilitate economic growth, reduce dependence on fuel, improve air quality in the region and reduce delays affecting freight and passenger rail.”
The purpose of the Trade Corridor Enhancement Program is to provide funding for infrastructure improvements on federally designated Trade Corridors of National and Regional Significance. The Stockton Diamond is located just south of Downtown Stockton, where two major railroads (BNSF Railway and Union Pacific Railroad) intersect at-grade or at the same elevation. This intersection is the busiest, most congested rail bottleneck in California. At the Stockton Diamond is where both freight and passenger rail move through the at-grade crossing causing significant congestion and delays to service that moves valuable goods and people throughout the Central Valley, Sacramento, Bay Area and Silicon Valley for freight, out to the larger national network.
The Stockton Diamond impacts the frequency, reliability and potential expansion opportunity of the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE®) and Amtrak® San Joaquins passenger rail services that operate on the same rail lines. Train backups also cause local travel delays at crossings and potential vehicle/rail/bike and pedestrian conflicts.
“The CTC’s investment in this project is a ringing endorsement to the important role rail plays in expanding the reach of Central Valley industry to the rest of the nation,” said Union Pacific General Director Adrian Guerrero. “We look forward to working with local, state and federal agencies as well as our partners at SJRRC, Caltrans and BNSF Railway on this important rail infrastructure effort.”
A collaboration between the SJRRC, Caltrans, and the private entities BNSF Railway and Union Pacific Railroad as well as regional and local partner agencies, the Stockton Diamond Grade Separation project proposes to grade separate the two rail lines with a flyover bridge at the Stockton Diamond to create uninterrupted flow of rail traffic through the crossing. The flyover, grade separation would essentially unlock the bottleneck and allow for much improved operation efficiencies for the freight railroads and passenger rail services.
On August 19, 2020, the SJRRC launched the Environmental Review process for the project, in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration and the California High Speed Rail Authority. For more information about the project and the environmental process underway, visit stocktondiamond.com.
55 of 103 The Stockton Diamond Grade Separation project is a critical element in SJRRC’s vision to expand intercity and commuter rail service between the San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento, and the Bay Area. SJRRC is currently in the planning and environmental phase of its over $1 billion “Valley Rail” service expansion program for both the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) and Amtrak San Joaquins. The Valley Rail Program will implement additional daily round-trips for the Amtrak San Joaquins service and extend the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) service between Sacramento and Merced. It also supports converting the San Joaquins train and thruway bus network to renewable diesel fuel and is a key component to improving air quality in the region.
“This project is a critical step in unlocking freight and passenger rail mobility in Northern California. The Stockton Diamond Grade Separation will fix one of the most congested rail corridors, enhance safety, reduce emissions and provide faster, more reliable passenger rail options for our riders,” said Vito Chiesa, Chair of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority.
Seen as a priority for the Northern California Megaregion, the state grant application was supported by numerous local, regional, and state agencies and organizations throughout the San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento Region, and Bay Area.
56 of 103 SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of January 22, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 2.7.5 INFORMATION
Administrative Items
California corridors ask Congress to revise Amtrak cost formulas
Amtrak president defends current system, urges agencies to work with company on possible changes
By Bob Johnston | December 11, 2020
A southbound San Joaquin with Amtrak-refurbished ex New Jersey Transit Comet passenger cars prepares to stop at Fresno, Calif., in May 2016. The executive director of the agency which oversees the San Joaquin has asked Congress to address the accounting system Amtrak uses to charge such state- supported trains for its operations.
57 of 103 WASHINGTON — The agencies overseeing state-sponsored Amtrak trains in California have asked Congress to address the national passenger railroad’s method of charging them for operations, focusing new attention on a long-simmering dispute.
A Nov. 30 letter by San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Executive Director Stacey Mortenson, obtained by Trains News Wire, urges “that states only be charged their ‘direct’ cost of service by Amtrak on an avoidable cost basis, similar to what made for successful state partnerships in the past.”
The letter, also signed by directors of agencies that manage the state’s Pacific Surfliner and Capitol Corridor, was addressed to the Democratic chairmen and Republican ranking members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, as well as its rail subcommittee.
In a Dec. 3 response, Amtrak President Stephen Gardner agreed “that it is time to reconsider Amtrak and the federal government’s contributions to these corridor services.” But he claimed to be “caught off-guard by your correspondence and disappointed by the tone and misleading accusations.”
Among the assertions from the California agencies are that they face challenges “in cost transparency” because “Amtrak does not follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) practices and instead utilizes complex cost-allocation formulas that have limited relationship to the actual service we receive on the ground.”
Mortenson cites an Amtrak Inspector General report from August 2020, noting that at times, the agencies “have somehow seen our costs go up despite a reduction in service from Amtrak.” She also writes, “We have also had experience requesting service increases in which Amtrak’s budget numbers far exceeded the cost of actually delivering the service increase.”
Gardner’s letter acknowledges state concerns about the Amtrak Performance Tracking cost-allocation system, but says the State-Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail Committee “is the appropriate venue to discuss these issues” rather than Congress. His response was copied to that agency, as well as the legislative leaders, Federal Railroad Administration, and California State Transportation Agency.
Gardner writes that “some states are seeking a cost per train-mile approach” as evidence of ongoing discussions, but defended the use of the allocation system since it
58 of 103 “was developed and regularly verified by a neutral third party, DOT’s Volpe Center.” As outlined in a Trains Magazine feature, “Amtrak’s Money Mystery” [January 2019], the methodology collects company-wide expenses and redistributes them according to usage formulas, not direct costs.
The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act’s Section 209 legislates this apportionment process, which is what operating authorities are objecting to [see “Is Amtrak the only state option?,” “Passenger,” April 2020 Trains] and why they have gone to Congress. Mortenson, whose organization also manages the Altamont Corridor Express commuter service that uses Herzog Transit Services as a contract operator, has been a vocal critic.
Concerns over the opaque nature of the APT system have been so pervasive that separate subcommittees of the State-Amtrak Committee have been established to dissect all of the methodology’s aspects, Chairman Rob Padgette told Trains News Wire in August. “Costs are allocated based on performance metrics and additives; it’s very hard to understand,” he says.
Amtrak’s decision to cut long-distance trains to triweekly frequencies could affect shared route costs and overhead that might be reallocated to states, who are also running fewer trains.
“Given the budgetary pressures the COVID-19 pandemic has placed on our states, transparency and a fair cost structure are more important than ever,” Mortensen concludes in her letter.
59 of 103 SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of January 22, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 2.7.6 INFORMATION
Administrative Items
A bumpy ride for California’s Amtrak as pandemic surges
BY ELIZABETH CASTILLO DECEMBER 16, 2020 /DECEMBER 17, 2020
A passenger boards a Bakersfield-bound train at the Emeryville Amtrak station on Dec. 16, 2020. Photo by Anne Wernikoff for CalMatters
60 of 103 IN SUMMARY Amtrak has lost a staggering $800 million, with California’s three routes losing 65-85% of passengers. Service has been cut back substantially.
This story was corrected on Dec. 17 to reflect that ridership on the Capitol Corridor line is 15% of last year’s total, not 50%.
Lea este artículo en español.
Gabriella Choe has been a regular Amtrak passenger for the past four years, traveling from Oakland to Sacramento to see her parents. Before the pandemic, she rode the train nearly every other weekend.
But as the pandemic worsens, her visits are now infrequent, and she doesn’t plan on traveling for Christmas.
“My sister’s flying in for actual Christmas so I won’t be coming home for that,” said Choe, who works in an optometry office. “We’re not in the same pod.”
