Sacramento Area 1415 L Street, tel: 916.321.9000 Suite 300 fax: 916.321.9551 Council of Sacramento, CA tdd: 916.321.9550 Governments 95814 www.sacog.org
REVISED
Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee Monday, September 8, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. SACOG Rivers Rooms, 1415 L Street, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA
The Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee may take up any agenda item at any time, regardless of the order listed. Public comment will be taken on the item at the time that it is taken up by the committee. We ask that members of the public complete a request to speak form, submit it to the clerk of the committee, and keep their remarks brief. If several persons wish to address the committee on a single item, the chair may impose a time limit on individual remarks at the beginning of the discussion. Action may be taken on any item on this agenda.
Roll Call: Directors Buckland, Davis, Hanley, Samayoa, Stallard, Wheeler, Yuill, Vice Chairs Ashby and Serna, and Chair Miklos. Public Communications: Any person wishing to address the Committee on any item not on the agenda may do so at this time. After ten minutes of testimony, any additional testimony will be heard following the action items.
1. Minutes of the August 11, 2014, Meeting◄ 2. Overall Work Program Amendment #1 (Mr. Trost)◄ 3. SACOG Salutes Awards Program (Ms. Hernández)◄ 4. Update on U.S. Department of Transportation Requirement for Transit Representation in Metropolitan Planning Organization Structure (Mr. Trost)◄ 5. Required Communication with Auditors - Statement on Auditing Standards No. 114 (Mr. Trost) 6. Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Update A. Trends in Demographics and Housing Demand (Mr. Chew) B. Outreach Update (Ms. Hernández) 7. Six-County Regional Active Transportation Program Funding Recommendations (Ms. DeVere-Oki) 8. Metro Chamber Study Mission (Ms. Sloan) 9. Regional Air Quality Planning Update (Ms. DeVere-Oki/Mr. Larry Greene, SMAQMD) 10. Cap and Trade Update (Mr. McKeever) 11. State Advocacy Update (Mr. Johnson) 12. State and Federal Transportation Funding Update (Mr. Johnson) 13. Amendment to Contract with URS for Downtown/Riverfront Transit Study (Mr. Trost)◄
Other Matters Adjournment ◄ Indicates Action Prepared by: Approved by: Mike McKeever Steve Miklos Chief Executive Officer Chair
Next committee meeting: October 6, 2014 The Meridian Plaza Building is accessible to the disabled. If requested, this agenda, and documents in the agenda packet can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Federal Rules and Regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Persons seeking an alternative format should contact SACOG for further information. In addition, a person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in a public meeting should contact SACOG by phone at 916-321-9000, e-mail ([email protected]) or in person as soon as possible and preferably at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Parking is available at 15th and K Streets
Item #14-9-1 Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee Action
August 29, 2014
Minutes of the August 11, 2014, Meeting
Issue: The Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee met on August 11, 2014.
Recommendation: Approve the minutes of the meetings as submitted.
Discussion: Attached are the minutes of the August 11, 2014, Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee meeting for approval.
Approved by:
Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer
MM:EJ:ts
Attachment
Key Staff: Erik Johnson, Acting Manager of Policy and Administration, (916) 340-6247
SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS GOVERNMENT RELATIONS & PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
The SACOG Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee met on August 11, 2014 in the Sacramento & American Rivers rooms on the Third Floor of the Meridian Plaza Building located at 1415 L Street, Sacramento, CA at 10:00 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Miklos called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.
ROLL CALL: Present: Directors Buckland, Davis, Wheeler, Yuill, Vice Chairs Ashby and Serna, and Chair Miklos.
Absent: Directors Hanley, Samayoa and Stallard.
1. Minutes of the June 9, 2014, Meeting
Upon motion by Chair Miklos, seconded by Vice Chair Ashby, and carried unanimously, the minutes of the June 9, 2014 Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee meetings were approved without any changes.
2. Annual Adoption of Salary Plan per CalPERS Regulation
Upon motion by Chair Miklos, seconded by Director Buckland, and carried unanimously, the Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee recommends that the Board adopt the Salary Plan.
3. Revised Yuba County Local Transportation Fund Findings of Apportionment for Fiscal Year 2014/15
Upon motion by Director Buckland, seconded by Vice Chair Ashby, and carried unanimously, the Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee recommends that the Board approve the revised Yuba County Local Transportation Fund Findings of Apportionment for Fiscal Year 2014/15.
4. Selection of Consultant for Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Environmental Impact Report Legal Services Contract
Upon motion by Director Davis, seconded by Director Buckland, and carried by majority vote (Vice Chairs Ashby and Serna abstained), the Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee recommends that the Board direct and authorize the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and sign a contract with the Thomas Law Group.
5. Contracts for Cooperative Purchase of Fuels and Lubricants
The Committee received and reviewed this report. No action was taken on this item.
6. Potential New Projects:
A. CivicSpark
Upon motion by Chair Miklos, seconded by Director Yuill, and carried unanimously, the Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee recommends that the Board give permission to the CEO to enter into a contract with the Local Government Commission (LGC) in the amount of $100,000 to fund up to six AmeriCorps members to work on a regional climate resiliency project.
Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee Minutes August 11, 2014 Page 2
B. Clean Vehicle Rebate Project
Upon motion by Chair Miklos, seconded by Vice Chair Ashby, and carried unanimously, the Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee recommends that staff apply for the project and bring back to the Board with the option to withdraw the application after consulting Board Chair Cohn, SMUD and local PG&E representatives.
7. Report on Fiscal Year 2013-14 Contracts Under $50,000
The Committee received and reviewed this report.
8. Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Update
A. Results of Phasing Analysis
The Committee received and reviewed this report.
B. Preliminary Revenue Analysis
The Committee received and reviewed this report.
C. Public Polling
The Committee received and reviewed this report.
D. Outreach Update
The Committee received and reviewed this report.
E. Project Level Economic Analysis
The Committee received and reviewed this report.
9. Ten-Year Anniversary of Adoption of Sacramento Region Blueprint
The Committee received and review this report.
10. Comment Letter on Valero Crude by Rail Project Environmental Impact Report
The Committee received and review this report.
11. State Advocacy Update
The Committee received and review this report.
12. Federal Advocacy Update
The Committee received and review this report.
Adjournment Chair Miklos adjourned the meeting at 11:27 a.m.
Item #14-9-2 Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee Action
September 2, 2014
Overall Work Plan Amendment #1
Issue: Should Amendment #1 be made to the Overall Work Program (OWP) for Fiscal Year 2014/15?
Recommendation: That the Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee recommend that the Board approve Amendment #1 to the Overall Work Program (OWP) for Fiscal Year 2014/15.
Discussion: The Board of Directors adopted the Fiscal Year 2013/14 OWP in May 2014. Administrative amendments to the OWP are typical throughout every year to modify OWP projects, to add revenue to the OWP, to change project descriptions, or to adjust staff and expenditures between OWP projects. The purpose of this amendment is to make changes to four projects and to add eight projects to the OWP. The overall effect is a positive increase in the 2014/15 Budget position.
Changes to projects:
• Connectivity Study of Transportation Services to Improve Health Care Access across the SACOG Region (Project #003-23) was already in the FY 2014/15 OWP, but the milestone dates have changed. The remaining grant budget of $98,880 will fully cover projected FY 14/15 expenditures for the project.
• Rural-Urban Connections Strategy/Sustainable Communities Strategy Implementation (Project # 005-09) was expected to be completed in the prior fiscal year, but an extension provided by the Strategic Growth Council will allow $36,898 in remaining funds to be spent in the new fiscal year. As a result, the project is being amended into the FY 2014/15 OWP.
• Interregional Transportation Demand Management Action Plan (Project #009-07) is a $115,803 project being completed by SACOG and the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG). The milestone dates have changed and the project is being amended back into the FY 2014/15 OWP.
• Yuba Sutter Short-Range Transit Plan was already in the FY 2014/15 OWP. The project number is just being changed from #003-24 to #008-16 as a pass-through.
New projects:
• Feasibility Study of Connect Card Interoperability (Project #003-24) — This $95,908 project will explore innovative ideas on implementing the adopted MTP/SCS through studying how the new Connect Card can be used to connect transit with other modes of transportation.
• Rural Ride-Sharing Alternatives Planning Study (Project #003-28) — Through this $97,458 project, SACOG will spearhead a planning study of ridesharing alternatives to serve seniors, persons with disabilities and low-income families living in very rural communities in Sutter and Yuba counties, Yolo County, and the Western portion of El Dorado County.
• Rural/Small Urban Transit Planning Intern (Project # 003-29) — $28,600 in new grant funding will allow SACOG to engage a new student intern to work with our Transit Team for up to one year and provide support for the region’s rural/small urban transit agencies.
• SGC 3 – Task 1 A/B Revitalization Technical Assistance (Project # 006-07) — This $274,918 grant activity will provide technical assistance to cities and counties in the region on infill development and revitalization strategies.
• SGC 3 – Task 1C Active Design/Transportation Assistance (Project # 006-08) — This $131,983 grant activity will provide technical assistance to cities, counties, developers, public health staff and interests, advisory councils/neighborhood groups, and other stakeholders on advancing healthy communities through active design/transportation.
• SGC 3 – Task 2 Community Revitalization & Capacity Building in Disadvantaged Communities (Project #006-09) — This $73,426 grant activity will support case studies of community capacity- building in portions of the City and County of Sacramento that are identified in the MTP/SCS as environmental justice communities.
• PEV Infrastructure Implementation (Project #007-22) — This $6,798 grant-funded activity will begin implementing the regional PEV infrastructure plan adopted by the SACOG Board in 2013.
• I-5 Subregional Transportation Impact Fee Program EIR (Project #009-10) — In this $106,336 project, SACOG will act as lead agency for the preparation and certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a subregional transportation and mitigation impact fee program.
Attachment A offers the project description details for the new or changed projects included in OWP Amendment #1.
Approved by:
Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer
MM:MC:SS:gg Attachment
Key Staff: Kirk Trost, Chief Operating Officer/General Counsel, (916) 340-6210 Erik Johnson, Acting Manager of Policy and Administration, (916) 340-6247 Sharon Sprowls, Senior Program Specialist, (916) 340-6235 Joe Concannon, Data Services Manager, (916) 340-6234 Matt Carpenter, Director of Transportation Services, (916) 340-6276
Attachment A: Project Description Details
CONNECTIVITY STUDY OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES TO IMPROVE Project #003-23 HEALTH CARE ACCESS ACROSS THE SACOG REGION (Caltrans Statewide or Urban Transit Planning Studies Grant) This project will address greater connectivity and seamlessness for demand-response transit and supplemental transportation service users and low-income residents needing to make cross- jurisdictional trips in the Sacramento Region, especially to reach health care services. SACOG staff will work with operators and stakeholders to document existing transportation services and health care service locations; assess additional needs and demand for cross-jurisdictional travel for accessing health care; and identify, assess, and recommend options for a more seamless, connected system of public transportation and supplemental services in the region.
This work will be performed by SACOG staff.
Tasks and End Products: a. Project kickoff (March 2013) b. Complete data collection on current services, demand and destinations for cross-jurisdictional travel (June January 20154) c. Conduct surveys (June January 20154) d. Analyze options/alternatives, develop recommendations (August 2015October 2014) e. Complete outreach and input-gathering (December 2014September 2015) f. Finalize Connectivity Study (February 2015December 2015) g. Project management and administration (Ongoing) h. Develop draft recommendations (October 20154) i. Complete Draft Connectivity Study for review (De c e m be r November 20154) j. Complete Final Connectivity study (Fe bru a ry De c e m ber 2015) k. Quarterly Reports/Invoices (Quarterly) l. Final Caltrans Report and Invoice (Fe bru a ry De c e m ber 2015) MULTIMODAL CONNECTIONS TO TRANSIT: FEASIBILITY STUDY OF Project # 003-24 CONNECT CARD INTEROPERABILITY (Caltrans Transit Planning for Sustainable Communities Grant) This project, based on Board Policy to explore innovative ideas on implementing the adopted MTP/SCS, is a study of how the new Connect Card can be used to connect transit with other modes of transportation. The study will explore the hardware and software requirements of using Connect Card with bike share systems, electric vehicle chargers, car share, and parking. It will look at different business cases and models used to implement these systems, and make recommendations on how best to integrate the Connect Card to support “last mile” connections. This work is funded through a Caltrans discretionary planning grant.
This work will be performed by SACOG and consultants
Tasks and End Products: a. Project Administration (Ongoing) b. Issues on PEV interoperability (Ongoing) c. Report on PEV Interoperability with Connect Card (August 2015) d. Issues on Bike Share interoperability (Ongoing) e. Report on Bike Share Interoperability with Connect Card (Aug ust 2015) RURAL RIDE-SHARING ALTERNATIVES PLANNING STUDY Project #003-28 (Caltrans Transit Planning for Rural Communities Grant) SACOG will spearhead a planning study of ridesharing alternatives to serve seniors, persons with disabilities and low-income families living in very rural communities in the Western portion of El Dorado County, Yolo County, and Yuba and Sutter Counties where public transit service is limited, or non-existent and too costly to provide. SACOG will research successful rural transportation models and work with stakeholders and community residents to detail service gaps, identify locally preferred ride-sharing alternatives, assess feasibility and costs, and develop implementation strategies and next steps.
This work will be performed by SACOG staff.
Tasks and End Products: a. Project kickoff (May 2015) b. Project Coordination (Ongoing) c. Conduct gap and demand analysis (November 2015) d. Review ride-sharing options/models for rural areas (December 2015) e. Refine services/models to study (February 2016) f. Refine service alternatives (July 2016) g. Draft feasibility plans and implementation strategies (July 2016) h. Review draft feasibility plans with stakeholders (July 2016) i. Complete planning studies and implementation strategies (September 2016) j. Implementation/next steps (September 2016) k. Report on gap/demand analysis, ride-sharing options and models (December 2015) l. Draft Planning Studies and Implementation Strategies (July 2016) m. Final Planning Studies (September 2016) n. Quarterly Reports/Invoices (Quarterly) o. Final Caltrans Report and Invoice (October 2016) RURAL/SMALL URBAN TRANSIT PLANNING INTERN Project # 003-29 (Caltrans Transit Planning for Rural Communities Grant) SACOG will hire a college student enrolled in a planning-related degree program to work with our Transit Team for up to one year under the supervision of experienced transportation planners. The intern will assist with diverse transit planning activities to gain professional experience and provide staff support. The intern will work full-time during the summer and 16-24 hours per week during the academic year. The transit intern’s work will be focused on transit planning activities for our region specifically benefitting the rural/small urban service areas (population 100,000 or less) in El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Yolo, Yuba, and Sutter counties. The general areas of work and the timeline are outlined below.
This work will be performed by a student intern
Tasks and End Products A. Intern Hiring Process (May 2015) B. Technical Assistance and Programming (June 2016) C. Transit Planning and Project Implementation (June 2016) D. Unmet Transit Needs Process Support (January 2016) E. Public Outreach and Implementation (June 2016) RURAL-URBAN CONNECTIONS STRATEGY/SUSTAINABLE Project #14-005-09 COMMUNITIES STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION (Strategic Growth Council Grant) The Sacramento Region is planning for sustainable communities, from the urban centers to rural edges in the region. This project includes work activities that address goals of Senate Bill 375 and Assembly Bill 32, including creating economically, environmentally, and equitably sustainable rural communities with direct and indirect land use benefits throughout the entire region. A Strategic Growth Council grant award is being used as part of SACOG’s implementation of the Sustainable Communities Strategy. In line with SACOG’s approach of balancing urban growth planning with rural economic and environmental sustainability, work for this project will mainly focus on ways to support the agriculture industry and rural communities.
Building upon the RUCS project (project #14-004-05), the work assesses ways to support agriculture with employment, housing, transportation, infrastructure, and access to services. Distribution and processing infrastructure needs are being determined, and feasibility and pro forma work will help craft strategies for deploying facilities. Project work also includes supporting rural communities with tools to assist in quantifying cost and fiscal constraints of infrastructure and service improvements. The project also includes analysis of regional food deserts and steps towards implementing diet surveys to identify market demand in the six-county area for regionally-produced food. This work seeks to expand food access to reduce the occurrences of food deserts.
This work on enhancing rural economic viability is supported by additional tasks covered by the grant. Support will come from work on CEQA streamlining, which will design a tiering instrument and toolkit by and for local partners and stakeholders. SACOG will also conduct any needed outreach for the update of the MTP/SCS and develop an inventory of local land use plans in the region to help monitor implementation of the SCS.
Other work includes data development and research on an I-80/Capitol Corridor Strategic Plan. This plan will address goods movement and strategies to reduce interregional VMT, including smart growth land use policies along the corridor. The work will help coordinate air quality, land use, and travel demand assumptions and models for each region. Other work includes assembling rural policies and plans into a toolkit to help jurisdictions with land use plan updates that protect agricultural lands and reduce VMT.
This work will be performed by SACOG staff.
Tasks and End Products: a. Identify unmet demand for healthy locally grown food (May 2012 – June 2013) b. Determine needs for agriculture infrastructure to support more regionally consumed food (June 2012 – March 2014) c. Identify needs to support adequate agricultural labor in the region (May 2012 – May 2013) d. Determine agricultural labor needs (May 2012 – August 2013) e. Determine infrastructure and service needs for rural communities and estimate the cost and sources of revenue (July 2013 – March 2014) f. Build CEQA Streamlining/Tiering tools ( July 2013 – September 2013) g. Conduct Public Outreach & Visualization (Ongoing) h. Create organized system for displaying, reporting and accessing data used in creation and update of the MTP/SCS (January 2014 – June July 2014) i. Collect and analyze adopted and proposed land use plans (October 2013 – June July 2014) j. Develop scope of work to implement survey of diets for various community groups and a regional food consumption summary(May 2012 – June 2013) k. Food desert profile report (May 2012 – December 2013) l. Inventory of current processing and distribution facilities and assessment of facilities that can be supported by various regional crop production patterns (June 2012 – August 2013) m. Performance measures, funding strategies, and gap assessment to implement the Agricultural Worker Transportation Program (July 2012 – December 2013) n. Estimate number of agriculture laborers needed and location of that demand for current crop production and agriculture infrastructure as well as for scenarios (May 2012 – December 2013) o. Work with rural communities, counties, and housing agencies to assess infrastructure needs, costs and municipal revenues for rural communities and other locations where agricultural facilities and labor housing may be sited (July 2013 – March 2014) p. A CEQA tiering instrument and toolkit designed by SACOG and its public and private sector partners to design an instrument that is objective and consistent with the SCS (July 2013) q. Public outreach for update of the MTP/SCS as needed (Ongoing) r. Database for displaying reporting and accessing data used in creation and update of the MTP/SCS (June July 2014) s. Inventory of local land use plans in SACOG region (June July 2014) SGC 3 – TASK 1 A/B REVITALIZATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Project # 006-07 (State of California Strategic Growth Council Grant, Round 3) This grant-funded activity will provide technical assistance to cities and counties in the region on compact development and revitalization strategies. Assistance is targeted to MTP/SCS-designated “Centers and Corridors” which include downtowns, main streets, small town centers, central business districts, commercial corridors, compact infill sites and Transit Priority Areas and designated as “Established Communities”, which include older and inner ring suburban areas.
The assistance is offered by SACOG staff and the Portland State University Urban Sustainability Accelerator Program.