For many Californians like Choe, a train trip has become too risky, so they are staying home during the holiday season, which is usually Amtrak’s busiest time.
Ridership on Amtrak train routes has plummeted nationwide, triggering major cuts in service and causing about $800 million in losses for the already-struggling rail service.
“It’s pretty dire,” said Donna DeMartino, managing director of the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency (LOSSAN), which operates the Pacific Surfliner that travels from San Luis Obispo to San Diego.
61 of 103 “With so few people riding, we have very little in the way of fares that we’re collecting.”
Amtrak has asked Congress for nearly $5 billion to help keep its nationwide routes running for the next year.
That’s more than double the amount that Amtrak normally receives. Amtrak President and CEO William J. Flynn cited “the dramatic loss in ridership and revenue that Amtrak experienced due to COVID-19…We have seen that our ridership is not returning as quickly or at the levels that we had hoped for.”
While most of Amtrak’s funding comes from the federal government, California pays, too. The state spent $114 million last year to support its three routes: the Pacific Surfliner, the San Joaquins and the Capitol Corridor, which combined carried 5.66 million passengers in 2019.
Ridership nationally has dipped to around 25% of pre-pandemic levels, Amtrak announced in late November. All three of California’s routes are still struggling with low numbers of passengers.
Slowly rebounding
In March, ridership on the Pacific Surfliner dropped 90%. Now about 1,300 customers a day ride the train — about an 80% decrease from last year.
The route has cut its service in half. The Surfliner is the nation’s second most popular Amtrak route; almost 3 million passengers traveled on it in 2019, and many of them use it to visit amusement parks and sporting events. But Disneyland and other parks are closed, sporting events have few or no fans and many colleges allow students to learn from home.
62 of 103 This year, the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, 2,000 passengers rode the Surfliner. Last year? Nearly 14,000. The same low numbers are expected for Christmas.
63 of 103 64 of 103 Gabriella Choe, a regular Amtrak passenger for the past four years, said she travels less often because of the pandemic. Photo by Elizabeth Castillo for CalMatters
But DeMartino remains optimistic about the Surfliner, especially because a vaccine is on its way.
“We run a beautiful service all along the coast of California. I think we have arguably one of the most beautiful routes in the world and people love to travel along the Surfliner,” she said. “We believe our service will be one of the fastest to rebound.”
The Capitol Corridor, which runs from San Jose to Auburn, hit its low point in ridership in April, about 5% of normal, said Rob Padgette, managing director of the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority that manages the train. Service was slashed, dropping from 15 daily round trips to five.
Since then, ridership has slowly crept up, but has only reached about 15% of what it was last year. The route is now running at about 55% of its regular service.
The Capitol Corridor is preparing for another dip in ridership during the holidays as COVID-19 cases continue to rise in California. But, Padgette said, “I don’t think we’re going to cut service again.”
“Ridership is pretty stable right now,” he said. “We do carry people that work at Amazon, that work at hospitals and people who go in for cancer treatments. There are people who rely on our service.”
In the Central Valley, service also has been slowly rebounding, said David Lipari, marketing manager for San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority. The agency manages the San Joaquins route, which stops in Bakersfield, Fresno and the Bay Area.
65 of 103 “A lot of that is due to the fact that the San Joaquins serve a lot of disadvantaged folks and people that need the service for essential travel,” Lipari said. “They either don’t have a car or don’t have a reliable vehicle to get themselves to their end destination and really before the pandemic and during the pandemic this is the way they get around.”
The San Joaquins bottomed out at 10% of ridership levels in April, Lipari said, but in October, it rose to about 35% of last year’s ridership. Service was cut from seven daily round trips to four, and the train no longer makes stops in Sacramento and Lodi. The agency expects numbers to decline during the COVID-19 surge.
$1 billion not enough
Keep tabs on the latest California policy and politics news
SUBSCRIBE
By clicking subscribe, you agree to share your email address with CalMatters to receive marketing, updates, and other emails from the site owner. Use the unsubscribe link in those emails to opt out at any time.
I'M NOT INTERESTED
To survive the early stages of the pandemic, Amtrak received $1 billion in CARES Act funding in April. But it’s not enough. Congress has just begun debating the 2021 federal budget, including the $4.9 billion request from Amtrak to retain service and another $5.2 billion for construction and capital investments.
“Insufficient funding levels could force Amtrak to reduce its workforce by an additional 2,400 jobs as we scale back capital projects (approximately 775 jobs) and because our state partners have advised us that they would likely
66 of 103 further reduce their train service (approximately 1,625 jobs),” CED Flynn wrote in his letter to Congress in October.
“State partners have advised Amtrak that they will be forced to reduce service by up to roughly 65% compared to pre-COVID service levels because state payments will increase to unaffordable levels,” he wrote.
For the Pacific Surfliner, fare revenue normally pays about 70% of operating costs, DeMartino said, and the rest is paid by the state. Its board approved putting capital project work on hold and if necessary, using those funds to keep trains moving, DeMartino said. The agency might also have to dip into savings.
To cut costs, all three routes have reduced staff at train stations. The Pacific Surfliner and the San Joaquins no longer allow checked baggage because of health guidelines, and the Capitol Corridor stopped allowing checked baggage several years ago.
67 of 103 A conductor looks out the door as the Bakersfield-bound train pulls away from the Emeryville Amtrak station on Dec. 16, 2020. Photo by Anne Wernikoff for CalMatters
“Our goal is absolutely to keep service as it was, at least at this reduced level, for as long as we possibly can,” DeMartino said.
Amtrak requires riders to wear masks while onboard. In California, the routes also have increased train cleaning, discontinued food service and discouraged riders from eating while travelling.
For riders like Margaret Henderson, 60, the train feels safe enough to travel from San Mateo to Sacramento.
68 of 103 “I’m travelling because my boyfriend lives here and this will be our first time spending our birthdays together,” she said. “I’m a cancer survivor so we wanted to spend our day together.”
Henderson said she’s been cancer-free for almost a year. She frequently sanitizes her hands and keeps her mask on during trips.
“I like taking the train because I really feel safe,” she said. “I’ve had no problems. So far so good.”
69 of 103 SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of January 22, 2021
STAFF REPORT Item 4 ACTION
Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Adopting the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Final IS/MND) for the Madera Station Relocation Project (Project), Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, Approving the Madera Station Relocation Project, Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Execute and File a Notice of Determination Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Project, and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project
Background: The Madera Station Relocation Project (Project) is one part of the larger Valley Rail Program, a scalable plan intended to improve intercity and commuter rail connectivity, improve air quality, improve access to economic opportunities and affordable housing to disadvantaged communities, and create opportunities for transit-oriented development (TOD) in the Central Valley. In addition to the Proposed Project, the larger Valley Rail Project also includes an extension of the San Joaquins and Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) services to Sacramento as well as an extension of ACE to Merced, which builds upon ACE funding from Senate Bill 132 and would provide connectivity to future California High-Speed Rail (HSR) service.
CEQA PROCESS SCHEDULE • May 14, 2020: SJJPA held webinars to describe the Madera Station Relocation Project and its purpose, to explain the environmental review process, the schedule for the Proposed Project, and describe how the public can participate in the environmental review process and get more information. • October 14, 2020: SJJPA released a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Madera Station Relocation Project, which provided information about the 30-day public review and comment period, how to submit public comments, and public online meetings related to the Draft IS/MND. • November 5, 2020: Virtual public meetings were conducted for the Draft IS/MND public review period.
70 of 103 • January 6, 2021: Final IS/MND and responses to comments posted to Project webpage and notification sent to agencies commenting on Draft IS/MND. • January 6, 2021: Notification sent to interested parties and stakeholders. • January 22, 2021: Final IS/MND is presented to SJJPA for adoption and Proposed Project is considered for approval.
MADERA STATION RELOCATION PROJECT: PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Final IS/MND describes the Proposed Project as consisting of the two phases described below. • Phase 1 consists of elements related to the Relocated Madera San Joaquins Station (Relocated Station) from Madera Acres to the location described in the vicinity of Avenue 12. The existing Madera San Joaquins Station would no longer be used for San Joaquins operations following commencement of San Joaquins service at the Relocated Station. Phase 1 would build out a station platform that is approximately 600 feet. A new turnout track with a length of 2,330 feet would be built that would tie-in to the existing BNSF mainline. A new access road would be constructed to provide access to the Relocation Station facilities and would run adjacent to the California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) Project right-of-way.
• Phase 2 consists of high-speed rail (HSR) improvements at the Relocated Station to allow for future HSR service running along the future Merced to Bakersfield High Speed Rail Interim Operating Segment of the CAHSR Project to access the Relocated Station. This Interim HSR service is anticipated to be operated by the SJJPA. Phase 2 would build out a new HSR station platform that would be approximately 1,000 feet in length. New turnout track with a length of 14,600 feet would be built that would tie-in to the CAHSR Project mainline.
KEY ISSUES OF CONCERN RAISED IN DRAFT IS/MND COMMENTS The following are some of the issues raised in comments on the Draft IS/MND. All Draft IS/MND comments received are included in Appendix I of the Final IS/MND. • Transportation—Draft IS/MND comments expressed concern regarding access to the station by bicyclists and pedestrians, meeting Caltrans contextual bikeway guidance, and a lack of storage areas at the station for bicycles. • Air Quality—Draft IS/MND comments expressed concern regarding generation of construction related dust, and pathogens such as Valley Fever that could be carried in construction dust.
71 of 103 • Air Quality—Draft IS/MND comments expressed concern that equipment exhausts as well as fugitive dust should be quantified. • Air Quality—Draft IS/MND comments advised the SJJPA utilize the cleanest reasonably available off-road construction fleets and practices (i.e. eliminating unnecessary idling) to further reduce impacts from construction-related exhaust emissions and activities. • Air Quality—Draft IS/MND comments expressed the potential need for a health risk assessment on one property located over 700 feet from the alignment. • Traffic—Draft IS/MND comments on potential heavy dust during construction near SR-99 as a serious traffic concern. • Traffic—Draft IS/MND comments requested further details regarding how VMT reductions were calculated. • Noise and Vibration—Draft IS/MND comments expressed concern regarding Amtrak horn noise at Road 26 (existing Madera Station location). • Land Use—Draft IS/MND comments asked how close the new station would be to the college. • Funding—Draft IS/MND comments expressed concern where funding would come from for Phase 2. • Alternatives—Draft IS/MND comments were submitted stating that the Avenue 12 location seems far south and that Road 17 & Road 15 should be considered. Alternatives to the proposed station siting had already been considered and Avenue 12 showed the most overall benefits. All Draft IS/MND comments are responded to in the Final IS/MND.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The Final IS/MND presents the project’s environmental impacts in detail. The Proposed Project would have less than significant impacts with mitigation for all environmental resource areas. Mitigation measures are included in the Final IS/MND to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant for the Madera Station Relocation Project. Mitigation measures are presented in a summary table in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The impacts that necessitated these mitigation measures are evaluated in Section 3 of the Initial Study (IS), along with the determination of less than significant after their implementation.
72 of 103 RIDERSHIP Phase 1 of the Project presumes up to eight (8) San Joaquins roundtrips a day when the Relocated Station opens for service (anticipated in 2024). Phase 2 presumes up to eighteen (18) HSR service roundtrips a day (anticipated to commence in 2029). Once HSR service commences to the Relocated Station during Phase 2, San Joaquins trains would no longer serve the Relocated Station and would instead terminate at a new downtown multi-modal hub station in Merced, where they would connect to HSR trains, leaving only 18 HSR daily roundtrips serving the Relocated Station.
Once the San Joaquins terminate in Merced, it is possible that there could be local/regional passenger rail service in the future that utilizes the slots that the San Joaquins would no longer utilize. However, this would have to be a separate project and is not in the scope of this Project.
Ridership analysis was conducted for Phase 1 and Phase 2 for the years 2025 and 2029 respectively, which reflect estimated ridership for the operational plans at the Relocated Madera Station, as well as for a No-Build condition, where the existing station is not relocated. Ridership was assessed by estimating passenger “ons and offs” (or “boardings and alightings”). Estimating ons/offs is useful to assess usage of the station facilities, etc.
The estimated ridership for the Madera Station Relocated Station is summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Estimated Proposed Project Ridership No Build1 Phase 12 Project Phase 23 2025 2025 2029 (San Joaquins) (San Joaquins) (High-Speed Rail Service) 40,2001 103,1002 210,6003 (passenger ons/offs) (passenger ons/offs) (passenger ons/offs) Notes: 1Assumes eight (8) San Joauquins roundtrips serving the Existing Station. 2Assumes eight (8) San Joauquins roundtrips serving the Relocated Station. 3Assumes eighteen (18) high-speed rail roundtrips serving the Relocated Station. More information on the ridership estimates is provided in Appendix G (Ridership, Vehicle Miles Traveled, and Parking Estimates) of the IS/MND.
SJJPA ridership studies have shown that relocating the Madera Station to the proposed location along Avenue 12 can provide substantial increases in San Joaquins ridership, as well as providing considerable air quality and greenhouse gas reduction benefits.
73 of 103 The Proposed Project would support enhanced intercity rail service within Madera County by implementing the Madera Station Relocation Project.
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR ALL PHASES OF THE PROJECT Preliminary cost estimates of all Proposed Project elements – including trackwork, platforms, station facilities, power systems, drainage, bus depot, access road, and parking lots – were conducted for both Phases 1 and 2. Table 2 below provides the estimated cost for each phase, as well as a total for both phases.
Table 2. Preliminary Proposed Project Capital Cost Estimates
Phase 1 Phase 2 Total (Both Phases)
$24.9 Million $105.0 Million $129.9 Million
Source: AECOM 2020.
Detailed information on the preliminary capital cost estimates is provided in Appendix F (Preliminary Project Capital Cost Estimates) of the Final IS/MND.
Fiscal Impact: Funding for Phase 1 of the Proposed Project is included in the 2018 $500.5 million Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) award for the Valley Rail Program.
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Adopting the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Final IS/MND) for the Madera Station Relocation Project (Project), Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, Approving the Madera Station Relocation Project, Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Execute and File a Notice of Determination Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Project, and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project.
74 of 103 RESOLUTION SJJPA 20/21-
RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY ADOPTING THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (FINAL IS/MND) FOR THE MADERA STATION RELOCATION PROJECT (PROJECT), ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE PROJECT, APPROVING THE MADERA STATION RELOCATION PROJECT, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AND FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FOR THE PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority intends to advance feasible projects to increase San Joaquins ridership and its associated congestion, air quality, greenhouse gas, mobility, and access benefits; and
WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority has prepared the Final Initial Final Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Final IS/MND), which analyzes the impacts of the Madera Station Relocation Project (Project); and
WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority found that with the adoption of the mitigation measures described in the Final IS/MND, all potentially significant impacts on the environment would be reduced to a less than significant level; and
WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority did circulate the Draft IS/MND for agency and public comment as required by CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority did consider any comments made by agencies and public prior to making its decision on the project; and
WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority has independently reviewed the Final IS/MND and the conclusions considered reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the Authority; and
WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority has prepared the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, incorporating all of the mitigation recommendations from the Final IS/MND;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED;
1. The San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority finds, acting as lead agency and using its independent judgment and analysis, based on the whole record before it, including the Final IS/MND and the agency and public comments received, there is, with mitigation, no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment.