Tasks and End Products: a. Confirm technical assistance and expertise needs (December 2014) b. Provide technical assistance to remove barriers to revitalization and intensification in Centers, Corridors and Established Communities (Ongoing) c. Quarterly status reports on overall project status (Quarterly) d. Summary of technical assistance provided and recommendations and implementation outcomes resulting from assistance. (January 2017) e. Other deliverables as required for grant (As determined) SGC 3 – TASK 1C ACTIVE DESIGN/TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE Project # 006-08 (State of California Strategic Growth Council Grant, Round 3) This grant-funded activity will provide technical assistance to cities, counties, developers, public health staff and interests, advisory councils/neighborhood groups, and other stakeholders on advancing healthy communities through active design/transportation policies, plans and implementation. The assistance is offered by SACOG staff, traffic engineering experts, Sacramento County sustainability and public health staff, WALKSacramento and Design 4 Active Sacramento.
Tasks and End Products: a. Provide technical assistance (Ongoing) b. Quarterly status reports on overall project status (Quarterly) c. Summary of technical assistance provided and recommendations and implementation outcomes resulting from assistance. (January 2017) d. Other deliverables as required for grant to be determined (As determined) SGC 3 – TASK 2 COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION & CAPACITY BUILDING Project #006-09 IN DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES (State of California Strategic Growth Council Grant, Round 3) There are two case study focus areas under Task 2 of the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) Round 3 grant. The two study areas are inclusive of Sacramento County and City neighborhoods in the north and south areas that are identified as MTP/SCS environmental justice communities and included in Cal EnviroScreen’s top 20 percent of disadvantaged communities statewide.
The case studies will result in community capacity building and tangible studies to improve infrastructure needs in these communities.
This work will be performed by The Center for Public Interest Design and SACOG.
Tasks and End Products: a. Community investigations including review of existing and historical planning efforts (June 2014) b. Resident and stakeholder interviews (June 2015) c. Engagement of local residents (May 2015) d. Feasibility study for the reuse of Maple School (December 2015) e. Pop-up tactical urbanism events in both study areas (December 2015) f. Feasibility study for long term revitalization of Marysville Blvd. and Grand Avenue (December 2015) PEV INFRASTRUCTURE IMPLEMENTATION Project #007-22 (California Energy Commmission grant) This project will begin implementing the regional PEV infrastructure plan adopted by the SACOG Board in 2013. The initial phase of the project is funded through a California Energy Commission (CEC) grant, and a partnership with the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD), to install a series of DC Fast Chargers in the SMUD service territory. This includes site design, equipment allocation, site preparation, equipment installation, and market surveys.
This work will be performed by SACOG and SMUD.
Tasks and End Products: a. Site design for up to three DC Fast Chargers in the SMUD service territory (June 2015) YUBA-SUTTER SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Project #003-24008-16 (Caltrans Statewide or Urban Transit Planning Studies Grant) The project is an update of the 2008 Yuba-Sutter Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). Stakeholders will be included in development of the plan. The new SRTP will guide future transit services and planning for the population and areas served by Yuba-Sutter Transit.
This work will be performed by a consultant, and is funded by a Caltrans Rural or Small Urban Transit Planning Studies discretionary grant.
Tasks and End Products: a. Project kickoff (January 2014) b. Work plan responsibilities (February 2014) c. Develop existing conditions information (December 2014) d. Analyze and draft SRTP sections on goals, policies, objectives and opportunities (August 2014) e. Complete financial analysis (April 2015) f. Assess community values, priorities and preferences (March 2015) g. Draft service alternatives (April 2015) h. Complete capital plan (April 2015) i. Complete draft SRTP (April 2015) j. Complete final SRTP (June 2015) k. Project management and administration (Ongoing) l. Kickoff meeting notes (January 2014) m. Work plan and (if necessary) RFP and contract (February 2014) n. Summary of outreach efforts (March 2015) o. Draft SRTP sections (April 2015) p. Summary of public comments on draft SRTP, Final SRTP (June 2015) q. Quarterly Reports/Invoices (Quarterly) r. Final Caltrans Report and Invoice (June 2015) INTERREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT Project #009-07 ACTION PLAN (Caltrans Partnership Planning Grant) In this project, SACOG and SJCOG will partner to develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Action Plan to reduce current and future interregional capacity demands on the I-5 and SR 99 corridors between San Joaquin and Sacramento Counties. To complete the plan, SJCOG and SACOG will work together with interregional stakeholders, including Caltrans Districts 10 and 3, to develop, assess and select from scenarios with various combinations of TDM strategies to address commute-related congestion between the two regions.
This work will be performed by outside consultants with SJCOG staff as the lead agency and with SACOG staff reviewing deliverables and participating in project development team meetings.
Tasks and End Products: a. Project initiation (May 2013) b. Project coordination meeting (June 2013) c. Establish Project Steering Committee (January 2014) d. Document existing conditions (January 2014) e. Develop interregional vision statement (February 2014) f. Identify TDM/multimodal service strategies (March May 2014) g. Assess and select preferred strategies (April August 2014) h. Conduct more detailed implementation assessment (May September 2014) i. Develop strategies and working draft Action Plan (June October 2014) j. Complete final interregional TDM Action Plan, executive summary and technical report (Ju ne October 2014) k. Final report to Caltrans and Board Action (Ju ne November 2014) l. Reporting to Caltrans and grant administration (Ongoing) I-5 SUBREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE PROGRAM Project #009-10 (Local Agreement) The I-5 Subregional transportation impact fee program and an environmental review of the Subregional Improvement Plan is a coordinated effort among Caltrans, SACOG, and the cities of Elk Grove, Sacramento, and West Sacramento to address concerns regarding new developments and future cumulative traffic impacts along Interstate 5 within the jurisdictional boundaries of these cities.
SACOG, as the regional partner, will be the lead agency for the EIR for the Subregional Improvement Plan and Impact Fee to analyze whether implementation of a selected group of projects would mitigate the cumulative mainline freeway traffic impacts.
This work will be performed by consultants managed by SACOG staff.
Tasks and End Products: a. EIR cost-sharing agreement between SACOG and local partners (October 2015) b. Request for proposal and selection of consultant to prepare EIR. (November 2015) c. Draft EIR for the Improvement Plan and the Impact Fee (April 2015) d. Final EIR for the Improvement Plan and the Impact Fee (June 2015)
Item #14-9-3 Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee Action
August 29, 2014
SACOG Salutes Awards Program
Issue: Should SACOG Salutes be moved to be included in the Spring 2015 Regional Forum?
Recommendation: That the Government Relations & Public Affairs (GRPA) Committee recommend to the Board of Directors that SACOG Salutes be held in conjunction with the Spring 2015 Regional Forum.
Discussion: Since 1999, SACOG Salutes has been recognizing outstanding projects, plans, and individuals in the fields of transportation, land use and air quality.
Staff is recommending that rather than conducting the Salutes program in December 2014, that the regional awards program be presented as part of the Spring 2015 Regional Forum. In August, staff brought forward a staff report highlighting the broad goals of a Regional Forum, including but not limited to, covering the Blueprint implementation sucesses of SACOG members and developers, and looking at the impacts of the MTP/SCS on people, place, and the economy. The opportunity to highlight our awards in the larger setting has precedent. In 2010, staff held the SACOG Salutes program as part of the Rural-Urban Connections Strategy Regional Forum which had over 600 attendees from across the region.
With the change in the timing, staff would like to further engage the GRPA committee in discussion about the SACOG Salutes program timing and whether the award program should be a bi-annual program. This discussion would not be dependent on the action being requested by staff in this staff report. The transition to a bi-annual program would allow for more time for project completion. Often we have nominations for projects that are not completed within in a single year, and therefore are not eligible. Extending the time between award presentations could increase the number of eligible nominations from throughout the region.
Approved by:
Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer
MM:MH:ts
Key Staff: Erik Johnson, Acting Manager of Policy and Administration, (916) 340-6247 Monica Hernández, Public Information Coordinator, (916) 340-6237
Item #14-9-4 Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee Action
August 29, 2014
Update on U.S. Department of Transportation Requirement for Transit Representation in Metropolitan Planning Organization Structure
Issue: Should SACOG take any action in response to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidance on MAP-21 implementation?
Recommendation: Staff does not have a recommendation, but the Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee may choose to make a recommendation to the Board.
Discussion: The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) requires representation by providers of public transportation on the governing board for each metropolitan planning organization (MPO) that serves a transportation management area (TMA) no later than October 1, 2014.
The purpose of the requirement is to ensure the important role for public transit providers in planning, establishing performance targets for transit state of good repair and transit safety, performance monitoring, and prioritizing transportation investments.
In 2013, the FTA issued draft policy guidance and sought public comment. SACOG staff responded to the draft guidance, stating that SACOG already complies with the MAP-21 requirement. Staff noted that under SACOG’s Board structure a minimum of five Board members also serve on the governing boards of transit providers in the region. This is due to the fact that of the 14 transit agencies in the region, five are governed by a city council or board of supervisors. Many SACOG Board members also typically serve on the boards of other transit operators. At present, 12 SACOG Board members serve on such governing boards. Staff also outlined to the FTA the important role of the Transit Coordinating Committee and SACOG’s close coordination with transit providers. A copy of the comment letter is attached.
Notwithstanding our comment letter, and similar comment letters by other MPOs in California and throughout the country, the FTA issued final guidance in June stating that the representation requirement could not be met by a board member that also represents a local agency. If this guidance were to become law, SACOG would need to amend its joint powers agreement to modify the board structure. However, the FTA guidance does not have the force of law and does not propose any consequences for not following the guidance. In June, the FTA also issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on proposed new federal regulations that would have the force of law. SACOG staff is coordinating with other major MPOs in California to comment on these rules.
Options:
• Do nothing: SACOG’s board structure already ensures representation of transit providers.
• Establish a new committee: The Board Chair has the authority, without amending the Board’s rules, to establish a new board standing or ad hoc committee that could provide policy advice or recommendations to the Board. Under the Rules for SACOG, the committee may be made up of Board members or official representatives of member agencies. • Amend the Rules for SACOG: By motion, the Board has the authority to adopt more formal modifications to existing Rules to provide additional transit-focused policy discussions. These could include any or all of the following.
o Appoint a specific “transit representative” each year from the existing Board members that represents transit providers, with direction to that representative to bring forward transit- focused issues or recommendations.
o Establish a transit-focused subcommittee of the Board that would meet to discuss planning, establishing performance targets for transit state of good repair and transit safety, performance monitoring, and prioritizing transportation investments, and bring policy issues and recommendations to the full Board. There are at least three options for the composition of this subcommittee: (1) current SACOG Board members; (2) elected or appointed representatives of transit providers; or (3) a combination of SACOG Board members and representatives of transit providers.
o Establish an annual Board calendar with planned special transit-focused Board agendas. • Begin the process of amending SACOG’s joint powers agreement to add separate new board members representing transit providers.
• Begin the process of amending SACOG’s joint powers agreement to segregate MPO functions into an MPO Board and maintain SACOG’s existing Board for all other purposes.
Approved by:
Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer
MM:KT:gg Attachment
Key Staff: Kirk Trost, Chief Operating Officer/General Counsel, (916) 340-6210 Erik Johnson, Acting Manager of Policy and Administration, (916) 340-6247
Item #14-9-5 Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee Information
August 29, 2014
Required Communication with Auditors—Statement on Auditing Standards No. 114
Issue: In accordance with the Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 114, SACOG’s auditors are required to communicate certain matters to those charged with governance of the Agency.
Recommendation: That the Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee receive the auditors’ presentation on the audit process.
Discussion: SAS No. 114 provides a framework for effective communication between auditors and clients in relation to the audit of financial statements. The auditor is required to communicate with those charged with governance those matters related to the financial statement audit that are, in the auditors’ professional judgment, significant and relevant to the responsibilities of those charged with governance in overseeing the financial reporting process. Generally, the matters to be communicated include information regarding the auditors’ responsibility under GAAS (Generally Accepted Auditing Standards), the planned scope and timing of the audit, planning and interim activities, year-end fieldwork and audit approach, and new audit and accounting standards effective June 30, 2014.
Our auditors encourage effective two-way communications through face-to-face meetings. These communications can be made to an audit committee or a similar committee designated by the Board to address audit-related matters. In the case of SACOG, the Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee is charged with overseeing administration and financial budget matters, including the audit, and thus is the appropriate Committee to communicate with the auditors.
Therefore, in accordance with SAS No. 114, SACOG’s auditors, Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Company, LLP, will provide a presentation to the Committee.
Attached is a copy of their presentation.
Approved by:
Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer
MM:SN:ts
Attachment
Key Staff: Erik Johnson, Acting Manager of Policy & Administration, (916) 340-6247 Kirk Trost, Chief Operating Officer/General Counsel, (916) 340-6210 Stacy Niccum, Acting Finance Manager, (916) 340-6243
Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP VALUE THE DIFFERENCE Certified Public Accountants
April 17, 2014
Board of Directors Sacramento Area Council of Governments Sacramento, California
We are engaged to audit the financial statements of the governmental activities and each major fund of Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) for the year ended June 30, 2014. Professional standards require that we provide you with the following information related to our audit. We would also appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss this information further since a two-way dialogue can provide valuable information for the audit process.
Our Responsibilities under U.S. Generally Accepted Auditing Standards, Government Auditing Standards, and OMB Circular A-133
As stated in our engagement letter dated April 14, 2014, our responsibility, as described by professional standards, is to express opinions about whether the financial statements prepared by management with your oversight are fairly presented, in all material respects, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Our audit of the financial statements does not relieve you or management of your responsibilities.
In planning and performing our audit, we will consider SACOG‘s internal control over financial reporting in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements and not to provide assurance on the internal control over financial reporting. We will also consider internal control over compliance with requirements that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB Circular A-133.
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether SACOG’s financial statements are free of material misstatement, we will perform tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions is not an objective of our audit. Also in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, we will examine, on a test basis, evidence about SACOG’s compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement applicable to each of its major federal programs for the purpose of expressing an opinion on SACOG’s compliance with those requirements. While our audit will provide a reasonable basis for our opinion, it will not provide a legal determination on SACOG’s compliance with those requirements.
Generally accepted accounting principles provide for certain required supplementary information (RSI) to supplement the basic financial statements. Our responsibility with respect to (1) Management’s Discussion and Analysis, (2) GASB required supplementary pension and other postemployment benefit information, and (3) Budgetary Comparison Information, which supplement(s) the basic financial statements, is to apply certain limited procedures in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. However, the RSI will not be audited and, because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance, we will not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI.
1
2151 River Plaza Drive, Suite 308 Sacramento, CA 95833 Tel: 916.570.1880 Fax: 916.570.1875 www.vtdcpa.com
FRESNO • LAGUNA HILLS • PALO ALTO • PLEASANTON • RANCHO CUCAMONGA • riverside • Sacramento We have been engaged to report on (1) the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards, (2) Budgetary Comparison Information, (3) Schedule of Indirect Service Costs, and (4) Schedule of Allocation and Disbursments, which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. Our responsibility for this supplementary information, as described by professional standards, is to evaluate the presentation of the supplementary information in relation to the financial statements as a whole and to report on whether the supplementary information is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the financial statements as a whole.
We have not been engaged to report on (1) the Introductory Section or (2) the Statistical Section, which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. Our responsibility with respect to this other information in documents containing the audited financial statements and auditor’s report does not extend beyond the financial information identified in the report. We have no responsibility for determining whether this other information is properly stated. This other information will not be audited and we will not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it.
Planned Scope and Timing of the Audit
An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements; therefore, our audit will involve judgment about the number of transactions to be examined and the areas to be tested.
Our audit will include obtaining an understanding of the entity and its environment, including internal control, sufficient to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements and to design the nature, timing, and extent of further audit procedures. Material misstatements may result from (1) errors, (2) fraudulent financial reporting, (3) misappropriation of assets, or (4) violations of laws or governmental regulations that are attributable to the entity or to acts by management or employees acting on behalf of the entity. We will generally communicate our significant findings at the conclusion of the audit. However, some matters could be communicated sooner, particularly if significant difficulties are encountered during the audit where assistance is needed to overcome the difficulties or if the difficulties may lead to a modified opinion. We will also communicate any internal control related matters that are required to be communicated under professional standards.
We will make reference to other auditor’s audits of the STA and LTF special revenue funds in our report on the financial statements.
If you are aware of matters that have a material bearing on the financial statements taken as a whole (such as those described above in items 1-4), please contact me at (916) 570-1880 or by email at [email protected] by October 1, 2014.
We expect to begin our audit on approximately July, 2014 and issue our report in December, 2014.
This information is intended solely for the use of SACOG Board of Directors and management of SACOG and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties.
Very truly yours,
David E. Showalter Vavrinek, Trine, Day and Co. LLP
2
Item #14-9-6A Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee Information
August 29, 2014
Trends in Demographics and Housing Demand
Issue: This paper provides updated information on national demographic trends that affect future demand for housing as it relates to the 2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) update.
Recommendation: This is for information only.
Discussion: This white paper was originally written in 2011 for the development of the current MTP/SCS. It described demographic trends that might affect future demand for various housing product types. As part of each MTP/SCS update, SACOG reviews and updates the planning assumptions to reflect the best available information. The updated paper presented here summarizes a review of the current information on national demographic and housing trends, and what they may mean for the SACOG region.
As reported in the paper, the latest information suggests that the demographic and housing preference trends identified four years ago are continuing or growing stronger and therefore, do not indicate a need for major changes from the current plan in terms of the region’s housing mix or growth pattern. The paper finds that these demographic trends will lead to a higher demand for multi-family housing in the U.S. The variety of age cohorts entering different life stages, later marriage, the influence of immigrants and other demographic movements are the driving forces behind the housing preference shifts. The paper also provides some regional- and state-wide data as it relates to these demographic trends.
Staff will provide a brief overview of the findings to the Transportation Committee and Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee and will present a more detailed version to the Land Use & Natural Resources Committee.
Approved by:
Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer
MM:GC:gg Attachment
Key Staff: Erik Johnson, Acting Manager of Policy and Administration, (916) 340-6247 Kacey Lizon, Acting Planning Manager, (916) 340-6265 Greg Chew, Senior Planner, (916) 340-6227
Trends in the Housing Market: An Update on Changing Demographics and Consumer Preferences
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
August 28, 2014
Note: This paper is an update to a version that was released in February 2011. The purpose of this paper is to examine factors affecting the housing market as SACOG prepares the 2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) Update.
Introduction
The U.S. housing market in the coming decades will differ significantly from recent decades. The new housing stock that is produced will need to change, too. Evolving demographics and preferences held by specific demographic groups, or generational cohorts, are driving the change. On the housing demand side, the aging of the large baby boomer generation, the preferences of the even larger Generation Y cohort (those born between 1981 and 19991) as well as continued immigration will have a major impact on demand. On the supply side, the type and location of new housing construction over the past few decades may not match anticipated future demand according to many researchers. This poses both constraints and opportunities for future development, redevelopment and reuse in the Sacramento region. This updated paper reviews new information and further explores national housing market trends that have emerged since the original paper was published in 2011. As SACOG updates the 2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, it will consider what these national trends may mean to the SACOG region.
Housing Choices of Generational Cohorts and Immigrants
Baby boomers and Generation Y will drive much of the change
While numerous demographic factors have been shifting over time, the change in the distribution of age cohorts is probably the most profound. Waves of Americans in different age categories, each having their own identity, lifestyles and preferences for housing types, are increasingly impacting how the U.S. grows.
A lot of attention has been paid to the baby boomer generation, those born between 1946 and 1964. This large group of Americans currently totals 77 million or 25 percent of the U.S.
1 Demographers use different year ranges to define Gen Y, Gen X, baby boomer and others. This paper uses 1981 to 1999 for Gen Y because this range falls in the middle of the different timeframes, and data are more readily available for these years.