75 of 103 2. The San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority does hereby adopt the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project prepared by AECOM and dated January 2021.
3. The San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority does hereby adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project and incorporates the mitigation measures contained therein as conditions to the Project.
4. The San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority does hereby approve the Project as particularly described in the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by AECOM and dated January 2021.
5. The San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority does hereby authorize the Executive Director to execute and file the Notice of Determination as required by CEQA.
6. The San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority does hereby authorize and direct the Executive Director to place the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based on file at its offices at 949 E Channel Street, Stockton 95202.
7. The San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority does hereby authorize the Executive Director to execute any and all documents related to the Project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority this 22nd day of January 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT:
ATTEST: SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
______STACEY MORTENSEN, Secretary VITO CHIESA, Chair
76 of 103 SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of January 22, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 5 ACTION Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Authorizing the Chair to Accept and Sign Waiver of Potential and Actual Conflicts of Interest Letters with SJJPA Counsel, Neumiller and Beardslee (N&B), Arising from Concurrent Representation of San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority and San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Regarding 1) a Joint Use Agreement and 2) Rail Maintenance Facility (RMF) Use Agreement and Electing to Waive the Conflict and allow N&B to prepare the Agreements for both SJJPA and SJRRC
Background: Currently Neumiller and Beardslee (N&B) is representing both the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) and San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) as general counsel. Staff serving for both SJRRC and SJJPA have consulted with N&B to work on the preparation of two Agreements; a Joint Use Agreement and the RMF Use Agreement including any future amendments regarding scope of work and price, liability protections, insurance coverage, attachments identifying improvements, and space usage.
Under the rules of professional conduct and other laws that govern attorneys in California, N&B can only represent two clients at the same time, whether their interests are presently adverse or potentially adverse, when both clients agree to waive any potential or actual conflicts arising from such concurrent representation in writing after being made aware of a potential conflict and having the opportunity, if desired, to seek the advice of independent legal counsel.
Before SJRRC and SJJPA can waive a conflict of interest, N&B is required to address certain matters in writing and obtain written consent to proceed. The attached letters provide the following information:
First, N&B is not aware of any fact that would suggest its joint representation of SJJPA and SJRRC in the drafting of the Agreement would likely cause an undue advantage or disadvantage to any individual party as it relates to this matter, nor does N&B believe there is a significant risk that N&B’s representation of either of you will be materially limited by N&B’s responsibilities to or relationships with the other. N&B is confident that they can provide competent and diligent representation to both SJJPA and SJRRC in the drafting of the Agreements, especially since the objective of the Agreements is clear.
Second, each Agency may certainly seek the advice of independent counsel about N&B’s representation of both of Agencies and are encouraged to do so if so desired.
Third, N&B is required to advise each the Agencies of the reasonably foreseeable adverse consequences, even if unlikely, that could result by N&B continuing its representation of all parties in this matter. The only foreseeable consequence of N&B representing both SJJPA and SJRRC in drafting these agreements is that if SJRRC and SJJPA become involved in one or more disputes regarding any matter that ultimately leads
77 of 103 to litigation, N&B would promptly withdraw from representing both Agencies and each Agency would need to retain its own separate, independent counsel. But that condition already exists since N&B already represents SJJPA and SJRRC and have done so for several years.
Options Available to SJJPA and SJRRC
The following options as to this Conflict are available to SJJPA and SJRRC:
Option No. 1: Waive the Conflict and allow N&B to prepare the Joint Use Agreement and RMF Use Agreement for both SJJPA and SJRRC.
Option No. 2: Waive the Conflict and allow N&B to represent either SJJPA or SJRRC in the preparation of the Joint Use Agreement and the RMF Use Agreement, but not both.
Option No. 3: Do not grant a waiver and SJJPA and SJRRC retain separate legal counsel.
If SJJPA consents to N&B’s representation by selecting either Option No. 1 or No. 2 as stated herein, indicate so by signing and dating the letter attached where indicated below, and return it to N&B. If SJJPA selects Option No. 3, and does not wish to waive the Conflict, do not sign the attached letter. It is important to understand that if either Agency selects Option No. 3, N&B will not be able to represent either Agency.
At the January 8th Rail Commission meeting, the Rail Commission Board adopted Option No. 1 to waive the conflict and allow N&B to prepare the Joint Use Agreement and the RMF Use Agreement.
SJJPA staff has included the two separate waiver letters for consideration and approval for the 1) Joint Use Agreement and the 2) RMF Use Agreement. As the Valley Rail Program moves forward with more joint-agency projects, additional waiver letters will be provided on a project-by-project basis and will be specific to any potential conflict arising from those projects.
Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact.
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Authorizing the Chair to Accept and Sign Waiver of Potential and Actual Conflicts of Interest Letters with SJJPA Counsel, Neumiller and Beardslee (N&B), Arising from Concurrent Representation of San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority and San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Regarding 1) a Joint Use Agreement and 2) Rail Maintenance Facility (RMF) Use Agreement and Electing to Waive the Conflict and allow N&B to prepare the Agreements for both SJJPA and SJRRC.
78 of 103 77047-31725
January 7, 2021
Via Email
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority c/o Stacey Mortensen, Executive Director 949 East Channel Street Stockton, CA 95202
Re: Explanation of Waiver of Conflict of Interest in having Neumiller & Beardslee draft the SJJPA and SJRRC Joint Use Agreement and RFM Use Agreement (collectively “Agreements”).
Dear Commissioners and Board Members:
I have been asked to provide a further explanation of what conflicts of interest that Neumiller & Beardslee (“N&B”) has determined exist in representing both the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (“SJRRC”) and the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (“SJJPA”) in drafting the Agreements. In reviewing the January 4, 2021, letter (“Letter”) to you, further elaboration should have been provided to ensure that you understood. We apologize for not doing so. The purpose of this letter is to provide that further explanation.
As stated in our Letter, N&B is not aware of any fact that would suggest its joint representation of SJRRC and SJJPA in the drafting of either Agreement would likely cause an undue advantage or disadvantage to either SJJPA or SJRRC. If so, then why do SJRRC and SJJPA need to waive a conflict of interest? There are 2 reasons.
The first reason is because N&B currently represents both the SJJPA and SJRRC. When lawyers are asked to represent both parties on a matter (such as the drafting of the Agreements) and they are currently representing one or both parties in other matters, the California Rules of Professional Conduct provide that the Lawyer must first disclose that in writing to both of them. That is the conflict of interest (“Conflict”) we intended to disclose in our Letter, though inaptly. The reason is to make sure SJJPA and SJRRC both know that N&B is representing them on other
1483277-1 79 of 103 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority c/o Stacey Mortensen, Executive Director Re: Waiver of Conflict of Interest January 7, 2021 Page 2 of 2
matters (regardless of how obvious it is) before they decide on allowing the joint representation. An example of one possible reason for not waiving the Conflict could include a concern that the lawyer may favor one client or another. This would be important if the parties were going to have the lawyer negotiate the terms of the Agreements between the parties, thus the risk of favoritism of one client would be present. That situation is not present here since N&B would not be negotiating the terms of the Agreements, but rather drafting them based on the terms we are provided. Put another way, staff would provide us the terms for each Agreement and our job would be to put them into a written agreement for SJJPA and SJRRC to sign. Another reason could be simply not wanting to have one lawyer/law firm represent both SJJPA and SJRRC in drafting the Agreements, regardless of whether it’s N&B or another law firm. This would be an important issue if the lawyer were being asked to negotiate the Agreements. Again, we are not in this situation. While we are confident that we can provide competent and diligent representation to both SJJPA and SJRRC in the drafting of the Agreements and not favor one client over another, we are still obligated to disclose the Conflict in writing and give you the opportunity to decide whether to waive the Conflict or seek other counsel.