SACOG 2014 White Paper Trends in the Housing Market: Changing Demographics and Consumer Preferences Page 1
population.2 As they age, their changing housing demands and choices will create changes in housing markets.
Following them is Generation X (Gen X), often referred to as the baby bust generation, because of the significant drop-off in births. This generation, born between 1965 and 1980, currently total 66 million people or 21 percent of the U.S..2 Over time, this generation’s smaller size may bring a drop-off in overall housing demand.
The next wave of Americans is called Generation Y (Gen Y), millenials, or echo boomers for primarily being the offspring of the baby boomers. This generation, born between 1981 and 1999, is the largest cohort. They currently number 85 million or 28 percent of the U.S. population and will have a profound impact on the U.S. housing market for decades ahead.2
In addition to the baby boom and millennial generations, a third group that cuts across generations will also have a large impact on housing demand: immigrants and their offspring. National immigration policy, however, will ultimately determine the growth of this group.
Each of these groups and their near and long-term housing demands are examined below.
Baby boomers’ housing trends and choices
Starting in 2011, the oldest baby boomers (boomers) turned 65, with a huge wave of retirees expected over the next two decades. Because this generation is so large, the impact on the built environment has been, and will continue to be, equally large. Immediately after World War II, a huge increase in the national birth rate resulted in enormous demand for consumer goods. As boomers became adults, their demands for housing, cars, college educations and other goods and services continued to grow. By middle age, as they were raising children, they increasingly demanded single-family homes and associated roadway expansions to get them to their jobs.
Now, according to researcher Richard Florida, nationally 10,000 boomers will turn 65 every day from 2011 through 2029. This quantity of older adults is unprecedented. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 10.4 million boomers are between the ages of 55 and 64, a 43 percent increase over the past decade (compared to overall population growth of nine percent). As a result, certain housing trends have emerged:
Community Preferences Of the many studies of baby boomer housing preferences, there are different findings about the percentage of older adults who say they would like to stay in their family home if possible versus
2 According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the national proportions of baby boomers, Generation X and Generation Y cohorts are very similar in the SACOG region, at 24 percent, 21 percent and 29 percent of the region’s population, respectively.
SACOG 2014 White Paper Trends in the Housing Market: Changing Demographics and Consumer Preferences Page 2 moving to a new home. Regardless of the total number of seniors who eventually move, research indicates that a high percentage of those who are moving are interested in alternative housing products, such as smaller homes or amenity-rich communities. In real estate expert RCLCO’s national survey of boomer preferences for amenities, 83% ranked walking, 67% nearby shopping, and 51% bicycling as top priorities. Employment proximity is also becoming increasingly important, as the number of workers 75 or older has risen by 77 percent in the past two decades according to AARP’s Public Policy Institute. A scientific poll of people age 45 and older by AARP in 2010 found that that having the following amenities close by were also particularly important to older adults: bus stop (50%), grocery store (47%), park (42%) and pharmacy/drug store (42%).
RCLCO has found that as leading-edge baby boomers begin to demand senior-oriented housing, forward-looking developers are responding creatively to their lifestyles and preferences. Two notable trends are towards development of intergenerational housing projects and age-restricted housing projects that are closely integrated into an intergenerational neighborhood. As general trends in development focus on infill building, walkability, and creating lively and active neighborhoods, RCLCO notes that,
[I]ntegrating seniors into the larger community provides housing for community- minded seniors; stability for transient communities; arts and wellness programs for a town; and intergenerational relationships for children, families, and aging seniors. In fact, better integrating seniors housing into the fabric of the community, and creating innovative and architecturally interesting projects, helps reduce any stigma of seniors housing and encourages earlier consideration of this lifestyle alternative.
Housing Preferences and Downsizing While many older adults would like to stay where they are, many also appear ready to downsize and/or seek more service-rich environments, whether in their own community or elsewhere. A New York Times feature entitled “Baby Boomers’ Second Act” evidenced an interest among some boomers in downsizing, noting that boomers are opting towards condos and smaller, lower maintenance homes in order to have more time to pursue their own interests.
A Baby Boomer Survey by Del Webb, the leading builder of retirement communities, found that 55 percent of boomers plan to move to a new home at some point in the future, and nearly 28 percent plan to downsize on their next home purchase. The findings from the Del Webb survey are consistent with the findings from a housing preferences survey conducted 10 years earlier in the Sacramento region by Robert Charles Lessor Company (now RCLCO). That housing preference survey found that almost two-thirds of boomer respondents wanted their next home to be either a single family home with a small yard, an attached townhouse or a condomium unit.
SACOG 2014 White Paper Trends in the Housing Market: Changing Demographics and Consumer Preferences Page 3
For the boomers who do choose to move, many are not purchasing homes. According to the Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies in 2013, between 2002-2012 the number of renter householders aged 55-64 grew by 80 percent, disproportionate to the 50 percent growth rate for the total age cohort.
However, depending on when and how much home prices rise in the Sacramento region, boomers who may want to downsize may be unable or unwilling to sell their homes if their homes are worth less than what they still owe in mortgage debt; values have fallen below what they are willing to sell them for as part of retirement planning; and/or the cost of a new home would absorb most or all of their current home equity.
Another disincentive for seniors to sell may include the property tax situation in California. In general, California’s Proposition 13 requires that when a home is sold it is reassessed to market value for property tax purposes. Voter-approved Proposition 60 in 1986 provided an age-related exception, allowing anyone over 55 to maintain their property tax base assessment if they move within the same county. Proposition 90, approved by voters in 1988, then allowed counties to decide whether to accept property tax rates of those over 55 moving in from another county. As of September 2013, El Dorado County was the only county in the SACOG region to participate in this local option; thus, only intracounty moves or intercounty moves by older adults to El Dorado County receive the property tax benefit.
Assisted Living An important subset of housing demand among older adults is for assisted living options. According to a 2012 AARP report, the population age 85 and over – the most likely to need long-term care – will increase by 78% by 2032 and 270 percent by 2050, much faster than the U.S. average. According to AARP, between 2004/05 and 2010, nursing homes and beds in California decreased but assisted living options increased significantly to begin meeting that demand, as shown in the following table:
California 2004/2005 2007 2010 Change # of nursing facilities 1,325 1,283 1,257 -5% # of nursing facility beds 125,354 123,228 122,233 -2% # of assisted living & residential care facilities 6,543 7,471 7,471 14% # of assisted living and residential care units 154,830 161,586 211,402 37% Source: AARP, Across the States: Profiles of Long-Term Care and Independent Living, California, 2006, 2009, 2012
A United States of Aging survey of 3,000 people age 60 and over found that while 77 percent said they intend to continue living in their current homes for the rest of their lives, the following were options they would consider if they found they were unable to care for themselves: 48 percent said they would move to an assisted living community; 40 percent would seek help from
SACOG 2014 White Paper Trends in the Housing Market: Changing Demographics and Consumer Preferences Page 4
community programs; 36 percent would move in with a family member or friend; 32 percent would hire a paid caregiver; and 20 percent said they would live in a nursing home.
According to the California HealthCare Foundation, with changes in consumer preferences, the nursing home industry has been undergoing a culture shift to models that provide a more neighborhood or smaller home-like atmosphere for elders requiring greater levels of care. However, these models require physical changes that may conflict with current state/local regulations and building codes.
Generation Y housing trends and choices
Delayed Household Formation The recent recession disproportionately affected the millennial generation and their housing choices. Increasingly, young adults have been living at home with their parents and waiting to rent or purchase their own homes. According to the Pew Research Center, a record total of 21.6 million or 36 percent of the nation’s millenials were living in their parents’ home in 2012, up from 18.5 million of their same aged counterparts in 2007, prior to the recession. This is the highest share of young adults living at home in the last 40 years.
This move to live at home has been driven by numerous factors, including declining employment rates, rising college enrollment and subsequent college debt, as well as delayed and declining marriage rates. Generation Y, currently aged 15 to 33 years old, is 85 million strong and growing due to immigration; however, according to a 2012 poll by the American Planning Association (APA), millenials have a poverty rate two times higher than Gen Xers and baby boomers. Unemployment was especially high in the Sacramento area. Compared to the national rate of 14 percent, almost 20 percent of millenials in the Sacramento region were unemployed in 2012. Gen Xers and Baby Boomers were better off when they were the same age: Sacramento region Gen Xers faced an eight percent unemployment rate in 1990, and for young adult boomers, the unemployment rate was about nine percent in 1970 (Reese, 2014).
The Federal Reserve Bank tracks consumer debt, including student loans. Their data show that outstanding student loans increased nationally from $836 billion in 2009 to $1.2 trillion in 2013.
In 2010, while the overall homeownership rate in California was 56 percent, only 28 percent of those aged 25-34 owned homes, down from 31 percent in 2000 and 35 percent in 1990 (Myers 2013).
However, as the economy and job growth recovers, Gen Ys are expected to respond by forming more of their own households, according to the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. This will create a bigger demand for multifamily housing in particular, as discussed below.
SACOG 2014 White Paper Trends in the Housing Market: Changing Demographics and Consumer Preferences Page 5
Housing and Location Preferences Polling research by real estate consulting firm Robert Charles Lessor and Company (RCLCO) between the years 2007 and 2013 indicates that Gen Y is split roughly equally between wanting to live in urban environments, suburban communities or small communities/rural areas. Their most recent polling (2013) indicates that Gen Y respondents wanting to live in urban environments rose to 39 percent from 31 percent in 2011, while those wanting to live in suburban communities dipped from 42 percent to 29 percent. When asked in 2013 where they want to work, 63 percent said either downtown or an older suburb. Thirty-seven percent said they wanted to work in an outlying or rural area. The Urban Land Institute’s America in 2013 survey found that 40 percent of millenials prefer medium- or big-city living.
Polling research by RCLCO identified that certain housing trends are important to Gen Y: design, sustainability, tech savvy, low maintenance, and flexible storage space were all found to be more important characteristics than dwelling size. RCLCO concludes that many younger renters want to live in urban areas and are willing to live in smaller units and trade features and in-home amenities for location. Additionally, the APA found that millennials possess a growing interest in communities with “sharing economy” amenities, such as tools, homes, bicycles, rides, automobiles, etc. Nearly three-quarters of millenials find the sharing economy to be “somewhat to extremely important” (APA, 2014).
RCLCO indicates that the most vital or important part of a community for millenials is “walkability” and proximity to amenities.. ULI’s 2013 survey found that 62 percent of millenials prefer neighborhoods that are close to a mix of shops, restaurants and offices. In 2014, the APA found that 81 percent of millenials – and 77 percent of boomers – feel that affordable and convenient transportation alternatives play a role in deciding where to live. A 2014 study by the Rockefeller Foundation and Transportation for America reinforced this finding, with two-thirds of millenials saying that access to high quality public transportation is one of the top three criteria they consider when deciding where to live.
The effects of immigration
As mentioned earlier, U.S. immigration policy will be the major driver of the future size of this group. The Census Bureau’s middle series national population projection from 2012 assumes an annual national addition of 850,000 residents from net foreign immigration from 2015 through 2020, which is about one-third of total growth. Even if all immigration ceased, past inflows and higher fertility rates ensure that immigrant households will increasingly drive growth in housing demand because immigrant households have continued to grow at a faster pace than native-born households.
As documented in a 2013 report by Dowell Myers and Michael Pitkin for the Research Institute for Housing America and Mortgage Bankers Association, between 2000 and 2010, immigrants SACOG 2014 White Paper Trends in the Housing Market: Changing Demographics and Consumer Preferences Page 6
accounted for 82 percent of the growth in homeownership in California, and are anticipated to continue to be a vital part of market demand. The following table projects homeownership growth of native born and foreign born households in California between 2010 and 2020.
CA Homeowners Total in 2010 Projected Total, 2020 Projected Increase Native Born 4,064,000 4,525,000 11.3% Foreign Born 935,000 1,277,000 36.6% Hispanic Native Born 270,000 436,000 61.5% Foreign Born 455,000 660,000 45.1% Non-Hispanic Native Born 3,794,000 4,089,000 7.8% Foreign Born 480,000 617,000 28.5% Source: Immigrant Contributions to Housing Demand, 2013
As shown, the highest growth rate for homeownership is expected among native-born Hispanics. Significant growth is also projected for foreign-born households, whether Hispanic or non- Hispanic. Foreign-born households are also expected to comprise over one third of rental growth in California.
In 2010 projections used for developing the 2012 MTP/SCS, the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy projected the greatest household growth among Asian and Hispanic households, but noted that these households have tended to have lower household formation rates, due to more intergenerational households, as described below.
While immigrants have historically had a higher likelihood of living in attached housing products and in urban areas, this trend has been changing. As city centers seem to be more desirable for baby boomers and those in Generation Y, and the urban cores have gentrified and pushed housing prices up, immigrants, members of both generational cohorts, are increasingly moving to first-ring suburbs. As immigrants move further toward outer-ring suburbs, higher percentages of them than in the past are increasingly looking for larger units with three or more bedrooms and child-friendly configurations according to researchers John Pitkin and Dowell Myers. That said, immigrants, like their native-born counterparts, are a diverse group and as such will seek a variety of housing product types and sizes in both urban and non-urban areas.
SACOG 2014 White Paper Trends in the Housing Market: Changing Demographics and Consumer Preferences Page 7
Other Factors in Household Demand
Changes in the rental market – strong demand for multifamily housing
The traditional prime renter age in the U.S. is between 20 and 34, which almost matches the Gen Y age group. By 2015, the U.S. will have substantially more 20 to 34 year olds than 35 to 49 year olds, according to the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. Corresponding to this trend, the number of households headed by persons under 35—the prime rental group—will grow faster than the overall population.
According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, the national outlook through the end of the decade is especially positive for multi-family construction, reflecting pent-up demand for housing. The slowdown in housing production during the Great Recession affected housing products at different rates. The gap between household growth and multi-family housing production was twice as large as the gap for single-family production. The Federal Reserve concludes that multifamily housing supply was already less than demand before the housing crisis; this scarcity of supply compounded by increasing demand for the product presents a strong outlook for multifamily construction in the future.
Over the next 30 years, the Census Bureau predicts that the total U.S. population will increase by 68 million over the next 30 years, or approximately 2.3 million people annually. This will boost overall demand for various housing types, help in the absorption of any excess housing inventory, and propel greater demand for apartments. Due to the demographic shifts described above, and the corresponding shifts in housing preferences due to the aging of the baby boomers and the entry of Gen Y into the housing market, researchers such as Dowell Myers and Arthur Nelson conclude that there will be a greater demand for higher density housing with more amenities in urban areas than in the past.
Changing rates of marriage and births
Americans, especially those in Generation Y, are taking longer to settle down, if they settle down at all. The median age of first marriage is increasing. In 1970, the median age for a man was 23 and 21 for a woman. In 2011, the median age at first marriage was 29 for men and about 27 for women. According to the Council on Contemporary Families, a Chicago-based research firm, for the first time in more than a century, more than half of those aged 25 to 34 have never been married.
Birthrates have also declined, and women are delaying having children. Per the Council, in 2010, one in four births was to a woman over 30. One in 12 births was to a mother age 35 or over, compared with 1 in 100 in 1970. As prolonged “emerging adulthood” means putting off getting married and having children, this likely increases the potential pool of renters.
SACOG 2014 White Paper Trends in the Housing Market: Changing Demographics and Consumer Preferences Page 8
Multi-generational household growth
According to the Pew Research Center, in 1980, 28 million Americans (12 percent) lived in a family with at least two adult generations (i.e., a grandparent and at least one other generation). By 2012, the percentages of the population living in multigenerational households included:
• 24 percent of adults ages 25-34, up from 11 percent in 1980; • 23 percent of adults ages 85 and older; • About one-in-four Hispanics and blacks. • 27 percent of Asian Americans; • 14 percent of non-Hispanic whites.
Changes in household size and composition
There is a persistent perception that the typical household is a married couple with children, but that has not been true for some time. According to the US Census Bureau in 2012, in 1970, the share of US households that were married couples with children 18 and under was 40 percent; in 2012 it dropped to 20 percent. The average U.S. household size has declined from 3.1 persons in 1970 to 2.6 persons; 61 percent of all households have only one or two persons living in them.
Another change is that parents are continuing to live in large homes long after their children have left. According to an August 2014 Sacramento Bee article entitled Too much room: Growing number of Sacramento “empty nesters” living in big houses,
Roughly 530,000 of the region's residents, usually married couples, live in two- person households, according to the latest census figures. More than one in five, or 117,000, of those residents live in homes with four or more bedrooms. The proportion of two-person households living in large homes has doubled since 1990…. The aging of baby boomers has left a growing number of “empty nesters” in homes large enough to accommodate children.
Single-person households have also been on the rise. According to the Pew Center, in 1900, just 1.1% of Americans lived in such a household, compared with 10.3% in 2008. In terms of age cohorts, 4.6 percent of those 18-24 lived alone in 2008, down from 5.7 percent in 1980. For those 65 and older, in 1900 only 5.9 percent lived alone, compared with 28.8 percent in 1990 and 27.4 percent in 2008.
Researcher Dowell Myers notes that the rapid rise in one-person households will likely continue for the next several decades. A study by Y. Zeng, et al (2006), concluded that single-person households may grow to 34 percent of all households by 2030, and up to 37 percent by 2050.
SACOG 2014 White Paper Trends in the Housing Market: Changing Demographics and Consumer Preferences Page 9
According the Myers, Zeng’s study is the most thorough demographic analysis to date using macro-simulation modeling with a variety of demographic factors.
Changes in Retirement Outlook
As the boomer generation approaches retirement, a portion may be in worse financial shape than previous generations. The Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) utilizes a Retirement Security Projection Model® to simulate lifepaths of those born between 1948 and 1974 to assess whether they are likely to have adequate retirement income to support retirement living expenses and health care costs. According to EBRI’s 2012 simulation, 44 percent of those in this age group are at risk of lacking sufficient retirement income, with the aggregate deficit estimated at $4.3 billion nationally. Figure 2 below illustrates EBRI’s findings for Early Baby Boomers (born 1948-54), Late Baby Boomers (1955-1964) and Gen Xers (1965-74).
Additionally, since 2000, typical expenses for older adults have risen by 88 percent while the Social Security COLA has increased average benefits by only 24 percent. Even putting aside uncertainties concerning the future solvency of the Social Security program, these financial pressures will affect some boomers’ ability to afford retirement expenses—including housing costs. More affordable senior housing options will likely be needed for this group.
SACOG 2014 White Paper Trends in the Housing Market: Changing Demographics and Consumer Preferences Page 10
Prediction for New Housing Growth
The national trends described above likely apply for the most part to what is happening here in the Sacramento region: the demographic changes and consumer preferences described above all point to the housing market of the past no longer meeting the challenges of the market ahead. How do all three indicators and trends tie in together and what do they tell us? Two influential researchers, Arthur Nelson and Dowell Myers, have offered their interpretations.
New housing only serves one to two percent of all households
Demographer Dowell Myers holds that new construction does not respond to average growth in demand. Rather, he argues, that only one to two percent of all households each year lives in newly constructed units, and it is this small minority that is served by developers of new housing. Myers suggests that this segment is not representative of the population as a whole and is drawn disproportionately from population groups that are growing faster than the supply that they prefer. He concludes by stating that demographic change has the potential to drive major shifts in development patterns if the growing demographic categories in one generation (e.g., Gen Y) have very different preferences in product types than those of a prior one, (e.g., baby boomers). The Sacramento region’s faster than average growth puts it slightly above the 1 to 2 percent rate, but does not change the implications for the region.