The second reason is regarding the “[T]hird” item under “How to waive the Conflict of Interest” on page 2 of the Letter where N&B is required to inform SJJPA and SJRRC how waiving the Conflict could affect the ability of N&B’s representation of either party in the future. The only reasonably foreseeable example we can give you, no matter how unlikely, is if SJJPA and SJRRC were to become involved in any disputes regarding any matter that ultimately leads to litigation. In that instance, N&B would not be able to represent either SJRRC or SJRRC because N&B had represented both in the drafting of the Agreements. What I failed to point out is the result would be the same even if the Conflict were not waived since N&B already represent both SJJPA and SJRRC. Put another way, whether the Conflict is waived or not, it doesn’t change that the fact that N&B couldn’t represent either SJRRC or SJJPA in a dispute against one another.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this clarification.
Very truly yours,
NEUMILLER & BEARDSLEE
DANIEL J. SCHROEDER Attorney at Law
DJS/ect
1483277-1 80 of 103 Neumiller & Beardslee ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS I EST 1903
------A ProfessionalCor poration 77047-31725
3121 W March bne January 4, 2021 Suire 100 Srockron, CA 95219 ViaEmail Posr Office Box 20 Srockron, CA 95201-3020 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (209) 948-8200 (209) 948-49 IO Fax c/o Stacey Mortensen, Executive Director 949 East Channel Street NEUMILLER.COM Stockton, CA 95202
Re: Waiver of Conflict oflnterest in having Neumiller & Beardslee draft the SJJPA and SJRRC Joint Use Agreement
Dear Commissioners and Board Members:
As you are aware, Neumiller & Beardslee ("N&B") is general counsel for both the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission ("SJRRC") and the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority ("SJJPA") since each agency was formed. The purpose of this letter is to inform SJRRC and SJJP A (hereinafter collectively "Clients") that N&B has a conflict of interest ("Conflict")in representing each of you regarding the preparation of the Joint Station Use Agreement described below, including any futureamendments regarding liability protections, insurance coverage, attachments identifyingimprovements and space usage, and price, hereinafterand by this letter will provide you the option to waive that Conflict or make other choices regarding representation.
The Subject of the Conflict- the Joint Use Agreement
SJRRC and SJJPA were jointly awarded funding under the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) to expand both ACE and the San Joaquins service from Merced to Natomas known as the Valley Rail Expansion. As part of that expansion, new stations and facilities (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Stations") will need to be acquired and built. Both the governingboards of the SJRRC and SJJPA have determined that the best way to handle ownership of the stations would be for SJRRC to hold title and for SJJPA to have access and use of the stations through a joint use agreement between the Clients. The objective of the agreement would be to
81 of 103
1481833-4 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority c/o Stacey Mortensen, Executive Director Re: Waiver of Conflict of Interest January 4, 2021 Page 2 of 4
essentially provide SJJP A the same rights of access and use of each of the Stations as if it were an equal co-owner with SJRRC.
Why is there a Conflictof Interest?
Staff serving forboth SJJRC and SJJPA have asked N&B to prepare a Joint Use Agreement ("Agreement") between SJRRC and SJJPA regarding the use of the Valley Rail Expansion Stations. The CaliforniaRules of ProfessionalConduct prohibit lawyers from representing two or more clients on a matter (such as the drafting of the Agreement) if a conflict of interest exists unless the clients agree to waive that prohibition in writing.
How to Waive the Conflict of Interest
Pursuant to the California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1. 7, before SJRRC and SJJPA can waive a conflict of interest, N&B is required to address certain matters with you, in writing, and obtain your written consent to proceed.
First, N&B is not aware of any fact that would suggest its joint representation of SJRRC and SJJP A in the drafting of the Agreement would likely cause an undue advantage or disadvantage to any individual party as it relates to this matter, nor does N&B believe there is a significant risk that N&B's representation of either of you will be materially limited by N&B's responsibilities to or relationships with the other. N&B is confident that we can provide competent and diligent representation to both SJJPA and SJRRC in the draftingof the Agreement, especially since the objective of the Agreement is clear.
Second, each of you may certainly seek the advice of independent counsel about N&B's representation of both of you, and I encourage you to do so if you so desire.
Third, N&B is required to advise each of you of the reasonably foreseeable adverse consequences, even if unlikely, that could result by N&B continuing its representation of all parties in this matter; e.g. that SJJP A and SJRRC become involved in one or more disputes regarding any matter that ultimately leads to litigation, or if other unforeseenevents should develop hereafter that would prevent N&B from carrying out its responsibilities to each of you as your attorney. In each such instance, N&B would promptly withdraw from representing both of you and each of you would need to retain its own separate, independent counsel.
82 of 103
1481833-4 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority c/o Stacey Mortensen, Executive Director Re: Waiver of Conflictoflnterest January 4, 2021 Page 3 of 4
Options Available to SJRRC and SJJP A
The following options as to this Conflictare available to SJJP A and SJRRC:
Option No. 1: Waive the Conflict and allow N&B to prepare the Joint Use Agreement for both SJJP A and SJRRC.
Option No. 2: Waive the Conflict and allow N&B to represent either SJJPA or SJRRC in the preparation of the Joint Use Agreement, but not both.
Option No. 3: Do not grant a waiver and SJJPA and SJRRC retain separate legal counsel.
Please carefullyconsider the contents of this letter. If you consent to N&B's representation by selecting either Option No. 1 or No. 2 as stated herein, indicate so by signing and dating this letter where indicated below, and returnit to N&B. If you select Option No. 3, and do not wish to waive the Conflict, do not sign this letter. It is important to understand that if either Client selects Option No. 3, N&B will not be able to represent either agency.
Very truly yours,
Attorneyat Law
DJS/km
83 of 103
148 l 833-4 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority c/o Stacey Mortensen, Executive Director Re: Waiver of Conflict of Interest January 4, 2021 Page 4 of 4
REVIEWED, ACKNOWLEDGED AND CONFLICTS WAIVED:
The undersigned have read the foregoing letter and hereby expressly and specifically consent to the terms thereof, including N&B's (i) representation of all parties in connection with the transaction outlined herein; and (ii) continuing representation of all parties in matters unrelated to the transaction outlined herein.
SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
Vito Chiesa, Chairman Dated: January __, 2021.
Option( s) approved
SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION
Christina Fugazi, Chairwoman Dated: January __, 2021.