Housing preferences of Generation Y may not match available stock
In another article along similar lines, Myers and SungHo Ryu argue that the future population and age structure will lead to differences between age and home buying and selling. The aging, retirement and lifestyle patterns of the 77 million baby boomers will likely shape U.S. housing markets and trends for decades ahead. They conclude that there will be an oversupply of homes offered for sale by aging baby boomers – many of which may not be the housing type that young buyers want. Although many seniors will age in place, other older adult households will move. The researchers raise the idea that where decline once occurred as housing demand moved from the central city to the suburbs, the decline may now be reversed as the suburbs will see surpluses of large-lot single-family housing.
New direction for California
Planning researcher Arthur C. Nelson, writes extensively about the aforementioned trends and how they will affect future land use. His seminal work for the Urban Land Institute’s publication “The New California Dream: How Demographic and Economic Trends May Shape the Housing Market” elaborates on many of the above-mentioned demographic and housing market themes. Nelson’s work cites different data and resources and is based primarily attitudinal research, but identifies similar trends: there are demographic and market shifts that will change the nature of how we develop land use and housing in California.
SACOG 2014 White Paper Trends in the Housing Market: Changing Demographics and Consumer Preferences Page 11
Nelson’s conclusions are that California will need to re-align its public policy and regulations to better reflect the needs and consumer preferences of baby boomers, Generations X and Y, immigrants and others who prefer urban environments that offer neighborhood walkability and transit access. He writes that the state’s demographic composition tends to favor more central locations – including centrally positioned suburban locations- for their access to transit and services. His primary research shows that more than half of the Gen Y cohort have expressed interest in mixed-use development with transit options. The combined impact of energy costs and automobile ownership costs is likely to influence changing market patterns, probably in favor of more compact land uses over the long term.
In addition, his analysis shows that demand for new rental housing will be roughly equal to the demand for new owner-occupied housing if the 2010 homeownership rate holds steady (it has declined since 2010). For the regions covered by the state’s four biggest Metropolitan Planning Organizations (SCAG in Southern California, ABAG/MTC in the Bay Area, SANDAG in San Diego and SACOG in the Sacramento area), he calculates that new rental housing demand will represent about 75 percent of total new housing demand. In his market preference research, he shows that between 2010 and 2035, the demand for townhouse and small-lot homes will more than double, while demand for multifamily units will increase by as much as 50 percent in some areas. On the other hand, the demand for conventional homes (e.g., large lots) will fall by more than a third, and, more importantly, the current excess supply of housing for conventional homes may keep the market from meeting future demand for small-lot or attached products.
Some of Nelson’s overarching conclusions are that preferences related to location and type of development or community should be key considerations in planning for the future. He concludes that adding to the current inventory of large-lot homes contributes to the excess of existing supply and could lead to the further erosion of housing values in overbuilt markets. However, he notes exceptions to this, including where large-lot homes are part of a mixed-use planned community. He also concludes that all new residential development could be absorbed in areas that support and are supported by transit. These areas are within a 10-minute walk of a transit station and often have a well-established network of pedestrian pathways and infrastructure, including sheltered waiting areas, street furniture, low scale lighting, shade, bike racks, and retail service uses tailored towards pedestrian traffic. Finally, it’s important to note that Nelson’s conclusions are based on his analysis of the areas covered by the four largest MPO’s (including SACOG) but that he notes that more research is necessary to fully explore the relationship between market trends, regulatory barriers, and infrastructure needs.
Conclusions
The above-described preference, demographic and other housing-related trends will continue to help inform the 2016 MTP/SCS update. However, trends are largely continuing from those SACOG 2014 White Paper Trends in the Housing Market: Changing Demographics and Consumer Preferences Page 12 described in SACOG’s 2011 white paper, and therefore do not indicate a need for major changes from the current plan in terms of the region’s housing mix or growth pattern.
References
• AARP, Across the States: Profiles of Long-term Services and Supports California, http://www.aarp.org/home-garden/livable-communities/info-03 2009/across_the_states_2009__profiles_of_long-term_care_and_independent_living.html
• AARP Public Policy Institute, Assisted Living and Residential Care in the States in 2010, April 2012. http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/public_policy_institute/ltc/2012/residenti al-care-insight-on-the-issues-july-2012-AARP-ppi-ltc.pdf
• AARP, Where ages 45+ want to live, November, 2010, http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/general/home-community-services-10.pdf
• Bipartisan Policy Center, Demographic Challenges and Opportunities for U.S. Housing Markets, March 2012, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/report/demographic-challenges- and-opportunities-us-housing-markets
• Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Consumer Credit G-19, June 2014, http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g19/current/
• California HealthCare Foundation, Rethinking the Nursing Home: Culture Change Makes Headway in California, December 2008, http://www.chcf.org/~/media/MEDIA%20LIBRARY%20Files/PDF/R/PDF%20Rethinki ngNursingHomeCulture.pdf
• Elizabeth Gregory, Myths about Later Motherhood: A Fact Sheet Prepared for the Council on Contemporary Families, July 25, 2012, https://contemporaryfamilies.org/myths-later-motherhood-fact-sheet/
• Employee Benefit Research Institute, Retirement Income Adequacy for Boomers and Gen Xers: Evidence from the 2012 EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model,®, May 2012 Vol 33, No. 5 http://www.ebri.org/pdf/notespdf/EBRI_Notes_05_May-12.RSPM-ER.Cvg1.pdf
• Freddie Mac, Multifamily Demand Forecast, October 31, 2012, http://www.freddiemac.com/multifamily/pdf/market_demand_forecast_2012-2015.pdf
• Fry, Richard and Jeffrey S. Passell, In Post-Recession Era, Young Adults Drive Continuing Rise in Multi-Generational Living, Pew Social and Demographic Trends July 17, 2014, http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/07/17/in-post-recession-era-young- adults-drive-continuing-rise-in-multi-generational-living/ SACOG 2014 White Paper Trends in the Housing Market: Changing Demographics and Consumer Preferences Page 13
• Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies, State of the Nation’s Housing, June 26, 2013 http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/research/publications/state-nations-housing-2013
• MetroTrends Blog (March 3, 2014) “We’ve mapped America’s rental housing crisis” http://blog.metrotrends.org/2014/03/america-rental-housing-crisis/
• Myers, Dowell and John Pitkin, Immigrant Contributions to Housing Demand in the United States: Comparison of Recent Decades and Projections to 2020 for the States and Nation, Research Institute for Housing America and Mortgage Bankers Association, March 7, 2013. http://www.housingamerica.org/RIHA/RIHA/Publications/83654_12214_RIHA_Immigr ant_Report.pdf
• Myers, Dowell and SungHo Ryu, “Aging Baby Boomers and the Generational Housing Bubble,” Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter, 2008.
• National Association of Realtors, 2011 Community Preference Survey, March 2011, http://www.realtor.org/reports/2011-community-preference-survey
• Nelson, Arthur C., The New California Dream: How Demographic and Economic Trends May Shape the Housing Market, Urban Land Institute, 2011.
• Pitkin, John, and Dowell Myers, US Housing Trends: Generational Changes and the Outlook to 2050, Transportation Research Board Special Report 298, 2008.
• Rappaport, Jordan, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Dec. 19, 2013, http://www.kansascityfed.org/publicat/econrev/pdf/13q4Rappaport.pdf
• RCLCO, Best Practices Report, Seniors Housing Innovative Intergenerational Projects, March 5, 2013 http://www.rclco.com/advisory-seniors-housing-innovative- intergenerational-projects
• RCLCO, The Impact of Gen Y on Housing: The Market and Demographic Perspective, July 23, 2013, http://www.rclco.com/presentations-housing-demand
• RCLCO, Demographic Trends Support Robust Multifamily Demand, August 8, 2013, http://www.rclco.com/advisory-demographic-trends-support-robust-multifamily-demand
• Phillip Reese, Too much room: Growing number of Sacramento "empty nesters" living in big houses, Sacramento Bee, August 4, 2014. http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/30/6594163/too-much-room-growing-number- of.html#storylink=cpy
SACOG 2014 White Paper Trends in the Housing Market: Changing Demographics and Consumer Preferences Page 14
• SaportaReport.com, June 12, 2012 “Housing and Demographic trends are changing how our cities will develop”, http://saportareport.com/blog/2012/06/housing-and- demographic-trends-are-changing-how-our-cities-will-develop/
• Stevenson, Sarah, 8 Predictions on the Future of Senior Care, A Place for Mom, November 2013, http://www.aplaceformom.com/blog/2013-8-27-future-senior-care/
• Urban Land Institute, America in 2013: Key Findings on Housing, Community, Transportation, and the Generations, March 2013, http://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI- Documents/America-in-2013-Compendium_web.pdf
• United States of Aging Survey, Executive Summary, June 2014 http://www.alfa.org/News/3965/Study%3A-Americas-Seniors-More-Proactive-About- Health%2C-View-Assisted-Living-as-Likely-Option
• US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Issue Papers on Demographic Trends Important to Housing, February 1, 2013 http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/econdev/demographic_trends.html
• US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Issue Papers on Demographic Trends Important to Housing, February 2003.
• Vespa, Jonathan et. Al., US Census Bureau, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2012, August 2013, https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-570.pdf
• Zeng, Y., Land, K.C., Wang, Z., and Gu, D., U.S. Family Household Momentum and Dynamics: An Extension and Application of the ProFamy Method, Population Research and Policy Review, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp.1-41
SACOG 2014 White Paper Trends in the Housing Market: Changing Demographics and Consumer Preferences Page 15
Item #14-9-6B Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee Information
August 29, 2014
2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Outreach Update
Issue: Staff is conducting outreach for the 2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 MTP/SCS).
Recommendation: None; this is for information only.
Discussion: In October, staff will be conducting eight public workshops for the 2016 MTP/SCS update. A draft list of workshop locations was brought to all committees during the last committee cycle for input. Upon completion of the committee cycle, staff began work to secure locations. A verbal update on the workshop locations and times will be provided to all committees.
One outreach strategy for the 2016 MTP/SCS Public Workshops is electronic communication. Attachment A is a working list of contacts in the region we will work with to get residents to workshops. We are seeking Board input on additional contacts, and will be requesting Board member support in reaching out to local stakeholders via electronic communications. Staff will also leverage the connections we have via the stakeholder sounding board to broaden our outreach to many sectors.
Continuing with our commitment to hold quarterly sounding board meetings, staff will conduct a meeting of the sounding board on Friday, September 19, at 11 a.m. at West Sacramento City Hall. The summary of outcomes from the sounding board will be included in the October Board committee cycle.
Approved by:
Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer
MM:MH:gg Attachment
Key Staff: Erik Johnson, Acting Manager of Policy and Administration, (916) 340-6247 Kacey Lizon, Senior Planner, (916) 340-6265 Monica Hernández, Public Information Coordinator, (916) 340-6237
2016 MTP - Outreach Contact List
El Dorado
Alta California Regional Center -Placerville Physical and Mental Health Big Brothers and Big Sisters of ED Co. Youth Boy Scouts Youth California Department of Rehabilitation - Placerville Public Agency Cameron Park Community Services District Business District or Association Cameron Park Library Library Center for Violence-Free Relationships (Formerly El Dorado Women's Center) Shelter, Safe House, or Crisis Center Choices for Children El Dorado County Social Work Choices Transitional Services Social Work County Libraries Library Diamond Sunrise I & II Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Early Care and Education Planning Council Social Work El Dorado Center for the Visually Impaired Physical and Mental Health El Dorado Chamber of Commerce Chambers of Commerce El Dorado Chapter - California Native Plant Society Open Space and Environment El Dorado Community Foundation Foundation El Dorado County - Emergency Medical Services Public Agency El Dorado County - Health and Human Services Agency Public Agency El Dorado County - Housing, Community and Economic Development Programs Public Agency El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce Chambers of Commerce El Dorado County Community Calendar Community Calendars El Dorado County Community Health Center Physical and Mental Health El Dorado County Department of Child Support Services Placerville Office Public Agency El Dorado County Department of Economic Development Public Agency El Dorado County Department of Environmental Health Public Agency El Dorado County Department of Mental Health Public Agency El Dorado County Department of Public Health Public Agency El Dorado County Department of Public Health Nursing Placerville Office Public Agency El Dorado County Department of Public Health Preparedness Public Agency El Dorado County Department of Senior Services Public Agency El Dorado County Dept. of Human Serivces/Placerville One Stop Resource Center/Listing El Dorado County Fire District Public Agency El Dorado County Legal Professionals Association Professional Group El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office Neighborhood Watch El Dorado Cycling Exercise El Dorado Hills Community Services District Business District or Association El Dorado Hills Library Library El Dorado Youth Commission Youth Family Connections El Dorado FRC Resource Center/Listing First 5 El Dorado County Physical and Mental Health Folsom Lake Community College Higher Education/Adult Education Food Bank of El Do Co. Food Assistance Friends of El Dorado County Seniors Research/Advocacy Georgetown Library Library Greenstone Country Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Greenvalley Community Church Religious Group Health Insurance Counseling and Advocacy Program (HICAP) Research/Advocacy Historical Museum Library Hope House Ministries Religious Group League of Women Voters of El Dorado County Community Group Legal Self-Help Center Services Legal Marshall Community Volunteer Program Physical and Mental Health Mountain Democrat Media People for Animal Welfare in El Dorado County (PAWED) Non Profit Placerville Advocacy, Vocational and Educational Services Higher Education/Adult Education Placerville Library Library Placerville One Stop Workforce Development Placerville Town Hall Community Facility Pollock Pines Library Library Progress House Inc., Placerville Physical and Mental Health Senior Day Center Senior Senior Legal Services Legal Senior Shuttle Senior Senior Times Newsletter Senior Sierra Wildlife Rescue Open Space and Environment The Center for Violence Free Relationships Social Work The Placerville Downtown Association Business District or Association Trailside Terrace Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Vision Coalition of El Dorado Hills Youth White Rock Village Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Women’s Fund El Dorado Foundation Placer
4-H Youth Development Program (Placer) Youth Advocates for Mentally Ill Housing, Inc (AMIH) Research/Advocacy Alex Dyer Blue Oaks Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Alternative Transportation Manager, City Of Roseville Public Agency Alternative Transportation Marketing Specialist,City Of Roseville Public Agency Applegate Library Library Auburn Community Clinic Physical and Mental Health Auburn Family Resource Center (Under Capc). Resource Center/Listing Auburn Interfaith Food Closet Food Assistance Auburn Library Library Bipolar Insights Physical and Mental Health Bookmobile Library Library Boy Scouts Youth Boys And Girls Club (Placer) Youth California Conservation Corp (Ccc) Open Space and Environment California Youth Crisis Line Youth Campaign For Community Wellness, Adult System Of Care Physical and Mental Health Chapa-De Indian Health Program Inc Physical and Mental Health City Of Auburn Fire Dept. Public Agency City Of Roseville Environmental Coordinator Public Agency City Of Roseville Fire Dept. Public Agency Cliffside Lane Homeowners Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Colfax Library Library Compass Magazine (Lincoln, Sun City) Media County Food Bank Food Assistance Cresthaven Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Crosswoods East Homeowners Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Curragh Oaks Homeowners Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Department Of Health Services Children’S Medical Services Physical and Mental Health First United Methodist Church Of Loomis Religious Group Foresthill Library Library Girl Scouts-Tierra Del Oro Council Youth gO Running Group Exercise Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Support Group Community Group Granite Bay Library Library Health Education Physical and Mental Health Healthy Families Program Physical and Mental Health Home Start (Roseville) Shelter, Safe House, or Crisis Center KidZKount Placer Community Action Council Inc Non Profit Kings Beach Library Library Koinonia Foster Homes, Inc Youth Leage of Women Voters of Placer County Community Group Legal Help Center Legal Lighthouse Counseling and FRC Resource Center/Listing Loomis Library Library Maidu Community Center Community Facility Maidu Sports Courts Community Facility Manzanita Place Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Marysville Police Department Public Agency McAuley Meadows Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Meadow Oaks Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Meadow Vista Library Library National Alliance For The Mentally Ill, Placer County (Namipc) Physical and Mental Health New Leaf Social Work Oak Creek Family Clinic Physical and Mental Health Old Town Business Association Business District or Association Peace For Families (Placer Women’s Center) Shelter, Safe House, or Crisis Center Penryn Library Library Placer Co Community Resources Resource Center/Listing Placer Collaborative Network Resource Center/Listing Placer Community Foundation Foundation Placer County – Health And Human Services Physical and Mental Health Placer County Adult System Of Care Public Agency Placer County Agricultural Marketing Director Public Agency Placer County Board Of Supervisors Board of Supervisors Placer County Child Health And Disability Prevention Program (Chdp) Public Agency Placer County Community Clinic Physical and Mental Health Placer County Emergency Services Public Agency Placer County Environmental Health Public Agency Placer County Food Bank Food Assistance Placer County Health And Human Services Public Agency Placer County Public Information Office Public Agency Placer County Public Works-Transportation Public Agency Placer County Sheriff’s Office Neighborhood Watch Placer Land Trust Research/Advocacy Placer Legacy Open Space Program Open Space and Environment Placer Nature Center Open Space and Environment Placer Sentinel Media PlacerSustain Non Profit Planned Parenthood Physical and Mental Health Public Information Officer, City Of Roseville Public Agency Rocklin Adult School Higher Education/Adult Education Rocklin and Roseville Today Community Calendars Rocklin High School Youth Rocklin Library Library Roseville Chambers of Commerce Roseville Adult School: Project Read For Adults Higher Education/Adult Education Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (RCONA) Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Roseville Community Clinic Physical and Mental Health Roseville Family Resource Center/Kids First Now Resource Center/Listing Sacramento County Alliance of Neighborhoods Community Group Sacramento-Carmichael Homeowners Alliance Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Safe Kids Placer Co. Physical and Mental Health San Juan Terrace Homeowners Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Seniors First of Placer County Senior Seventh Day Adventist Church Religious Group Sherrif's Office - Community Services Public Agency Sierra College Marketing And Public Relations Higher Education/Adult Education Sierra College Rocklin Campus Higher Education/Adult Education Sierra College Student Govt Higher Education/Adult Education Sierra Foothills Audobon Society Open Space and Environment Sierra Mental Wellness Group Physical and Mental Health Sobriety Brings A Change (Sbac) Social Work St. Vincent De Paul (Roseville) Religious Group Stonehedge Community Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Sun City Lincoln Hills Community Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Sunrise Knoll Townhome Owners Association, Inc. Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Sunrise Ranch Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Sunriver Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Sutter Center For Psychiatry Care Unit Physical and Mental Health Tahoe City Library Library Teen Age Pregnancy & Parenting Program (TAPP) Youth The 49Er Regional Occupational Program Workforce Development The Gathering Inn Shelter, Safe House, or Crisis Center The Lazarus Project (Roseville) Affordable Housing and Assisted Living The Parent Project Social Work Tough Love Social Work Welcome Center Public Agency Welfare To Work Office Locations — (Placer County) Public Agency Western Placer Fire Chiefs Association Professional Group Western Placer Unified School District Youth Whole Person Learning Youth Sacramento
100 Black Men Community Group 211 Senior Employment Resources Workforce Development 29th Street NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association 7th & H Street Housing Community Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Alkali and Mansion Flats Historic Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Alta California Regional Center Physical and Mental Health American River Mess. Media American Society for Civil Engineers Higher Education/Adult Education American Society for Mechanical Engineers Higher Education/Adult Education Antelope/Highlands Chambers of Commerce Arcade Creek Neighborhood Association Area 4 Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Arden Arcade Community Alliance Community Group Arden Oaks NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Ardenaire Apartments Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Area 4 Agency on Aging - Sacramento Senior Auberry Park Apartments Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Avondale/Glen Elder Neighborhood Association (AGENA) Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Barkley Lindale Neighborhood Watch Neighborhood Watch Barrett Hills Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Belle Cooledge Communty Center Community Facility Ben Ali Community Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Beverly Way NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Beyerford Heights Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Birdcage Heights Neighborhood Association Area 11 Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Black Advocates in State Services (BASS) Community Group Black Student Union Higher Education/Adult Education Boulevard Court Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Boulevard Park NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Bowling Green Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Boy Scouts - Golden Empire Council Youth Boys & Girls Club of Greater Sacramento Youth Breaking Barriers Social Work Brentwood South Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Brookfield HOA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Business Joint Leadership Council Higher Education/Adult Education Cabrillo Park NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association California Indian Manpower Consortium Non Profit California YMCA Youth & Government Exercise Cameron Ranch Homeowners Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Campus Commons HOA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Capitol Area Development Authority (CADA) Public Agency Capitol Area R Street Association (CaRsa) Community Group Carella Gardens Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Carmichael Chamber of Commerce Chambers of Commerce Carmichael Colony Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Carmichael Creek Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Carmichael Times Media Catholic Social Services of Sacramento Religious Group Cedarwood Mobile Home Park Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Center Crossroads Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Center for Fathers and Families Community Group CHADD (Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder) Physical and Mental Health Charter Pointe Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Chinatown Mall Committee (Business & Property Management) Business District or Association Churchill Downs Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Citrus Heights Chambers of Commerce Citrus Heights Area Seven and Eight (CHASE) Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Citrus Heights Association Number Three (CHANT) Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Citrus Heights Police Department Public Agency City iLights Media City of Folsom Community Emergency Response Team Public Agency City of Folsom Fire Administration Public Agency City of Folsom Police Department Public Agency College Plaza Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association College/Glen Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Colonia San Martin Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Colonial Heights Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Colonial Manor Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Colonial Village Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Communities for a Responsible Mather Airport Research/Advocacy Construction Management Student Association Higher Education/Adult Education Cottage Park Homeowners Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Cottonwood Estates Mobile Homeowners Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Court Appointed Special Advocates Research/Advocacy Creekside Natomas Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Creekview Manor Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Crestview Estates Homeowners Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Crossroad Gardens Affordable Housing and Assisted Living CSUS Counseling and Diagnostic Center Higher Education/Adult Education Deer Field/Mesa Grande Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Del Paso Boulevard Partnership Business District or Association Del Paso Heights Community Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Design Build Institute of America Higher Education/Adult Education Detroit Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Diogenes Youth Services Inc Youth Disability Rights CA Research/Advocacy Downtown Sacramento Partnership Business District or Association Dreher Tract Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association East Sacramento Chamber of Commerce Chambers of Commerce East Sacramento Improvement Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association East Sacramento Preservation (ESP) Neighborhood/Homeowner Association East Walnut Estates Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Easter SEALS Research/Advocacy Eleanor Avenue Improvement Group Community Group Elk Grove Adult and Community Education (EGACE) Higher Education/Adult Education Elk Grove Monthly Media Elk Grove Police Department Public Agency Elmhurst NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Engineering Club Higher Education/Adult Education Engineers Without Borders Higher Education/Adult Education Engle Rd./Garfield Ave. Area Community Group Ensuring Native Indian Traditions Higher Education/Adult Education Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS) Research/Advocacy Environmental Student Organization Higher Education/Adult Education Evergreen Commons HOA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Evergreen Estates Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Evergreen Mutual Housing Community Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Exeter Square Homeowners Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Fair Oaks Chambers of Commerce Feminist Women's Health Center Physical and Mental Health Firehouse Community Center Community Facility Florin Historical Society Community Group Florin Mobile Estates Homeowners Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Florin Rebekah Lodge #20 Community Group Florin Road Partnership Business District or Association Florin Wood Condominiums Homeowners Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Folsom Boulevard Alliance Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Folsom Gardens I & II Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Foothill Farms Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Foothill Plaza Mutual Housing Community Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Freeport Renovation on Move (FROM) Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Friends of Grant Park Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Friends of the Sacramento Public Library - All Branches Library Friends of West Tahoe Park Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Fruitridge Manor Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Fruitridge Pocket Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Fruitridge Vista Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Fullertown HOA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Galt Police Department Public Agency Garden of the Gods Watch Group Community Group Gardenland/Northgate Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Garfield-Kenneth Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Gencorp Foundation Foundation Geography Club Higher Education/Adult Education Glen Ellen Mutual Housing Community Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Glenwood Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Golden Sierra Life Skills Men, Infants and Children Physical and Mental Health Golf Course Terrace Estates Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Greater Broadway Partnership - Business Improvement District Business District or Association Green Tree Homeowners Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Greenway Mutual Housing Community Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Grizzly Hollow Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Gwinhurst Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Hagginwood Community Association (HCA) Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Hampton Station NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Harmon Johnson NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Henrietta Drive NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Herald Area Civic Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Hmong Global Voice Non Profit Hmong Women's Heritage Association Non Profit Hollywood Park NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Housing California Research/Advocacy Inside the City (Community Calendar) Community Calendars Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Higher Education/Adult Education Institute of Transportation Engineers Higher Education/Adult Education Iu-Mien Community Services Non Profit Kennedy Estates Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Kings Foundation Foundation Korean Student Association Higher Education/Adult Education La Familia Counseling Center Resource Center/Listing Lake Greenhaven HOA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Lake Wilhaggin Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Lance Apartments Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Land Park Community Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Larchmont Square Townhouse Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Larchmont-Lindale Neighborhood Watch Neighborhood Watch Latinos Unidos Higher Education/Adult Education Lawrence Park NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Lemon Hill Community Organization/Morningstar Committee Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Lindale Greens Mobile Home Park Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Little Pocket Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Locust Neighbors Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Los Robles Mutual Housing Community Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Marina Oaks HOA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Marshall School New Era Park Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Martin Luther King, Jr. Village Affordable Housing and Assisted Living McClatchy Park Neighborhood/Homeowner Association McKinley East Sacramento Neighborhood Association (MENA) Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Meadowview Neighborhood Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Mechanical Engineering Campus Honor Society Higher Education/Adult Education Medical Center NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Mercy Village Folsom Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Messenger Publishing Media Metro Edge Professional Group Midtown Business Association Business District or Association Midtown NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Mission Oaks North Homeowners Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Mission Oaks North NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Molina Medical Center Physical and Mental Health Morrison Creek Estates Community Group MS in Urban Land Development Higher Education/Adult Education Mujeres Ayudando la Raza Higher Education/Adult Education Muslim Student Association Higher Education/Adult Education Mutual Housing at Lemon Hill Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Mutual Housing at the Highlands Affordable Housing and Assisted Living MyFolsom.com Community Calendars National Association of Professional Women Professional Group National Association of Women Business Owners - Sac Valley Business District or Association National Coalition of 100 Black Women (Sac Chapter) Professional Group National Society of Black Engineers Higher Education/Adult Education Native American Student Union Higher Education/Adult Education Natomas Buzz Media Natomas Community Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Natomas Messenger Media Natomas Park Master Association Community Group Neighborhood Advisory Group (NAG) Community Group Neighborhood Alternative Center Social Work Neighbors In Action (N.I.A.) Community Group Nepenthe HOA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Newton booth NA (NBNA) Neighborhood/Homeowner Association North Franklin Business District Business District or Association North Highlands/Foothill Farms Community Planning Advisory Council Public Agency North Laguna Creek NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association North Natomas Alliance NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association North Natomas Community Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association North Sac Beat Media North Sac News Community Calendars North Sacramento Chambers of Commerce North Sacramento Family Resource Center Resource Center/Listing Northwest Neighborhood Association Area 1 Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Norwood Mutual Housing Communities Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Oak Park Business Association Business District or Association Oak Park Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Oakwood HOA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Old Sacramento Business Association Business District or Association Olympia Mobile Lodge Mobile Home Park Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Orangevale Chambers of Commerce Orangevale Sun Media Organization of Chinese Americans (OCA) Sacramento Chapter Research/Advocacy Outword Magazine Media Pacific McGeorge Housing Mediation Center Legal Park Oaks Neighborhood Association Area 5 Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Park Place South HOA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Park River Oak Estates Homeowners Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Parkway Estates Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Parkway Estates North Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Parkway Oaks, #5 Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Phoenix Park NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Planned Parenthood Mar Monte Physical and Mental Health Point West Transportation Management Authority (TMA) Community Group Pollack Ranch Community Group Power Engineering Society Higher Education/Adult Education Power Inn Alliance Research/Advocacy Pyramid/Ralston/Tallac Neighbor Group Community Group Quinn Cottages Affordable Housing and Assisted Living R Street Partnership Business District or Association Rancho Cordova Chambers of Commerce Rancho Cordova Police Department Public Agency Regency Park Neighborhood Ass Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Regency Place Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Reith Park Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Richmond Grover NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Rio Linda Elverta Chambers of Commerce River Garden Mutual Housing Community Affordable Housing and Assisted Living River Grove HOA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association River Oak FRC Resource Center/Listing River Oaks Community Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association River Park NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Riverlake Community Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Riverwind Place Owners Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Riverwood Homeowners Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Robla Park Community Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Rocklin Chambers of Commerce Rosemont Community Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Rotary - Sacramento Community Group Rusch Park Neighborhood Association (Area 2) Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Russell Manor Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Sac Valley Young Planners Group (APA affiliate) Professional Group Sacramento Area Congregations Together Religious Group Sacramento Bee Media Sacramento Bike Hikers Exercise Sacramento Business Professionals Networking Group (BPNG) Professional Group Sacramento Chinese Community Service Center Non Profit Sacramento City College Rotaract Club Higher Education/Adult Education Sacramento Country Estates Homeowners Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Sacramento County Adult Protective Services Public Agency Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Board of Supervisors Sacramento County Department of Child Support Services Public Agency Sacramento County Department of Community Development Public Agency Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services Public Agency Sacramento County Department of Human Assistance Public Agency Sacramento County Environmental Management Department Public Agency Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Public Agency Sacramento County Public Health Public Agency Sacramento County Public Information Office Public Agency Sacramento County Senior and Adult Services Division Public Agency Sacramento County Sheriff's Department Public Agency Sacramento Employment and Training Agency Workforce Development Sacramento Fire Department Public Agency Sacramento Food Bank and Family Services Food Assistance Sacramento Gay and Lesbian Center Community Facility Sacramento Housing Alliance/Coalition on Regional Equity Research/Advocacy Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency Public Agency Sacramento News and Review Media Sacramento Old City Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Sacramento Police Department Public Agency Sacramento Public Library - All Branches Library Sacramento Ready Public Agency Sacramento Riverfront Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Sacramento Roundtree HOA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Sacramento Senior Safe House Shelter, Safe House, or Crisis Center Sacramento Valley Conservancy Open Space and Environment Sacramento Wheelmen Bycling Club Exercise Sacramento-Carmichael Homeowners Alliance Neighborhood/Homeowner Association SCUSD Child Development Public Agency Serna Village Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Shelfield Estates Neighborhood/Homeowner Association SHPE (Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers Higher Education/Adult Education Sierra Curtis NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Sierra Oaks NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Sierra Oaks Vista Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Sierra Vista Neighborhood Watch Neighborhood Watch Silver Springs Homeowners Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Slavic Assistance Center Non Profit Slavic Community Center Community Facility Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers Higher Education/Adult Education Society of Women Engineers Higher Education/Adult Education Sol Collective Non Profit Sonora Springs Neighborhood Watch Neighborhood Watch South Land Park Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association South Natomas Community Center Community Facility South Pocket Homeowners Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Southeast Village HOA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Southgate Garden Homeowners Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Southgate Meadows NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Southside Park NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association St. Francis Terrace Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Stewart Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Stockton Boulevard Partnership Business District or Association Strawberry Manor Neighborhood Improvement Association Community Group Student Gov't Higher Education/Adult Education Sun Valley Apartments Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Suncountry Homeowners Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Sunrise Oaks Neighborhood Association (SONA) Area 9 Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Sunrise Ranch Neighborhood Association Area 6 Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Swanston Estates Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Sylvan Old Auburn Road Neighborhood (SOAR) Area 10 Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Tahoe Park Neighborhood Association (TPNA) Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Tallac Village Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Tau Beta Pi Higher Education/Adult Education Terrace Park NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association The Elliott Family Foundation Foundation The Outdoors Club Higher Education/Adult Education The River District Business District or Association The Verandas Senior Apartment Homes Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Tri Clover Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Twin Rivers South Community Council Community Group Ubuntu Green Research/Advocacy ULI Sacramento Professional Group ULI Sacramento’s Young Leaders Group Professional Group Upper Land Park Neighbors Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Upsilon Pi Epsilon Higher Education/Adult Education Valley Hi Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Valley Hi-Florin FRC Resource Center/Listing Valley Vision Research/Advocacy Valleyview Acres Community Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Victory Townhomes Mutual Housing Community Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Village Park Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Villanova Circle Community Group Vintage Churchill Downs Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Walnut Trees Homeowners Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Washington Park Neighborhood Improvement Group Neighborhood/Homeowner Association WEAVE Shelter, Safe House, or Crisis Center WellSpace Health Clinic Physical and Mental Health Westerner Mutual Housing Community Affordable Housing and Assisted Living WIC Sacramento Public Agency Wildhawk Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Wildwood HOA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Wilhaggin NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Wilhaggin Oaks HOA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Wind Youth Service Youth Wind Youth Services Social Work Witter Ranch Community Alliance Community Group Women in Business Higher Education/Adult Education Wood Park Area Community Group Woodbine Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Woodlake NA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Woodlake Neighbors Creating Transparency Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Woodside HOA Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Youth Development Network (Sacramento) Youth Z'Berg Park Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Sutter
4-H Youth Development Program (Sutter Yuba) Youth A Hand Up Ministry Religious Group Barber Branch Library Beale AFB Family Advocacy Program Resource Center/Listing Browns Branch Library Butchie's Pool (Handicapped) Community Facility California State Dept. of Rehabilitation Public Agency Casa de Esperanza Domestic Violence Shelter Shelter, Safe House, or Crisis Center City of Yuba City - Community Development Department Public Agency Consolidated Area Housing Authority Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Consumer Credit Counseling Social Work Del Norte Family Clinic Physical and Mental Health Farm Worker Services Resource Center/Listing Feather River Tribal Health Physical and Mental Health Feather River Tribal Health (Oroville) Physical and Mental Health Great Beginnings Physical and Mental Health Hands of Hope Shelter, Safe House, or Crisis Center Hands of Hope Non Profit Historic Live Oak Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Liberty Lake Homeowners Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Main Branch Library Marysville Police Department Public Agency Mountain Health Associates Physical and Mental Health Northern CA Small Business Development Center Business District or Association Park Terrace Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Pathways Social Work Peace Think Tank Research/Advocacy PTSD Support Group Community Group Regional Housing Authority of Sutter and Nevada Counties Affordable Housing and Assisted Living REST - Regional Emergency Shelter Yuba City Shelter, Safe House, or Crisis Center Richland Family Health Center Physical and Mental Health St. Andrew Presbyterian Church - Shelter Shelter, Safe House, or Crisis Center Successful Thinkers Network Professional Group Sutter Branch Library Sutter Co Low Cost Resources Resource Center/Listing Sutter Co One Stop Workforce Development Sutter County Board of Supervisors Board of Supervisors Sutter County Community Action Agency Public Agency Sutter County Health Dept. Public Agency Sutter County News Media Sutter County Office of Emergency Management Public Agency Sutter County Public Defender Legal Sutter County Sheriff’s Office Neighborhood Watch Sutter National Wildlife Open Space and Environment Sutter Yuba Children's Systems of Care Public Agency Sutter Yuba City Medical Center Physical and Mental Health Sutter Yuba Community Foundation Foundation WIC Sutter County Public Agency Yuba City Calendar Community Calendars Yuba City Community Development Department Public Agency Yuba City Downtown Business Association Business District or Association Yuba City Economic Development Public Agency Yuba City Fire Department Public Agency Yuba City Police Department Public Agency Yuba City Senior Center Community Facility Yuba City Senior Center Senior Yuba College - Sutter County Center Higher Education/Adult Education Yuba County Development Services Department Public Agency Yuba Sutter Chambers of Commerce Yuba Sutter Chamber of Commerce Calendar Community Calendars Yuba Sutter Gleaners Food Bank Food Assistance Yuba Sutter Triathalon Club Exercise Yolo