Option(s) approved
84 of 103
1481833-4 Neumiller & Beardslee ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS I EST. 1903
------A ProfessionalCor poration 77047-31725
3 l 21 \YI. March Lme January 4, 2021 Suite l 00 Stockton, CA 95219 ViaEmail Post Office Box 20 Stockton, CA 95201-3020 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (209) 948-8200 (209) 948-4910 Fax c/o Stacey Mortensen, Executive Director 949 East Channel Street NEUMILLER.COM Stockton, CA 95202
Re: Waiver of Conflict oflnterest in having Neumiller & Beardslee draftthe SJJPA and SJRRC Rail Maintenance Facility Use Agreement
Dear Commissioners and Board Members:
As you are aware, Neumiller & Beardslee ("N&B") is general counsel for both the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission ("SJRRC") and the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority ("SJJPA") since each agency was formed. The purpose of this letter is to informSJRRC and SJJPA (hereinaftercollectively "Clients") that N&B has a conflict of interest ("Conflict") in representing each of you regarding the preparation of the Rail Maintenance Facility ("RMF") Use Agreement described below, including any future amendments regarding scope of work and price, and by this letter provide you the option to waive that Conflictor make other choices regarding representation.
The Subject of the Conflict- the RMF Use Agreement
Caltrans has indicated to SJRRC and SJJP A that it would like to have maintenance and repairs of some of the State's rail equipment ("Equipment") performed at SJRRC's RMF. However, instead of contracting directly with SJRRC to perform that work, Caltrans has decided that since it already has a contractual relationship with the SJJP A with the Interagency Agreement ("IT A"), they want to amend the IT A which would then make SJJPA responsible for having the maintenance and repairs of the Equipment performedat SJRRC's RMF. Since SJJPA does not own or have usage rights regarding SJRRC's RMF, SJJPA and SJRRC will need to enter into an agreement whereby SJRRC would agree to perform the maintenance and
85 of 103
1481955-1 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority c/o Stacey Mortensen, Executive Director Re: Waiver of Conflict of Interest January 4, 2021 Page 2 of 4
repairs of the Equipment for SJJPA at the RMF ("RMF Use Agreement"). The objective of the agreement would be to have the SJJPA pay SJRRC's costs in performing the maintenance and repairs at the RMF with mutual indemnification provisions.
Why is there a Conflictof Interest?
Staff serving for both SJJRC and SJJPA have asked N &B to prepare the RMF Use Agreement between SJRRC and SJJPA. The problem is that the CaliforniaRules of Professional Conduct prohibits lawyers fromrepresenting two or more clients on a matter (such as the draftingof the Agreement) is a conflict of interest unless the clients agree to waive that prohibition in writing.
How to Waive the Conflict of Interest
Pursuant to the CaliforniaRules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.7, before SJRRC and SJJPA can waive a conflict of interest, N&B is required to address certain matters with you, in writing, and obtain your written consent to proceed.
First, N&B is not aware of any fact that would suggest its joint representation of SJRRC and SJJP A in the draftingof the Agreement would likely cause an undue advantage or disadvantage to any individual party as it relates to this matter, nor does N &B believe there is a significant risk that N &B's representation of either of you will be materially limited by N&B's responsibilities to or relationships with the other. N&B is confident that we can provide competent and diligent representation to both SJJP A and SJRRC in the draftingof the Agreement, especially since the objective of the Agreement is clear.
Second, each of you may certainly seek the advice of independent counsel about N&B's representation of both of you, and I encourage you to do so if you so desire.
Third, N &B is required to advise each of you of the reasonably foreseeable adverse consequences, even if unlikely, that could result by N&B continuing its representation of all parties in this matter; e.g. that SJJP A and SJRRC become involved in one or more disputes regarding any matter that ultimately leads to litigation, or if other unforeseen events should develop hereafter that would prevent N&B fromcarrying out its responsibilities to each of you as your attorney. In each such instance, N&B would promptly withdraw fromrepresenting both of you and each of you would need to retain its own separate, independent counsel.
86 of 103
1481955-1 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority c/o Stacey Mortensen, Executive Director Re: Waiver of Conflict oflnterest January 4, 2021 Page 3 of 4
Options Available to SJRRC and SJJPA
The followingoptions as to this Conflictare available to SJJPA and SJRRC:
Option No. 1: Waive the Conflictand allow N&B to prepare the RMF Use Agreement forboth SJJPA and SJRRC. Option No. 2: Waive the Conflict and allow N&B to represent either SJJPA or SJRRC in preparing the RMF Use Agreement, but not both. Option No. 3: Do not grant a waiver and SJJPA and SJRRC retain separate legal counsel to prepare the RMF Use Agreement.
Please carefullyconsider the contents of this letter. If you consent to N&B's representation by selecting either Option No. I or No. 2 as stated herein, indicate so by signing and dating this letter where indicated below, and return it to N&B. If you select Option No. 3, and do not wish to waive the Conflict, do not sign this letter. It is important to understand that if either Client select Option No. 3, N&B will not be able to represent either agency.
Very truly yours,
DANIEL J. SCHROEDER Attorneyat Law
DJS/km
87 of 103
1,1.RlQ'i.'i-l San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority c/o Stacey Mortensen, Executive Director Re: Waiver of Conflictof Interest January 4, 2021 Page 4 of 4
REVIEWED, ACKNOWLEDGED AND CONFLICTS WAIVED:
The undersigned have read the foregoing letter and hereby expressly and specifically consent to the terms thereof, including N &B's (i) representation of all parties in connection with the transaction outlined herein; and (ii) continuing representation of all parties in matters unrelated to the transaction outlined herein.
SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
Vito Chiesa, Chairman Dated: January __ , 2021.
Option(s) approved __
SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION
Christina Fugazi, Chairwoman Dated: January __, 2021.
Option(s) approved __
88 of 103
1481955-1 SJJPA RESOLUTION 20/21-
APPROVE A RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO ACCEPT AND SIGN WAIVER OF POTENTIAL AND ACTUAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST LETTERS WITH SJJPA COUNSEL, NEUMILLER AND BEARDSLEE (N&B), ARISING FROM CONCURRENT REPRESENTATION OF SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY AND SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION REGARDING 1) A JOINT USE AGREEMENT AND 2) RAIL MAINTENANCE FACILITY (RMF) USE AGREEMENT AND ELECTING TO WAIVE THE CONFLICT AND ALLOW N&B TO PREPARE THE AGREEMENTS FOR BOTH SJJPA AND SJRRC
WHEREAS, Neumiller and Beardslee (N&B) represents both the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) and San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) as general counsel; and
WHEREAS, Staff serving for both SJRRC and SJJPA have consulted with N&B to work on the preparation of two Agreements; a Joint Use Agreement and the RMF Use Agreement including any future amendments regarding scope of work and price, liability protections, insurance coverage, attachments identifying improvements, and space usage; and
WHEREAS, N&B requires that both parties execute waivers of potential and actual conflicts of interest related to projects proposed, as needed; and
WHEREAS, SJJPA has consented to representation by choosing one of the three options provided and notifying both N&B and SJRRC;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority hereby Authorize the Chair to Accept and Sign Waiver of Potential and Actual Conflicts of Interest Letters with SJJPA Counsel, Neumiller and Beardslee (N&B), Arising from Concurrent Representation of San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority and San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Regarding 1) a Joint Use Agreement and 2) Rail Maintenance Facility (RMF) Use Agreement and Electing to Waive the Conflict and allow N&B to prepare the Agreements for both SJJPA and SJRRC.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority this 22nd day of January 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:
ATTEST: SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS
89 of 103 AUTHORITY
______STACEY MORTENSEN, Secretary VITO CHIESA, Chair
90 of 103 SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of January 22, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 6 ACTION
Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving a Reimbursement Agreement with Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) for Design, Installation, Operation, and Maintenance of California Passenger Information Display System for an Amount Not-to-Exceed $700,000 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Projects
Background: The California Passenger Information Display System (CA-PIDS) is a train status and messaging system that was implemented by Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) and subsequently other California InterCity Passenger Rail (CA IPR) routes, as well as for the ACE service, in the early 2000’s. CCJPA led the initial design, and Amtrak procured the services with various vendors. CA-PIDS takes in the real-time GPS location of trains and translates it into estimated times of arrival (ETA). Station digital signage displays current time, ETA’s of various passenger trains up to 30 minutes away, delay information, and other messages related to service amenities and changes to regular service. Audio announcements are synchronized with visual messages at all stations, indoor and outdoor.