4-H Yolo County Community Group Agriculture Sustainability Institute Higher Education/Adult Education Allied Services for Kids Social Work American Farm Land Trust - California Research/Advocacy Asian & Pacific-Islander Queers (APIQ) Higher Education/Adult Education Asian American Association (AAA) Higher Education/Adult Education ASUCD The Pantry Food Assistance Black Engineers Association Higher Education/Adult Education Black Student Union Higher Education/Adult Education Broderick Christian Center Community Group California Student Sustainability Coalition UC Davis Chapter (CSSC) Higher Education/Adult Education Calvary Chapel Church Religious Group Center for Regional Change Research/Advocacy Chicanos in Health Education Higher Education/Adult Education Chinese Student Association Higher Education/Adult Education Church on the Rock Religious Group Circle K International Higher Education/Adult Education City of Winters Community Calendar Community Calendars Clarksburg Branch Library Library Collings Teen Center Youth Communicare Health Center Physical and Mental Health Community and Regional Development Student Salon Higher Education/Adult Education Community Development Graduate Group Higher Education/Adult Education Countryside Community Church Western Yolo Food Closet Food Assistance Davis Bike Club Exercise Davis Branch Library Library Davis Chamber of Commerce Chambers of Commerce Davis Community Church Religious Group Davis Community Meals Food Assistance Davis Community Network Community Group Davis Department of Community Development & Sustainability Public Agency Davis Downtown Business Association Business District or Association Davis Enterprise Media Davis Fire Department Public Agency Davis Korean Church (Food Closet) Food Assistance Davis Manor Neighborhood Council Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Davis Police Department Public Agency Davis Recreation and Community Services Public Agency Dixon Migrant Center Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Dunnigan Christian Communtiy Religious Group Environmental Law & Policy Journal Higher Education/Adult Education Environmental Law Society (ELS) Higher Education/Adult Education Esparto Regional Library Library Esperanza Crossing Affordable Housing and Assisted Living First Baptist Church of Winters Religious Group Fourth and Hope (Formerly Yolo Wayfarer Center_ Non Profit Geography Graduate Group Higher Education/Adult Education Grace House (Grace in Action) Religious Group Grande Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Health Education Council (West Sacramento) Non Profit Hmong Student Union Higher Education/Adult Education Holy Cross Catholic Church - West Sacramento Religious Group Holy Rosary Religious Group Hotel Woodland Affordable Housing Apartments Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Kentucky Avenue Church of Christ Religious Group Knight Landing Family Resource Center Resource Center/Listing Knights Landing Branch Library Library Korean Graduate Student Association Higher Education/Adult Education La Buena Vida Homeowners Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association League of Women Voters - Davis Professional Group Legal Clinic of Yolo County Legal Lord's Gym Social Work Madison migrant center Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Manna House Food Assistance Maragaret McDowell Manor Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Mexican Graduate student Association Higher Education/Adult Education Migrant Education Youth Montgomery-South Davis Satellite Library Moore Village Mutual Housing Community Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Muir Commons Community Group N Street Cohousing Community Community Group New Discovery Christian Church Religious Group New Harmony Mutual Housing Community Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Old North Davis Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Owendale Mutual Housing Community Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Pakistani Student Association Higher Education/Adult Education Paul Hom Asian Clinic Physical and Mental Health People Resources Inc, Yolo Co Elderly Nutrition Program Food Assistance Pierce Group and Foster Homes Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Pine Tree Gardens West Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Pole Line Road Baptist Church Religious Group Pole Line Road Baptist Church Religious Group Rancho Yolo Community Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association RISE - Rural Innovations in Social Economics, Inc. Resource Center/Listing RISE - Winters Site Resource Center/Listing Rural Community Assistance Corp Non Profit SacTown Heroes Youth Salvation Army Food Assistance Senior Citizens of Davis Inc Senior Short Term Emergency Aid Committee Non Profit Short Term Emergency Aid Committee (STEAC) Food Assistance Society of Women Engineers (SWE) Higher Education/Adult Education South Asian Student Organization Higher Education/Adult Education Southport Community Church Religious Group Stonegate Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Student Disability Advocacy Group Higher Education/Adult Education Thai-American Student Association Higher Education/Adult Education The Greenery Affordable Housing and Assisted Living The News-Ledger Media The Rivermark Affordable Housing and Assisted Living The Sanctuary Food Assistance Transitional Housing Program, United Christian Centers Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Transportation Technology and Policy - Graduate Student Group Higher Education/Adult Education Tremont Green Mutual Housing Community Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Trinity Presbyterian Church Religious Group Turning Point Programs Physical and Mental Health Twin Pines Mutual Housing Community Affordable Housing and Assisted Living UC Davis Cycling Exercise Washington Adult School Higher Education/Adult Education West Sac Web Media West Sacramento Branch Library Library West Sacramento Chamber of Commerce Chambers of Commerce Winters Chamber of Commerce Chambers of Commerce Winters Community Library Library Woodland Adult Education Higher Education/Adult Education Woodland Chamber of Commerce Chambers of Commerce Woodland Coalition for Youth Youth Woodland Community and Senior Center Community Facility Woodland Community College Higher Education/Adult Education Woodland Community Development Department Public Agency Woodland Fire Department Public Agency Woodland Police Department Public Agency Woodland Teen Center Youth Yol o County Adult Services Public Agency Yolo Basin Foundation Open Space and Environment Yolo Branch Library Library Yolo Co Virtual One Stop Workforce Development Yolo Community Foundation Foundation Yolo County Board of Supervisors Board of Supervisors Yolo County Child Support Services Legal Yolo County Children’s Alliance & Child Abuse Prevention Council Legal Yolo County Department of Employment and Social Services Public Agency Yolo County District Attorney Legal Yolo County Employment and Social Services Public Agency Yolo County Family Resource Center Resource Center/Listing Yolo County Health Department Public Agency Yolo County Office of Emergency Services (OES) Public Agency Yolo County Sheriff's Office - Neighborhood Watch Neighborhood Watch Yolo County Valley Oaks Homeowners Association. Neighborhood/Homeowner Association Yolo County YMCA Exercise Yolo Food Bank Food Assistance Yolo Immigration Network Research/Advocacy Yolo Land Trust Open Space and Environment Yolo Wayfarer Center Shelter, Safe House, or Crisis Center Yuba
A Woman's Friend Clinic Physical and Mental Health Addiction Treatment Services Physical and Mental Health Adult Protective Services Public Agency Appeal Democrat Media Beverly Terrace Affordable Housing and Assisted Living California Human Development Corporation - Olivehurst ASET Center Workforce Development California Rural Legal Assistance Legal California Tribal TANF Partnership Workforce Development Central Valley Homeless Vets. Assist. Program Resource Center/Listing Child Health and Disability Prevention Program Public Agency Community Resource Services Resource Center/Listing Countrywood Apartments Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Daugherty Hill Wildlife Area Open Space and Environment Depot Family Crisis Center Shelter, Safe House, or Crisis Center Edgewater Neighborhood Association Neighborhood/Homeowner Association For Our Recovering (FOR) Families Social Work Fremont-Rideout Hospital Foundation Physical and Mental Health GOTBLISS Community Group Habitat for Humanity Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Harmony Health - Family Resourc Center Physical and Mental Health Housing Authority Yuba County Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Lindhurst Clinic Physical and Mental Health Marymead Housing Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Marysville Bounce Back Initiative Business District or Association Marysville City Hall Community Facility Marysville Police Department’s Neighborhood Watch program Neighborhood Watch Multipurpose Senior Service Program Senior Open Door Wellness & Recovery Center Shelter, Safe House, or Crisis Center Peach Tree Clinic Physical and Mental Health Rideout Memorial Hospital Physical and Mental Health St John's Episcopal Food Bank Food Assistance Sunset Valley Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Sutter/Yuba Friday Night Live Youth The Wheatland Citizen Community Calendars Twin Cities Rescue Mission Religious Group Veterans Employment Workforce Development Visit Yuba Sutter Community Calendars YMCA Exercise Yuba Area Bicycle Advocates Research/Advocacy Yuba Co Family Resource Network Resource Center/Listing Yuba Co One Stop (and resources) Workforce Development Yuba College Higher Education/Adult Education Yuba College Disabled Student Program Higher Education/Adult Education Yuba College Foundation Foundation Yuba Community Services Department and Commission Public Agency Yuba County Adult Services Division Public Agency Yuba County Board of Supervisors Board of Supervisors Yuba County Community Development and Services Agency Public Agency Yuba County Health and Human Services Department Public Agency Yuba County Health Services Public Agency Yuba County Library Library Yuba County Office of Emergency Services Public Agency Yuba County Office of Emergency Services Public Agency Yuba County Public Health Division Public Agency Yuba County Sheriff's Department - Neighborhood Watch Neighborhood Watch Yuba Sutter Bar Association Professional Group Yuba Sutter Friday Night Live Non Profit Yuba Sutter Legal Center for Seniors Legal Yuba Sutter United Way Community Group Yuba-Sutter Counties Veteran Service Office Public Agency Multiple
ALTA California Regional Center Resource Center/Listing American Red Cross - Capital Region Physical and Mental Health Area 4 Agency on Aging Senior Bi County Elder Services Team (BEST) Physical and Mental Health Big Brothers and Big Sisters Greater Sacramento Area Youth Butte Sierra District Dental Society Professional Group CA Human Development Corp Workforce Development California Coalition for Rural Housing Research/Advocacy ClimatePlan Research/Advocacy Community Housing Opportunities Corporation Affordable Housing and Assisted Living Community Resource Project Resource Center/Listing Community Water Center Research/Advocacy Experience Works Employment Program Workforce Development Families First Inc Physical and Mental Health Healthy City Research/Advocacy Instant Community, Inc Media Kelly Foundation Foundation Legal Services of Northern California Legal Nor Cal Center on Deafness Physical and Mental Health North Central Counties Consortium Workforce Development PICO Research/Advocacy Rideout Health Physical and Mental Health Sacramento Employment and Training Agency / Sacramento Works Workforce Development Sacramento Transportation Equity Network (SACTEN) Research/Advocacy Sierra Health Foundation Foundation Teichert Foundation Foundation The Mcclatchy Company Foundation Foundation Tri-County Respite Care Services Public Agency Tri-County ROP Workforce Development Warmline FRC Resource Center/Listing Yuba-Sutter Economic Development Corporation Non Profit Yuba-Sutter Habitat for Humanity Affordable Housing and Assisted Living
Item #14-9-7 Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee Information August 29, 2014
Six-County Regional Active Transportation Program Funding Recommendations
Issue: How should SACOG invest Regional Active Transportation Program funds?
Recommendation: For information only. The Transportation Committee will take action on this item on August 28.
Discussion: Pursuant to the passage of Senate Bill 99 and Assembly Bill 101, the Active Transportation Program (ATP) was created and is being administered by Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission (CTC). The ATP combines many federal and state funding streams previously used for bicycle, pedestrian, safety, and other related purposes into one funding stream with broad eligibilities. Approximately $368 million has been budgeted for ATP projects across the state over the next three years, beginning with fiscal year (FY) 2014.
ATP Background ATP funding is divided into three components and is distributed as follows: . 50 percent to the state for a statewide competitive program; . 10 percent to small urban and rural regions with populations of 200,000 or less for the small urban and rural area competitive program; and . 40 percent to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) in urban areas with populations greater than 200,000 for the large urbanized area competitive program.
Per statewide ATP guidelines, the goals of the ATP are to: . Increase the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and walking; . Increase the safety and mobility of non-motorized users; . Advance the active transportation efforts of regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals as established pursuant to SB 375 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008) and SB 391 (Chapter 585, Statutes of 2009); . Enhance public health, including reduction of childhood obesity, through the use of programs including but not limited to projects eligible for Safe Routes to School Program funding; . Ensure that disadvantaged communities fully share in the benefits of the program; and . Provide a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of active transportation users.
State ATP Fifty percent of the funding available over the next three years ($184 million) is in the process of being competitively awarded for projects selected by the CTC on a statewide basis; in the SACOG region, 45 applications were submitted for $48 million of funds. The CTC approved the list of projects for Statewide ATP funds on August 20, 2014. Seven applications from the SACOG region were awarded a total $6.5 million (Attachment F). Projects that were not successful in the State ATP were eligible to compete in the Regional ATP funding program described below.
Regional ATP As the MPO, SACOG is responsible for the selection and recommendation of up to $9.8 million in ATP projects within the six-county region. This Regional ATP funding program was implemented collaboratively between SACOG, El Dorado County Transportation Commission (EDCTC), and Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA). Staff engaged Board committees on the development of the Regional ATP guidelines from January through March 2014 with approval by the SACOG Board on April 20, 2014. The six- county call for projects was issued May 22 following the CTC’s approval of the Regional ATP Guidelines (Attachment E). Applicants had until July 29, 2014, to submit applications and supplemental application information, which was requested from statewide ATP applicants who elected to compete in the regional program.
After the projects recommended for Statewide ATP funding were removed from the applicant pool, the Regional ATP received 45 project nominations (32 from the Statewide ATP and 13 new projects) from 23 project sponsors requesting a total of $48 million for competitive funding. Ten projects totaling $9,863,700 are recommended for Regional ATP funding. Recommendations are shown in Attachment A, with the evaluation process described below.
Project Evaluation All project applications were screened for compliance with the eligibility criteria identified in the Regional ATP Guidelines by SACOG, EDCTC and PCTPA staff; all projects submitted were deemed eligible to compete for funding. Projects were then evaluated by an 11-member multidisciplinary Regional ATP Working Group (Attachment D) comprised of volunteers from around the region with expertise in bicycle and pedestrian transportation, engineering, public health, Safe Routes to School, transit, air quality, community groups, and land use planning. The Working Group evaluated projects in accordance with the project scoring criteria from the adopted Regional ATP Guidelines, excerpted below:
. Increase walking and bicycling through targeted strategies: increasing access to transit services, increasing access to schools, eliminating gaps or removing barriers in the bicycle/pedestrian network, and completing facilities (0-30 points) . Reduce the number and/or rate of pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities and injuries (0-25 points) . Improve public health through the targeting of populations with high risk factors for obesity, physical inactivity, asthma or other health issues (0-10 points) . Demonstrates cost effectiveness, which is achieved by minimizing projected capital and operating expenditures while offering strong performance benefits (0-10 points) . Provides benefit to a disadvantaged community and includes project features that provide benefit for members of this community (0-10 points) . Project advances active transportation efforts to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals through reducing or shortening vehicle trips today and over time, as established pursuant to SB 375 and SB 391 (0-10 points) . Other considerations: project demonstrates readiness to deliver within the ATP schedule, performance on past grants and/or Federal Aid Projects, and strong support by stakeholders in the community in which the project is located (0-10)
Regional ATP Funding Recommendation The Working Group was charged with developing a funding recommendation to SACOG staff. The resulting recommendation includes a variety of active transportation projects totaling $9.8 million. In compliance with the Statewide ATP Guidelines, $2.45 million (one quarter of the regional share) must be spent on projects that benefit a disadvantaged community as defined by the Statewide ATP guidelines. The project recommendations include $6 million in projects (supporting at least five jurisdictions) that benefit disadvantaged communities, which exceeds the minimum requirement. MPOs must demonstrate to CTC that the regional funding benefits a broad spectrum of projects to benefit active transportation users, and staff is confident the recommended project list meets this requirement.
A contingent project list was also developed by the Working Group in the event of delivery failure by any of the recommended projects. Projects awarded ATP funding must be ready to allocate funds within FY 2014-15 or FY 2015-16, and complete construction within the next three fiscal years. ATP projects will be closely monitored to ensure timely delivery within the identified constraints of the program. In the event that a project is unable to allocate the awarded funds within the timeframe identified by the CTC or obtain an extension, a project on the contingency list would receive ATP funds in its place. In this instance, the project that failed to meet its delivery timeline would forfeit their ATP funds and would have to compete again to receive funds from the ATP or any other funding source. Inclusion on the contingent list is not a guarantee of funding, and projects on the list would need to re-compete in ATP Cycle 2 (anticipated in spring of 2015) or other funding rounds to receive funds. Projects would be removed if they are awarded funds through the state or regional ATP Cycle 2 call for projects, or from another funding source. The contingent list would expire after the approval of ATP Cycle 2 projects, when there will be a larger pool of ATP-funded projects to minimize the impact of project delivery failure.
Staff recommends adoption of the Working Group recommendations (Attachment A). For further detail, recommended projects and final scoring are described in Attachment B. The full evaluation process is described in Attachment C, including detail on the successive steps taken to reduce the 45 applications to the recommended list of 10 projects. Project sponsors will have the opportunity to discuss previously submitted and new proposed projects with SACOG staff to build strong applications for subsequent ATP funding rounds, and technical assistance will continue to be offered.
Programming Schedule The August 28 Transportation Committee recommendation will go to the SACOG Board for approval at its September 18 meeting. Following Board approval, staff will provide the CTC with approved funding recommendations by the September 30 deadline. The CTC is scheduled to adopt projects using regional ATP funds at its meeting on November 12. Projects in the SACOG region will then need to be amended into the MTIP. Projects must be prepared to allocate ATP funds through the CTC process within two years and spend the funding within three years following allocation.
Approved by:
Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer
MM:RDO:LSH:VSC:gg Attachments: A—List of funding recommendations for $9.8 million in competitive funding B—Regional ATP Project Award Recommendations Final Scoring and Notes C—Working Group evaluation process D—ATP Working Group Roster E—Approved Regional ATP Guidelines F—State ATP Awards Project List
Key Staff: Erik Johnson, Acting Manager of Policy and Administration, (916) 340-6247 Reneé DeVere-Oki, Team Manager of Programming & Project Delivery, (916) 340-6219 Lacey Symons-Holtzen, Team Manager of Active Transportation, (916) 340-6212 Victoria S. Cacciatore, Project Coordinator of Active Transportation, (916) 340-6214 Amy Martin, Transportation Planner, (916) 319-5182 Attachment A
Regional ATP Recommended Funding List (in ranking order)
In total, 10 projects are recommended for $9.8 million in Regional ATP funding. Projects are recommended for funding at the full amount requested. This project list and contingent list were approved unanimously by the Regional ATP Working Group. ATP Funding County Applicant Project Title Recommended Total Project Cost
SUT City of Yuba City Franklin Road Improvements $312,500 $393,000
YOL City of West Sacramento Citywide Bike Lane Gap Closures $524,600 $592,600
SAC City of Rancho Cordova Mather Rails to Trails Project $2,234,500 $2,524,021
SAC City of Galt South Galt Safe Routes to Schools $1,800,000 $2,150,000
El Camino Avenue Phase 2 - Street and Sidewalk SAC Sacramento County Improvements $1,691,800 $1,922,800
Oak Parkway Trail Undercrossing and Johnny Cash SAC City of Folsom Trail Connection Project $992,000 $1,121,000
YUB Yuba County Ella Elementary School Safe Routes to School Project $1,195,000 $1,350,000
El Dorado County ELD Transportation Commission Western Slope Bicycle Travel Opportunities Map $50,000 $56,478
PLA City of Auburn Nevada Street Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities $799,000 $1,648,000
PLA City of Colfax North Main Street Bike Route Project $264,300 $298,544 Total Recommended $9,863,700
Regional ATP Contingency List (in priority order)
County Applicant Project Title Funding Request Total Cost
YOL City of West Sacramento West Capitol Avenue Cycle Track $571,000 $645,000
SUT City of Live Oak Recreational Trail Phase 2 $791,500 $894,000
YOL City of Davis Safe Routes to School Improvement Project $741,700 $876,588 Attachment B
Regional ATP Project Award Recommendations Final Scoring and Notes
The following provides a more detailed summary of the projects recommended for Regional ATP funding, those on the recommended contingency list, and projects that were removed from consideration in the final scoring round. For a complete discussion of the evaluation process, see Attachment C.
Page 1 of 18
ATP Funding Recommendation List City of Yuba City $312,500 Recommendation Franklin Road Improvements $393,000 Total Cost
The project would add a crosswalk, Class II bicycle lanes, and fill in sidewalk gaps on Franklin Road between Walton Avenue and Harding Road. The purpose of the project is to increase the safety of active transportation users across and on Franklin Road by adding crossing treatments and extending the east/west bicycle network.
Avg. Reviewer Project Scoring Criteria Score A Project's ability to increase walking & biking (up to 30 points) 21 B Project's ability to reduce injuries & fatalities (up to 25 points) 18 C Project's ability to reduce GHG, support placemaking strategies (up to 10 points) 7 D Project's Cost Effectiveness (up to 10 points) 9 E Project's ability to improve public health (up to 10 points) 7 F Project benefitting a Disadvantaged Community (up to 10 points) 10 G Other (public outreach, past performance, project deliverability) (up to 10 points) 8 Total Score (of 95 points, omitting points from criteria F ) 70 Total Score (of 105 points, all criteria categories included) 80
Page 2 of 18
City of West Sacramento $524,600 Recommendation Citywide Bike Lane Gap Closures $592,600 Total Cost
The project would construct approximately 10.3 miles of new bike lanes citywide by filling in bicycle lane gaps on West Capitol Avenue, Enterprise Boulevard, Linden Road/Redwood Avenue, Jefferson Boulevard, Lighthouse Drive, Reed Avenue, Gateway Drive, Lake Washington Drive, and 15th Street. The purpose of the project is to create a stronger bicycle network by bringing the total percentage of major roads with bicycle facilities up to 92% in the City of West Sacramento.
Project Scoring Criteria Avg. Reviewer Score A Project's ability to increase walking & biking (up to 30 points) 23 B Project's ability to reduce injuries & fatalities (up to 25 points) 17 C Project's ability to reduce GHG, support placemaking strategies (up to 10 points) 7 D Project's Cost Effectiveness (up to 10 points) 8 E Project's ability to improve public health (up to 10 points) 7 F Project benefitting a Disadvantaged Community (up to 10 points) 9 G Other (public outreach, past performance, project deliverability) (up to 10 points) 8 Total Score (of 95 points, omitting points from criteria F ) 70 Total Score (of 105 points, all criteria categories included) 79
Page 3 of 18
City of Rancho Cordova $2,234,500 Recommendation Mather Rails to Trails Project 2,524,021 Total Cost
The project would construct a Class I multi-use trail alongside a Union Pacific Spur between the Sacramento Regional Transit Mather/Mills Light Rail Station and the Mather Field Airport. The purpose of the project is to enhance mobility in a transit priority area for a wide variety of potential and existing users—including those traveling to and from the light rail station, the Sacramento Veteran’s Administration Hospital, nearby business parks, and residential areas— while eliminating a barrier to active transportation by providing a dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facility crossing U.S. Route 50.
Avg. Reviewer Project Scoring Criteria Score A Project's ability to increase walking & biking (up to 30 points) 22 B Project's ability to reduce injuries & fatalities (up to 25 points) 20 C Project's ability to reduce GHG, support placemaking strategies (up to 10 points) 6 D Project's Cost Effectiveness (up to 10 points) 8 E Project's ability to improve public health (up to 10 points) 5 F Project benefitting a Disadvantaged Community (up to 10 points) 9 G Other (public outreach, past performance, project deliverability) (up to 10 points) 6 Total Score (of 95 points, omitting points from criteria F ) 67 Total Score (of 105 points, all criteria categories included) 76
Page 4 of 18
City of Galt $1,800,000 Recommendation South Galt Safe Routes to School $2,150,000 Total Cost
This project would construct bicycle and pedestrian improvements on seven streets adjacent to, or near, Greer Elementary, Valley Oaks Elementary, and Galt High School, including flashing beacons, Class II bicycle lanes, new crosswalks, and pedestrian bulb-outs and islands. The purpose of the project is to increase the safety for active transportation users, and to fill gaps in the active transportation network to enable safer, continuous travel on foot or by bike.
Avg. Reviewer Project Scoring Criteria Score A Project's ability to increase walking & biking (up to 30 points) 22 B Project's ability to reduce injuries & fatalities (up to 25 points) 17 C Project's ability to reduce GHG, support placemaking strategies (up to 10 points) 5 D Project's Cost Effectiveness (up to 10 points) 6 E Project's ability to improve public health (up to 10 points) 8 F Project benefitting a Disadvantaged Community (up to 10 points) 8 G Other (public outreach, past performance, project deliverability) (up to 10 points) 7 Total Score (of 95 points, omitting points from criteria F ) 65 Total Score (of 105 points, all criteria categories included) 73
Page 5 of 18
Sacramento County $1,691,800 Recommendation El Camino Avenue Phase 2: Street and Sidewalk Improvements $1,922,800 Total Cost
The project would construct Class II bicycle lanes and sidewalks, and modify traffic signals to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle transportation on El Camino Avenue from Watt Avenue to Vera Way. The purpose of the project is to create a safer active transportation route where there are currently incomplete facilities, and to complete a 1.5 mile complete street corridor on El Camino Avenue from Watt Avenue to Mission Way.
Avg. Reviewer Project Scoring Criteria Score A Project's ability to increase walking & biking (up to 30 points) 17 B Project's ability to reduce injuries & fatalities (up to 25 points) 20 C Project's ability to reduce GHG, support placemaking strategies (up to 10 points) 6 D Project's Cost Effectiveness (up to 10 points) 6 E Project's ability to improve public health (up to 10 points) 6 F Project benefitting a Disadvantaged Community (up to 10 points) 9 G Other (public outreach, past performance, project deliverability) (up to 10 points) 8 Total Score (of 95 points, omitting points from criteria F ) 63 Total Score (of 105 points, all criteria categories included) 72
Page 6 of 18
City of Folsom $992,000 Recommendation Oak Parkway Trail Undercrossing & $1,121,000 Total Cost Johnny Cash Trail Connection Project
The project would construct a grade separated crossing of Natoma St, connecting Oak Parkway Trail with the Johnny Cash and Historic Powerhouse Trails. The purpose of the project is to overcome the barrier of a higher-speed road by creating a connection between existing multi-use trails in residential neighborhoods and other trail segments currently under development adjacent to schools, employment centers, and transit stations, and to further expand the off-road active transportation network in the City of Folsom.
Avg. Reviewer Project Scoring Criteria Score A Project's ability to increase walking & biking (up to 30 points) 20 B Project's ability to reduce injuries & fatalities (up to 25 points) 16 C Project's ability to reduce GHG, support placemaking strategies (up to 10 points) 6 D Project's Cost Effectiveness (up to 10 points) 7 E Project's ability to improve public health (up to 10 points) 5 F Project benefitting a Disadvantaged Community (up to 10 points) 2 G Other (public outreach, past performance, project deliverability) (up to 10 points) 7 Total Score (of 95 points, omitting points from criteria F ) 61 Total Score (of 105 points, all criteria categories included) 63
Page 7 of 18
Yuba County $1,195,000 Recommendation Ella Elementary School Safe Routes to School Project $1,350,000 Total Cost
The project would add bicycle lanes, curbs and curb ramps, gutters, sidewalks, storm drains, and a raised median island on Seventh Avenue from Olivehurst Avenue to Powerline Road. The purpose of the project is to increase active transportation mobility and safety by improving Seventh Avenue around and leading to Ella Elementary and addressing community-identified safety concerns.
Avg. Reviewer Project Scoring Criteria Score A Project's ability to increase walking & biking (up to 30 points) 18 B Project's ability to reduce injuries & fatalities (up to 25 points) 15 C Project's ability to reduce GHG, support placemaking strategies (up to 10 points) 5 D Project's Cost Effectiveness (up to 10 points) 7 E Project's ability to improve public health (up to 10 points) 8 F Project benefitting a Disadvantaged Community (up to 10 points) 10 G Other (public outreach, past performance, project deliverability) (up to 10 points) 5 Total Score (of 95 points, omitting points from criteria F ) 58 Total Score (of 105 points, all criteria categories included) 68
Page 8 of 18
El Dorado County Transportation Commission $50,000 Recommendation Western Slope Bicycle Travel Opportunities Map $56,478 Total Cost
The project would develop, print, and make available online a comprehensive bicycle travel opportunities map for the western slope of El Dorado County, juxtaposing the existing cycling infrastructure with destinations such as transit stations and schools while also identifying safety tips for cyclists. The purpose of the project is to encourage increased and safer biking among residents and visitors by closing an information gap about existing infrastructure and destinations reachable by bicycle.
Avg. Reviewer Project Scoring Criteria Score A Project's ability to increase walking & biking (up to 30 points) 20 B Project's ability to reduce injuries & fatalities (up to 25 points) 13 C Project's ability to reduce GHG, support placemaking strategies (up to 10 5 points) D Project's Cost Effectiveness (up to 10 points) 7 E Project's ability to improve public health (up to 10 points) 5 F Project benefitting a Disadvantaged Community (up to 10 points) 4 G Other (public outreach, past performance, project deliverability) (up to 10 8 points) Total Score (of 95 points, omitting points from criteria F ) 58 Total Score (of 105 points, all criteria categories included) 62
Page 9 of 18
City of Auburn $799,000 Recommendation Nevada Street Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities $1,648,000 Total Cost
The project would add bicycle lanes and sidewalk on Nevada Street from Placer Street to Fulweiler Avenue. The purpose of the project is to increase safety by adding dedicated facilities for active transportation users and to increase access to and from the City’s multimodal station, Old Town Auburn, five public schools, and residential neighborhoods.
Avg. Reviewer Project Scoring Criteria Score A Project's ability to increase walking & biking (up to 30 points) 17 B Project's ability to reduce injuries & fatalities (up to 25 points) 15 C Project's ability to reduce GHG, support placemaking strategies (up to 10 points) 5 D Project's Cost Effectiveness (up to 10 points) 8 E Project's ability to improve public health (up to 10 points) 4 F Project benefitting a Disadvantaged Community (up to 10 points) 7 G Other (public outreach, past performance, project deliverability) (up to 10 points) 7 Total Score (of 95 points, omitting points from criteria F ) 56 Total Score (of 105 points, all criteria categories included) 63
Page 10 of 18
City of Colfax $264,300 Recommendation North Main Street Bike Route Project $298,544 Total Cost
The project would create a continuous bike route on North Main Street between West Grass Valley Street and Highway 174 through restriping, route repair, widening to accommodate bike lanes when feasible, and adding bike-friendly grates, bike parking, and other features to enhance the environment for active transportation. The purpose of the project is to create a safer bicycle route throughout the City of Colfax and to the Depot Transit Center.
Avg. Reviewer Project Scoring Criteria Score A Project's ability to increase walking & biking (up to 30 points) 16 B Project's ability to reduce injuries & fatalities (up to 25 points) 14 C Project's ability to reduce GHG, support placemaking strategies (up to 10 points) 5 D Project's Cost Effectiveness (up to 10 points) 8 E Project's ability to improve public health (up to 10 points) 3 F Project benefitting a Disadvantaged Community (up to 10 points) 3 G Other (public outreach, past performance, project deliverability) (up to 10 points) 7 Total Score (of 95 points, omitting points from criteria F ) 53 Total Score (of 105 points, all criteria categories included) 56
Page 11 of 18
ATP Recommended Contingency List
These projects are identified for funding in the event any project in the above recommended list is unable to meet the required delivery schedule. The below projects will remain available to program for Cycle 1 Regional ATP funding until the CTC adoption of Regional ATP Cycle 2. Inclusion on the contingent list does not guarantee funding in ATP Cycle 1 or in future funding rounds. Project sponsors are encouraged to apply to ATP Cycle 2 and other funding sources to fund these projects.
City of West Sacramento $571,000 Request West Capitol Ave Cycle Track $645,000 Total Cost
The project would construct a raised cycle track on West Capitol Avenue between 5th Street and Garden Street, and reconfigure the intersections of West Capitol Avenue at 5th Street and at Garden Street, including removing a signalized intersection, to improve public safety and to support these changes to the public right-of-way, and add pedestrian improvements. The purpose of the project is to increase active transportation mobility adjacent to a transit priority area by prioritizing bicycle and pedestrian movement through facility design.
Avg. Reviewer Project Scoring Criteria Score A Project's ability to increase walking & biking (up to 30 points) 16 B Project's ability to reduce injuries & fatalities (up to 25 points) 12 C Project's ability to reduce GHG, support placemaking strategies (up to 10 points) 6 D Project's Cost Effectiveness (up to 10 points) 7 E Project's ability to improve public health (up to 10 points) 7 F Project benefitting a Disadvantaged Community (up to 10 points) 7 G Other (public outreach, past performance, project deliverability) (up to 10 points) 7 Total Score (of 95 points, omitting points from criteria F ) 55 Total Score (of 105 points, all criteria categories included) 62
Page 12 of 18
City of Live Oak $791,500 Request Recreational Trail Phase 2 $894,000 Total Cost
The project would construct phase 2 of the Live Oak Community Trail from the terminus of Phase 1 on Elm Street to the southern terminus of phase 3 at Pennington Road and O Street. The purpose of the project is to increase active transportation mobility and develop a public space that facilitates creative patterns of activities.
Avg. Reviewer Project Scoring Criteria Score A Project's ability to increase walking & biking (up to 30 points) 17 B Project's ability to reduce injuries & fatalities (up to 25 points) 14 C Project's ability to reduce GHG, support placemaking strategies (up to 10 points) 5 D Project's Cost Effectiveness (up to 10 points) 6 E Project's ability to improve public health (up to 10 points) 6 F Project benefitting a Disadvantaged Community (up to 10 points) 9 G Other (public outreach, past performance, project deliverability) (up to 10 points) 7 Total Score (of 95 points, omitting points from criteria F ) 55 Total Score (of 105 points, all criteria categories included) 64
Page 13 of 18
City of Davis $741,700 Request Safe Routes to School Improvement Project $876,588 Total Cost
The project would construct pedestrian refuges, curb extensions, and curb ramps; relocate crosswalks; restripe traffic lanes and crosswalks; and add high visibility treatments around four elementary schools—Birch, Cesar Chavez, North Davis, and Pioneer. The purpose of the project is to address documented safety concerns and improve active transportation access to the targeted schools.
Avg. Reviewer Project Scoring Criteria Score A Project's ability to increase walking & biking (up to 30 points) 18 B Project's ability to reduce injuries & fatalities (up to 25 points) 15 C Project's ability to reduce GHG, support placemaking strategies (up to 10 points) 4 D Project's Cost Effectiveness (up to 10 points) 7 E Project's ability to improve public health (up to 10 points) 5 F Project benefitting a Disadvantaged Community (up to 10 points) 1 G Other (public outreach, past performance, project deliverability) (up to 10 points) 7 Total Score (of 95 points, omitting points from criteria F ) 56 Total Score (of 105 points, all criteria categories included) 57
Page 14 of 18
Consideration Projects Not Recommended for ATP Cycle 1 Funding
The following projects were included for consideration but not ultimately recommended for funding in this Regional ATP funding round.
City of West Sacramento $838,407 Request Sycamore Phase 2 $947,031 Total Cost
The project would complete the preliminary engineering and right-of-way phases for a bicycle and pedestrian overpass over US 50 connecting the future Tony Lopes Park to Westmore Oaks Elementary School. The purpose of the project is to eliminate the barrier of crossing US 50 for a broad range of potential users with varying comfort levels.
Avg. Reviewer Project Scoring Criteria Score A Project's ability to increase walking & biking (up to 30 points) 17 B Project's ability to reduce injuries & fatalities (up to 25 points) 15 C Project's ability to reduce GHG, support placemaking strategies (up to 10 4 points) D Project's Cost Effectiveness (up to 10 points) 6 E Project's ability to improve public health (up to 10 points) 7 F Project benefitting a Disadvantaged Community (up to 10 points) 7 G Other (public outreach, past performance, project deliverability) (up to 10 6 points) Total Score (of 95 points, omitting points from criteria F ) 55 Total Score (of 105 points, all criteria categories included) 62
Page 15 of 18
City of Elk Grove $2,021,000 Request Laguna Creek Trail & Bruceville Road SRTS Improvements $2,283,000 Total Cost
The project would construct multiple trail extensions and gap closures of the Laguna Creek Trail south of Sheldon Road from Lewis Stein Road to west of Bruceville Road, and fill in sidewalk gaps along Bruceville Road between Sheldon Road and Laguna Boulevard. The purpose of the project is to fill in gaps in the City’s multi-use trail system and to increase access to schools at Laguna Boulevard and Bruceville Road.
Avg. Reviewer Project Scoring Criteria Score A Project's ability to increase walking & biking (up to 30 points) 18 B Project's ability to reduce injuries & fatalities (up to 25 points) 13 C Project's ability to reduce GHG, support placemaking strategies (up to 10 5 points) D Project's Cost Effectiveness (up to 10 points) 8 E Project's ability to improve public health (up to 10 points) 5 F Project benefitting a Disadvantaged Community (up to 10 points) 7 G Other (public outreach, past performance, project deliverability) (up to 10 7 points) Total Score (of 95 points, omitting points from criteria F ) 56 Total Score (of 105 points, all criteria categories included) 63
Page 16 of 18
Sacramento County $2,100,000 Request Fair Oaks Boulevard Improvements Stanley Avenue to North Avenue $2,373,000 Total Cost
The project would construct sidewalks and ADA upgrades, a landscaped median, Class II bike lanes; modify the traffic signal at Stanley Avenue and North Avenue; and improve existing bus stops by adding bus shelters and pullouts on Fair Oaks Blvd. from Stanley Avenue to North Avenue. The purpose of the project is to construct the final segment of several previously funded and interconnected roadway projects within the “Main Street District” of the Fair Oaks Boulevard corridor in downtown Carmichael, from Marconi Avenue to Engle Avenue.
Avg. Reviewer Project Scoring Criteria Score A Project's ability to increase walking & biking (up to 30 points) 16 B Project's ability to reduce injuries & fatalities (up to 25 points) 11 C Project's ability to reduce GHG, support placemaking strategies (up to 10 6 points) D Project's Cost Effectiveness (up to 10 points) 7 E Project's ability to improve public health (up to 10 points) 5 F Project benefitting a Disadvantaged Community (up to 10 points) 7 G Other (public outreach, past performance, project deliverability) (up to 10 7 points) Total Score (of 95 points, omitting points from criteria F ) 52 Total Score (of 105 points, all criteria categories included) 59
Page 17 of 18
Sacramento County $1,079,000 Request Arcade Creek Bicycle & Pedestrian Crossing Cycle 1 $1,290,000 Total Cost
The project would design and construct a Class I multi-use crossing over Arcade Creek from Winding Way at Walnut Ave to American River College. The purpose of the project is to provide active transportation access directly to American River Community College, extending the reach of on-street bicycle facilities south of the project area.
Avg. Reviewer Project Scoring Criteria Score A Project's ability to increase walking & biking (30 points) 16 B Project's ability to reduce injuries & fatalities (25 points) 11 C Project's ability to reduce GHG, support placemaking strategies (10 points) 6 D Project's Cost Effectiveness (10 points) 7 E Project's ability to improve public health (10 points) 5 F Project benefitting a Disadvantaged Community (10 points) 7 G Other (public outreach, past performance, project deliverability) (10 7 points) Total Score (of 95 points, omitting points from criteria F ) 52 Total Score (of 105 points, all criteria categories included) 59
Page 18 of 18
Regional Active Transportation Funding Recommendations—Attachment C (Revised)
Regional ATP Working Group Project Evaluation Process
The ATP Working Group was tasked with developing a recommended $9.8 million list of projects out of 45 projects requesting $48 million. The process and Working Group make-up was defined in the ATP Policy Framework. The Working Group was comprised of one staff person each from SACOG, EDCTC, and PCTPA, as well as eight volunteers from around the region with a variety of applicable fields of expertise. The full Working Group composition is detailed in Attachment D. The evaluation process involved quantitative scoring on the criteria approved in the Regional ATP Guidelines (Attachment E), as well as qualitative discussion and analysis.
Working Group members were convened during August 11-15 for three four-hour meetings. The Working Group meetings were facilitated by non-voting SACOG staff. Working Group members whose agencies applied to the Regional ATP, were partners on an application, or had other stated conflicts of interest did not score their own projects and were asked to leave the room when their projects were discussed. The final recommended funding list and contingency list (Attachment A) were approved unanimously.
The following five lists were utilized both to evaluate projects and develop a final funding recommendation: • 95-point List—Initial Working Group rankings of all projects using all criterion except the 10 points for Disadvantaged Communities (maximum of 95 points possible); • 105-point List— Initial Working Group rankings of all projects, including the 10 points for Disadvantaged Communities (maximum of 105 points possible); • Consideration List—a list of projects that scored above 60 points initially or were nominated for consideration by two Working Group members if the project’s initial score was below 60 points; • Not for Consideration List—a list of projects that scored below 60 points during the initial scoring process, or were nominated for removal from consideration by a supermajority of Working Group members following thorough discussion and evaluation; • ATP Funding Recommendation List—the final list of projects the Working Group recommended for funding, including contingency projects in the event of late project delivery.
The process for scoring projects and developing the recommended project list is described in detail below.
Step 1: Eligibility and Initial Scoring Staff from SACOG, EDCTC, and PCTPA screened all project applications utilizing the eight project criteria outlined in the Regional ATP Guidelines and determined that all applications were eligible to compete for funding. Each application was then reviewed by five to six evaluators prior to the first Working Group meeting and scored on the approved seven scoring criteria. SACOG and PCTPA staff reviewed and scored all 45 eligible applications; EDCTC scored all but their own project. The other eight Working Group members each initially reviewed and scored approximately 20 applications prior to meeting on Working Group Day 1.
Step 2: 95-Point and 105-Point Lists Reviewed At the first meeting, all of the scores (using both 95-point and 105-point lists) were compiled and reviewed by the Working Group (Figure C.1).