The CA-PIDS software and hardware have been in use without any major upgrades for twenty years, and numerous Station hardware components are at their end-of-life, at risk of failure and not replaceable due to the age of the hardware. At the same time, Amtrak has stated that their contractual support of CA-PIDS through vendors will end on September 30, 2022. While the existing PIDS still works at a basic level, it is time to plan for modernization, or risk failure. It is crucial to maintain PIDS at stations for both general passenger information and ADA-compliance.
Procurement: In November 2018, CCJPA, with the support of rail agency partners, issued a Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFSOQ) to upgrade and replace the existing PIDS, with the modern version named CalPIDS, for three passenger rail services in Northern
91 of 103 California: the Capitol Corridor service, the San Joaquins service and the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) service. As a result of the procurement, CCJPA awarded its contract in November 2019 to XenaTech Software Integration Services, LLC (XenaTech) for the design, testing, implementation, and maintenance of the CalPIDS project. Since the project kick-off in December 2019, XenaTech has been working on design and testing which will continue for an estimated three – six months. The first implementation of CalPIDS is expected by Summer 2021. CCJPA staff has been working with AT&T to scope the telecommunications improvements needed for the three services.
Contracting Structure: SJJPA will enter into a reimbursement agreement with CCJPA for allowable costs associate with this project. Each rail services will pay their portion of expenses split by station based on the usage of each service. The percentage share split is broken down below:
Capitol Corridor San Joaquins ACE 44.41% 38.16% 17.43%
Fiscal Impact: The funding source for this project is State of California Prop 1B CalOES and are identified in the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission/ACE/SJJPA Fiscal Year 2020/2021 Capital Budget. Future Capital Budgets will identify all costs occurring in the upcoming fiscal years in excess of the original budget, if needed. The Executive Director shall have authority to amend this agreement on behalf of the SJJPA within their designated spending authority.
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution of the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approving a Reimbursement Agreement with Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) for Design, Installation, Operation, and Maintenance of California Passenger Information Display System for an Amount Not-to-Exceed $700,000 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Projects.
92 of 103 RESOLUTION SJJPA 20/21- RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY APPROVING A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH CAPITAL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY (CCJPA) FOR DESIGN, INSTALLATION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF CALIFORNIA PASSENGER INFORMATION DISPLAY SYSTEM FOR AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $700,000 AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECTS
WHEREAS, the California Passenger Information Display System (CalPIDS) train tracking system has been in use by ACE, CCJPA and San Joaquins since the early 2000’s; and
WHEREAS, the hardware components of the system are nearing the end of their useful life and are subject to failures; and
WHEREAS, in 2018 the CCJPA issued a Request for Statement and Qualifications for the upgrade and replacement of Cal PIDS for Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin and ACE Services; and
WHEREAS, the result of the procurement the CCJPA awarded a contract to XenaTech Software Integration Services, LLC for the design, testing, implementation, and maintenance of the project; and
WHEREAS, each rail service will pay their percentage share of the expenses, to be paid to CCJPA; and
WHEREAS, the funding source for this project is State of California Prop 1B CalOES and are identified in the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission/ACE/SJJPA Fiscal Year 2020/2021 Capital Budget; and WHEREAS, future Capital Budgets will identify all costs occurring in the upcoming fiscal years in excess of the original budget, if needed. The Executive Director shall have authority to amend this agreement on behalf of the SJJPA within their designated spending authority. WHEREAS, SJJPA will enter in to and execute a reimbursement contract with CCJPA for design, installation, operation, and maintenance of CalPIDS; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Approves a Reimbursement Agreement with Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) for Design, Installation, Operation, and Maintenance of California Passenger Information Display System for an Amount Not-to-Exceed $700,000 and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Projects.
93 of 103 PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the SJJPA this 22nd day of January 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
______STACEY MORTENSEN, Secretary VITO CHIESA, Chair
94 of 103 SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of January 22, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 7 INFORMATION
San Joaquins Operations and Ridership/Revenue Update
San Joaquins Second Stimulus Funding On December 27, 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 was signed into law. This single bill includes annual appropriations for Fiscal Year 2021 and relief funding to address impacts related to COVID-19. Within the relief funding package, Amtrak received $174.85M to support the State Supported Services. The funding will be allocated to each route as a credit that states can apply to their invoice(s). The legislation specifies that the funding is allocated to each route using a two- step formula: 1. All routes will be allocated an amount equal to 7% of their FY19 operating expenses; and 2. Remaining funds will be allocated proportionally to FY19 revenue
This approach is an attempt to balance both the operating and revenue impacts of the pandemic. The preliminary subsidy for the 3 California state supported routes is $47M, of which the San Joaquins would be apportioned $11-14M.
Return of Cash on the San Joaquins
Staff have been working with the other JPAs, the State, and Amtrak to reinitiate cash on the State Supported Services in California. A significant portion of San Joaquins ticket revenue is generated by cash payments – approximately of 15%. The lack of cash sales on the corridor can have a negative revenue affect but more importantly the unbanked and underbanked passenger is severely impacted by this policy. With Health and Safety measures now in place at the stations, all three parties have agreed on a safe way to reintroduce cash sales.
San Joaquins Ridership and Revenue As with passenger rail and transit services across the country, the San Joaquins continue to provide and essential transportation service to the communities that it serves during the pandemic. Though the San Joaquins had been steadily recovering in ridership and revenue at the end of FY20, the implementation of increased travel restrictions and proactive
95 of 103 instruction from health experts for Californians to not travel for the holidays resulted the San Joaquins ridership and revenue taking a negative turn from recovery in the months of November and December.
San Joaquins Ridership and Revenue (Year Over Year FY21 vs. FY20)
Ridership Ticket Revenue Month FY21 FY20 % change FY21 FY20 % change Oct 30,639 82,211 -62.7 $950,444 $2,368,328 -59.9 Nov 28,796 92,427 -68.8 $1,016,156 $2,979,245 -65.9 Dec 23,363 94,488 -75.3 $837,133 $3,256,823 -74.3
Total 852,751 4,041,791 -78.9 $32,071,867 $147,658,314 $29,963,000
When looking at the State Supported Services across the nation, the San Joaquins (shown in red) have continued to perform well relative to other services in this environment. The San Joaquins carried the third highest ridership in the Amtrak State Supported System all three months of Q1 of FY21.
State Supported Ridership OCT - DEC FY21 50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0 OCT NOV DEC
Downeaster Empire South Empire West/Maple Leaf Adirondack Ethan Allen Vermonter New Haven-Springfield Keystone Pennsylvanian Washington-Lynchburg/Roanoke Washington-Newport News Washington-Norfolk Washington-Richmond Carolinian Piedmont Heartland Flyer Wolverine Blue Water Pere Marquette Hiawatha Lincoln Service Illini/Saluki Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg Missouri River Runner Pacific Surfliner Capitol Corridor San Joaquins Cascades
96 of 103 Narrowing the services to the Western Routes (San Joaquins, Capitol Corridor, Pacific Surfliner, and Cascades), the San Joaquins performed second to Pacific Surfliner in ridership in Q1 of FY21.
Western Routes Ridership OCT - DEC FY21 50,000 OCT, 47,117 45,000 NOV, 41,577 40,000 35,000 OCT, 30,639 NOV, 28,796 30,000 DEC, 29,350 25,000 OCT, 22,527 DEC, 23,363 20,000 NOV, 20,452 15,000 DEC, 16,206 10,000 OCT, 7,600 NOV, 7,106 5,000 DEC, 6,207 0 OCT NOV DEC
Pacific Surfliner Capitol Corridor San Joaquins Cascades
To gauge recovery, the year over year percent of ridership metric helps assess how much of the pre-pandemic ridership services have been able to regain. The San Joaquins has continued to outpace the rest of the west in ridership by % Year of Year (FY 20 vs FY 21).
Western Routes Ridership by % Year of Year OCT - DEC FY21 vs FY20 -60.0 OCTOCT, -62.7 NOV DEC -65.0
NOV, -68.8 -70.0
-75.0 DEC, -75.3
-80.0 OCT, -80.2 NOV, -82.9 -85.0 OCT, -86.1 NOV, -86.6 DEC, -86.9 OCT, -88.1 NOV, -88.9 DEC, -88.5 -90.0 DEC, -90.3
-95.0
Pacific Surfliner Capitol Corridor San Joaquins Cascades
97 of 103 On-Time Performance (OTP):
San Joaquins On-Time Performance (OTP) for FY21 Q1 (Oct – DEC) held steady in the low 80s and has significantly improved in performance over the previous year. The reduced service levels and reduced freight levels are contributing to a significant increase in performance.
San Joaquins End Point On-Time Performance (OTP) is a measure that reflects the performance of trains arriving to the end terminus station with the allowance of a 15-minute recovery period. Looking at the three California Routes, The San Joaquins End-Point OTP is comparable to the other services.
End-Point OTP (Oct – Dec) Service FY21 FY20 San Joaquins 83% 73% Capitol Corridor 91% 84% Pacific Surfliner 89% 73%
98 of 103 SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of January 22, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 8 INFORMATION
Update on the 2021 SJJPA Business Plan
Background: The primary purpose of the Annual Business Plan is to identify San Joaquin Joint Power Authority’s (SJJPA’s) intentions for the next two State Fiscal Years. As part of its administrative responsibilities of the San Joaquins Intercity Passenger Rail Service, SJJPA must submit an Annual Business Plan by April 1st of each year in draft form to the Secretary of the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) and in final form by June 30th. The Annual Business Plan is reviewed and approved by the State and used to develop annual appropriation requests to the State Legislature. As specified in Assembly Bill (AB) 1779, the Annual Business Plan shall include a report on the recent, as well as historical, performance of the corridor service; an overall operating plan, including proposed service enhancements to increase ridership and provide for increased traveler demands in the corridor for the upcoming year; short-term and long-term capital improvement programs; funding requirements for the upcoming fiscal year; and an action plan with specific performance goals and objectives. In addition, the Annual Business Plan shall document service improvements (rail and Thruway Bus) to provide the planned level of service, operating plans, and consideration of other service expansions and enhancements. A public review draft of the 2021 SJJPA Business Plan (Business Plan) will be released in February 2021, allowing for Board, agency, and public input. After the review period and revisions are completed, the official draft of Business Plan (for submittal to CalSTA) will be presented for approval at the March 26, 2021, SJJPA Board Meeting.
Key Changes/Additions Anticipated for the 2021 Business Plan: The 2021 Business Plan is an update of the 2020 Business Plan. To provide the most up-to-date and comprehensive Business Plan possible, updates to ridership and financial figures will be provided, along with discussion of the status of current and planned capital projects, and any new planning initiatives. Additionally, certain sections will be updated to reflect recent changes in service. Key changes will include the following:
• The COVID-19 pandemic has had considerable impacts on intercity rail services throughout the State, including the San Joaquins service. The Business Plan will outline those impacts from a ridership and revenue perspective, as well as the
99 of 103 budgetary actions taken over the last fiscal year in response to the pandemic. The Business Plan will discuss plans for potential restoration of services starting this upcoming Summer of 2021 and throughout the 2021/22 Fiscal Year.
• Emphasis on SJJPA’s coordination and integration with California High-Speed Rail Authority’s (CHSRA) plans for the Merced – Bakersfield High Speed Rail (HSR) Interim Operating Segment and SJJPA’s intension to connect to this initial operating segment to the San Joaquins at a multi-modal station at downtown Merced. Future San Joaquins service improvements would focus on increasing service from Merced to the north. At the November 2020 SJJPA Board Meeting, the Board approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the CHSRA that outlines the framework for coordination between the two agencies for the starting of Merced-Bakersfield HSR Interim Operation Service. As part of this MOU, SJJPA will seek additional funding from CalSTA for planning and operational support to advance this effort over the next several years.
• As part of SJJPA’s 2018 Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) award, the San Joaquins Intercity Rail Service was approved and funded for an 8th and 9th Round Trips. Staff will be recommending as part of the Business Plan approval a change in the service recommendation which previously called for one of the five Bakersfield-Oakland daily roundtrips to be redirected to Sacramento with a connecting train in Stockton that would have gone to Oakland. Based on experiences over the last several years and the potential for ridership and revenue impacts of re-routing one of the direct Oakland trains, SJJPA staff is recommending maintaining the five Bakersfield-Oakland roundtrips and having a connecting train provide service to Sacramento instead. This change would require additional storage tracks at Stockton’s San Joaquin St. Station to allow this operationally, funding of which will be requested in future grant funding applications.
• This Business Plan will put greater emphasis on transit connectivity at stations, connectivity to disadvantaged/priority communities, and will outline the potential for a future means-based fare program with local and regional partners.
• In partnership with Butte County Association of Governments (Butte CAG), this Business Plan will outline joint efforts to support the planning for extending Valley Rail services (San Joaquins and ACE) North of Natomas to Butte County, which could be implemented in the Mid-Term planning horizon instead of Long-Term as discussed in previous Business Plans.
100 of 103 Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact.
Recommendation: This is an informational item. There is no action requested.
101 of 103 SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of January 22, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 9 ACTION
Election of Officers
Background:
The San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement states, “The Board shall elect a chairperson and at least one vice-chairperson from among its members” (Section 5.8). The SJJPA Bylaws defines: . The term of office shall be two years. . No member may serve more than two consecutive terms as Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson of the Board (Section 2.1). . Nomination and Election of a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson(s) shall be held at the first meeting of the Board and thereafter at the biennial first meeting. . The Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson(s) shall each be a Board Member” (Section 2.1). . Nominations may be made from the floor by any Voting Board Member. . The election of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson require an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Board.
The roles of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson(s) are described in Article 3 of the SJJPA Bylaws.
Stanislaus County Supervisor Vito Chiesa is the Chair of SJJPA and has served two consecutive terms (January 2017 – January 2019, and January 2019 – January 2021).
Elk Grove City Council Member Pat Hume is Vice Chair of SJJPA and has served two consecutive terms (January 2017 – January 2019, and January 2019 – January 2021).
Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact.
Recommendation: Elect a Chairperson and up to two Vice-Chairs.
102 of 103 SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Meeting of January 22, 2021
STAFF REPORT
Item 10 INFORMATION
Executive Director’s Report
Executive Director, Stacey Mortensen, will give the Executive Director’s report.
Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact.
Recommendation: This is an informational item. There is no action requested.
103 of 103