Page 1 of 9
Figure C.1: Initial Scores
Avg. Increase Avg. Initial Score walking Avg. GHG Avg. Cost Public Avg. Other w/o DC score Initial Score +DC County Applicant Project Title /biking Avg. Safety Reduction Effectiveness Health Avg. DC Considerations (95 points) score (105 points) SAC City of Rancho Cordova Mather Rails to Trails Project 24 20 6 10 5 10 8 72 82 YOL City of West Sacramento West Capitol Ave Cycle Track 23 15 8 8 9 9 9 72 80 SAC Sacramento County El Camino Avenue Phase 2 - Street and Sidewalk Improvements 21 23 6 6 7 9 9 71 81 SAC Sacramento County Fair Oaks Boulevard Improvements Stanley Avenue to North Avenue 22 17 9 9 6 9 8 71 80 (FOBI) SAC City of Galt South Galt Safe Routes to Schools 23 18 6 7 9 8 9 71 79 YOL City of Davis Safe Routes to School Improvement Project 22 20 6 8 6 1 9 70 71 SUT City of Yuba City Franklin Road Improvements 21 15 6 10 8 10 9 69 79 ELD El Dorado County US Highway 50/Weber Creek Bridge Bicycle and Pedestrian Path 17 22 8 6 7 7 10 69 75 YOL City of West Sacramento Sycamore Phase 2 22 19 5 7 8 8 7 69 77 YUB Yuba County Ella Elementary School Safe Routes to School Project 20 18 7 8 9 10 7 68 78 SAC City of Folsom Oak Parkway Trail Undercrossing and Johnny Cash Trail Connection 21 19 8 8 6 3 7 68 71 Project SAC Sacramento County Arcade Creek Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing, Cycle 1 20 15 8 9 7 9 8 67 76 PLA City of Roseville Downtown Pedestrian Bridge 19 16 8 8 7 5 8 66 70 YOL City of West Sacramento Citywide Bike Lane Gap Closures 22 15 7 7 8 7 7 65 72 SAC City of Elk Grove Laguna Creek Trail and Bruceville Road SRTS Improvements 21 14 6 9 5 8 7 62 70 SUT City of Live Oak Recreational Trail Phase 2 19 15 6 7 6 10 7 61 71 SAC City of Sacramento Front Street Bike Lanes 18 14 6 8 7 1 8 60 61 PLA Town of Loomis Loomis Town Center Implementation Plan - Phase 2 19 17 6 6 5 1 6 58 59 PLA City of Auburn Nevada Street Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities 17 16 6 8 4 8 7 57 65 SAC City of Elk Grove Safe Routes to School Sidewalk Improvements 17 13 5 8 7 5 7 57 62 SAC City of Sacramento North Natomas Bike Path Reconstruction 16 13 6 8 6 1 7 56 57 YUB Yuba County Linda Elementary School Safe Routes to School Project 17 13 5 8 8 9 6 55 65 YOL City of Woodland Bicycle and Pedestrian Enhancement Project 16 16 5 4 6 6 7 55 61 SAC Sacramento County Rosemont HS Branch Ctr Rd Bicycle & Ped Improvements Project 18 12 5 8 4 0 7 54 55 SAC City of Elk Grove Laguna Creek Trail Under-crossings at Waterman & Bond Road 16 11 6 8 5 2 7 53 55 ELD El Dorado County Transportation Western Slope Bicycle Travel Opportunities Map 18 11 5 5 6 6 7 53 59 Commission SAC City of Sacramento El Camino Avenue Sidewalk Improvements 16 13 6 6 6 8 6 53 61 PLA Placer County Auburn Folsom Road Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Project 17 12 4 8 4 0 8 52 53 SAC City of Rancho Cordova Anatolia Bike Trail 17 13 4 6 4 0 7 52 53 SUT City of Live Oak Community Trail Phase 4 19 11 5 3 7 9 7 52 62 SAC City of Sacramento Public Bike Parking 20 5 5 8 7 1 8 52 53 SAC City of Rancho Cordova Rancho Cordova Safe and Active Routes to School Project 16 11 5 6 7 8 7 52 59 YOL City of West Sacramento Clarksburgh Branch Line Trail 15 12 4 6 7 4 7 51 55 PLA City of Lincoln Moore Road Bike Path Connectivity 17 12 5 5 4 0 7 51 51 SAC City of Rancho Cordova Cordova Park Safe Routes to School Project 18 11 5 6 5 7 6 51 58 SUT City of Live Oak Kola Street Safe Routes to School, Cycle 1 18 9 4 6 6 9 6 51 60 SAC City of Sacramento North Laguna Creek Bike Path Reconstruction 13 11 6 7 7 9 8 50 59 YOL City of West Sacramento Sycamore Phase 3 14 14 3 5 7 7 6 50 57 YOL University of California Russell Corridor Active Transportation Improvement Project 15 13 5 5 3 0 7 48 48 ELD City of Placervile Combellack Road Safe Routes to Schools Project 20 11 2 5 3 7 7 47 55 PLA City of Colfax N. Main Street Bike Route Project 13 12 5 8 3 1 5 46 47 SAC City of Elk Grove Power Line Trail/Hudson Basin Trailhead Improvements 15 11 4 7 3 0 5 45 45 SUT City of Live Oak Pedestrian Improvement Plan 12 11 5 2 5 9 6 42 51 SAC Sacramento Regional Transit Active Transportation Study 13 10 6 3 3 7 6 41 48 District ELD El Dorado County ADA Plan 7 6 4 4 4 3 6 31 34
Page 2 of 9
Step 3: Consideration and Non-Consideration Lists After review of the 95- and 105-point lists, a 60-point threshold was chosen as a natural breakpoint in project scores, and generated a diverse list of nearly $24 million worth of funding requests (over half of the amount requested through submitted applications) for further Working Group discussion. Projects that scored over 60 points were moved to a Consideration List. Projects that scored below 60 points on the 95-point scale were moved to a Not for Consideration List.
Between the Day 1 and Day 2 meetings, all Working Group members were asked to review project applications on the Consideration List, as well as revisit any projects on the Not for Consideration List while re-reviewing applications. Any project on the Not for Consideration List could be nominated by two Working Group members for movement to the Consideration List at any point during the first two meetings.
Below are the 24 projects requesting a total $26 million that scored below 60 points and were not nominated to move to the Consideration List.
Figure C.2: Day 1 Not for Consideration List Funding County Applicant Project Title Request Total Cost PLA Town of Loomis Loomis Town Center $965,000 $1,120,000 Implementation Plan - Phase 2 SAC City of Elk Grove Safe Routes to School Sidewalk $1,076,000 $1,216,000 Improvements SAC City of Sacramento North Natomas Bike Path $481,000 $540,000 Reconstruction YUB Yuba County Linda Elementary School Safe $865,000 $964,600 Routes to School Project YOL City of Woodland Bicycle and Pedestrian $2,096,560 $2,368,192 Enhancement Project SAC Sacramento County Rosemont HS Branch Ctr Rd $1,800,000 $2,006,600 Bicycle & Ped Improvements SAC City of Elk Grove Laguna Creek Trail Under- $1,839,000 $2,077,000 crossings at Waterman & Bond Rd. SAC City of Sacramento El Camino Avenue Sidewalk $689,516 $1,126,420 Improvements PLA Placer County Auburn Folsom Road Pedestrian $739,000 $1,080,278 and Bicycle Improvements Project SAC City of Rancho Anatolia Bike Trail $1,000,000 $1,347,000 Cordova SUT City of Live Oak Community Trail Phase 4 $425,000 $480,000 SAC City of Sacramento Public Bike Parking $251,000 $284,000 SAC City of Rancho Rancho Cordova Safe and Active $490,650 $490,650 Cordova Routes to School Project
Page 3 of 9
Funding County Applicant Project Title Request Total Cost YOL City of West Clarksburg Branch Line Trail $1,723,679 $1,947,000 Sacramento SAC City of Rancho Cordova Park Safe Routes to $3,043,000 $3,625,000 Cordova School Project SUT City of Live Oak Kola Street Safe Routes to School, $632,990 $715,000 Cycle 1 SAC City of Sacramento North Laguna Creek Bike Path $568,000 $638,000 Reconstruction YOL City of West Sycamore Phase 3 $615,284 $695,000 Sacramento YOL University of Russell Corridor Active $3,878,000 $4,616,700 California Transportation Improvement Project ELD City of Placerville Combellack Road Safe Routes to $242,149 $280,000 Schools Project SAC City of Elk Grove Power Line Trail/Hudson Basin $1,791,000 $2,023,000 Trailhead Improvements SUT City of Live Oak Pedestrian Improvement Plan $126,000 $140,453 SAC Sacramento Active Transportation Study $177,000 $200,000 Regional Transit District ELD El Dorado County ADA Plan $230,000 $260,000
Step 4: Discussion of Consideration List Working Group Day 1 and Day 2 consisted of thoroughly evaluating each project that scored higher than 60 points, or that was moved from the Not for Consideration List to the Consideration List, based on the project’s merits as outlined in the approved Regional ATP Guidelines:
• Increase walking and bicycling through targeted strategies: increasing access to transit services, increasing access to schools, eliminating gaps or removing barriers in the bicycle/pedestrian network, and completing facilities (0-30 points) • Reduce the number and/or rate of pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities and injuries (0-25 points) • Improve public health through the targeting of populations with high risk factors for obesity, physical inactivity, asthma or other health issues (0-10 points) • Demonstrates cost effectiveness, which is achieved by minimizing projected capital and operating expenditures while offering strong performance benefits (0-10 points) • Provides benefit to a disadvantaged community and includes project features that provide benefit for members of this community (0-10 points)
Page 4 of 9
• Project advances active transportation efforts to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals through reducing or shortening vehicle trips today and over time, as established pursuant to SB 375 and SB 391 (0-10 points) • Other considerations: project demonstrates readiness to deliver within the ATP schedule, performance on past grants and/or Federal Aid Projects, and strong support by stakeholders in the community in which the project is located (0-10 points)
At the end of Day 2, and prior to final scoring, four projects requesting approximately $4 million were moved from the Consideration List to the Not for Consideration list. These projects were initially scored and discussed by the Working Group during the first two days and were determined to be less competitive than the rest of the projects on the Consideration list. Following a supermajority vote, the following projects (Figure C.3) were moved to the Not for Consideration list.
Figure C.3: Day 2 removals from Consideration List Funding County Applicant Project Title Request Total Cost ELD El Dorado US Highway 50/Weber Creek $1,058,159 $1,452,205 County Bridge Bicycle and Pedestrian Path PLA City of Downtown Pedestrian Bridge $2,487,000 $2,809,000 Roseville PLA City of Moore Road Bike Path $373,000 $457,877 Lincoln Connectivity SAC City of Front Street Bike Lanes $256,000 $289,000 Sacramento
The final Consideration List was then comprised of 17 projects requesting $18 million (Figure C.4). These projects were re-scored by Working Group members after Day 2, and discussed and evaluated on Day 3.
Figure C.4: Day 3 Consideration List Funding County Applicant Project Title Request Total Cost SAC City of Rancho Mather Rails to Trails Project $2,234,516 $2,524,021 Cordova YOL City of West West Capitol Ave Cycle Track $557,739 $630,000 Sacramento SAC Sacramento El Camino Avenue Phase 2 - $1,691,800 $1,922,800 County Street and Sidewalk Improvements SAC Sacramento Fair Oaks Boulevard $2,100,000 $2,373,000 County Improvements Stanley Avenue to North Avenue (FOBI) SAC City of Galt South Galt Safe Routes to $1,800,000 $2,150,000 Schools
Page 5 of 9
Funding County Applicant Project Title Request Total Cost YOL City of Davis Safe Routes to School $741,728 $876,588 Improvement Project SUT City of Yuba Franklin Road Improvements $312,500 $393,000 City YOL City of West Sycamore Phase 2 $838,407 $947,031 Sacramento YUB Yuba County Ella Elementary School Safe $1,195,000 $1,350,000 Routes to School Project SAC City of Folsom Oak Parkway Trail $996,000 $1,121,000 Undercrossing and Johnny Cash T rail Connection Project SAC Sacramento Arcade Creek Bicycle and $1,079,000 $1,290,000 County Pedestrian Crossing, Cycle 1 YOL City of West Citywide Bike Lane Gap $524,629 $592,600 Sacramento Closures SAC City of Elk Laguna Creek Trail and $2,021,000 $2,283,000 Grove Bruceville Road SRTS Improvements SUT City of Live Recreational Trail Phase 2 $791,458 $894,000 Oak ELD El Dorado Western Slope Bicycle Travel $50,000 $56,478 County Opportunities Map Transportation Commission PLA City of Auburn Nevada Street Pedestrian & $799,000 $1,648,000 Bicycle Facilities PLA City of Colfax North Main Street Bike Route $264,301 $298,544 Project
Step 5: Final Scoring and Development of Recommendation List All projects in the above Consideration List (Figure C.4) were re-scored and re-ranked by the Working Group and the results were presented using both a 95-point list and a 105-point list. Both lists ranked the same top seven projects requesting a total of $8.8 million (Figure C.5). These top-scoring projects on both lists included five projects that scored a minimum eight out of ten points in the Disadvantaged Community criterion, which resulted in approximately $6 million out of the $9.8 million benefitting disadvantaged communities.
Page 6 of 9
Figure C.5: Day 3’s top-ranking projects on Consideration List in ranking order, moved to Fund list Funding County Applicant Project Title Recommendation Total Cost SUT City of Yuba City Franklin Road $312,500 $393,000 Improvements YOL City of West Citywide Bike Lane Gap $524,629 $592,600 Sacramento Closures SAC City of Rancho Mather Rails to Trails $2,234,516 $2,524,021 Cordova Project SAC City of Galt South Galt Safe Routes to $1,800,000 $2,150,000 Schools SAC Sacramento County El Camino Avenue Phase $1,691,800 $1,922,800 2 - Street and Sidewalk Improvements SAC City of Folsom Oak Parkway Trail $996,000 $1,121,000 Undercrossing and Johnny Cash Trail Connection Project YUB Yuba County Ella Elementary $1,195,000 $1,350,000 School Safe Routes to School Project
The ten remaining projects on the Consideration List (Figure C.6) were discussed and evaluated for funding with the remaining $1.1 million. To whittle down the list, the Working Group evaluated each project’s merits based on the scoring criteria and in comparison to competing projects. The group eliminated projects one at a time using a supermajority vote.
Page 7 of 9
Figure C.6: Projects that were still on Consideration List (total request: $9.2 million, total available: $1.1 million) Funding County Applicant Project Title Request Total Cost PLA El Dorado County Western Slope Bicycle Travel $50,000 $56,478 Transportation Opportunities Map Commission YOL City of Davis Safe Routes to School $741,728 $876,588 Improvement Project PLA City of Auburn Nevada Street Pedestrian & $799,000 $1,648,000 Bicycle Facilities YOL City of West West Capitol Ave Cycle Track $557,739 $630,000 Sacramento SUT City of Live Oak Recreational Trail Phase 2 $791,458 $894,000 YOL City of West Sycamore Phase 2 $838,407 $947,031 Sacramento SAC City of Elk Grove Laguna Creek Trail and Bruceville $2,021,000 $2,283,000 Road SRTS Improvements PLA City of Colfax North Main Street Bike Route $264,301 $298,544 Project SAC Sacramento County Fair Oaks Boulevard $2,100,000 $2,373,000 Improvements Stanley Avenue to North Avenue (FOBI) SAC Sacramento County Arcade Creek Bicycle and $1,079,000 $1,290,000 Pedestrian Crossing, Cycle 1
After much discussion, the Working Group recommended three additional projects totaling $1.1 million (Figure C.7) to complete the $9.8 million ATP Funding Recommendation list.
Figure C.7: Final additions to the ATP Funding Recommendation list Funding County Applicant Project Title Recommendation Total Cost ELD El Dorado County Western Slope Bicycle $50,000 $56,478 Transportation Travel Opportunities Map Commission PLA City of Auburn Nevada Street Pedestrian & $799,000 $1,648,000 Bicycle Facilities PLA City of Colfax N. Main Street Bike Route $264,300 $298,544 Project
The next highest-ranking projects were recommended for ATP funding contingency in the event any project in the above recommended list is unable to meet the required delivery schedule. (Figure C.8). The below projects will remain available to program for Cycle 1 Regional ATP funding until the CTC adoption of Regional ATP Cycle 2. Inclusion on the contingent list does not guarantee funding in ATP Cycle 1 or in future funding rounds. Project sponsors are encouraged apply to ATP Cycle 2 and other funding sources to fund these projects.
Page 8 of 9
Figure C.8: ATP Funding Contingency list Funding County Applicant Project Title Request Total Cost YOL City of West West Capitol Avenue Cycle Track $524,600 $592,600 Sacramento SUT City of Live Oak Recreational Trail Phase 2 $791,500 $894,000
YOL City of Davis Safe Routes to School Improvement $741,700 $876,588 Project
The final ATP Funding Recommendation and Contingency lists were unanimously approved by the Working Group. SACOG staff have reviewed these projects and determined that the projects appear to be eligible and capable of meeting programming deadlines. Following Board approval, the project list will be submitted to the CTC for adoption.
Projects awarded ATP funding must be ready to allocate funds through the CTC within FY 2014-15 or FY 2015-16, and complete construction within the next three fiscal years. These projects will be closely monitored to ensure timely delivery within the identified constraints of the program; in the event that a project is unable to allocate the awarded funds within the timeframe identified by the CTC or obtain an extension, a project on the contingency list would allocate ATP funds in its place. In this instance, the project that failed to meet its delivery timeline would forfeit their ATP funds and would have to compete again to receive funds from the ATP or any other funding source.
Page 9 of 9 Attachment D
Regional ATP Working Group Roster
Name Affiliation Expertise Jerry Barton* El Dorado County Transportation Commission Land Use Planning Ben Deal Yuba Area Bicycle Advocates Bike/Ped Advocacy Victoria Cacciatore* Sacramento Area Council of Governments Transit Victoria Custodio SRTS Technical Assistance Resource Center Bike/Ped Advocacy Chris Dougherty City of West Sacramento Bike/Ped Planning Aaron Hoyt* Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Bike/Ped Planning Sondra Spaethe Feather River Air Quality Management District Air Quality Kori Titus Breathe CA Community Groups Sarah Underwood Health Education Council Public Health Ron Vicari Sacramento County DOT Project Engineer Jeff Werner City of Elk Grove Project Engineer
*member of Regional ATP Team Attachment E
FINAL 2014 6-COUNTY REGIONAL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES The purpose of this funding program is to implement strategies that increase and attract active transportation ELIGIBLE PROJECT TYPES users and provide facilities for walking and biking in The infrastructure projects eligible for this funding urban, suburban and rural portions of the region and to program are largely derived from the SACOG Regional provide connections between them. Projects and Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Master Plan (Master Plan) programs funded through this program are consistent that is amended every two years, with the last update in with the vision of the Blueprint and support the June 2013. The Master Plan provides an expansive set of implementation of the long-range transportation plans policies and projects for regional bicycle and pedestrian for the El Dorado County Transportation Commission planning efforts across the six-county SACOG region, and (EDCTC), the Placer County Transportation Planning was developed through a working group and approved Agency (PCTPA) and the Sacramento Area Council of by the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Governments (SACOG). Committee and SACOG Board of Directors. Additionally, bicycle and pedestrian projects included in the Regional In order to help implement active transportation projects Transportation Plans (RTPs) for EDCTC or PCTPA are also in the six-county region, EDCTC, PCTPA, and SACOG eligible. Projects must support the performance invest regional funds regularly for infrastructure and non- outcomes identified in the sections below. infrastructure projects. ATP funds from the State of California provide an important new funding source for Non-infrastructure projects eligible for funding meet at active transportation projects. least one of two criteria: (1) Encourage biking and walking through public information, education, training, PROGRAM GOALS and awareness (2) Perform studies and develop plans California Senate Bill (SB) 99 establishes California’s ATP that support one or more of the project performance program with six program goals that provide a outcomes identified in the section below. foundation for the state and regional ATP programs: The ATP is a State of California identified program . Increase the proportion of trips accomplished by implemented by the California Transportation biking and walking; Commission. As such the main source of revenue is a compilation of state and federal funding. The majority of . Increase the safety and mobility of non- motorized users; projects will need to meet the requirements from the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21). . Advance the active transportation efforts of Projects must meet eligibility requirements specific to regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals as established pursuant to SB the ATP funding source provided. 375 (C728, §2008) and SB 391 (C585, §2009); INELIGIBLE PROJECT TYPES . Enhance public health, including reduction of Projects in new developments that are considered “good childhood obesity, through the use of programs including but not limited to projects eligible for practices” according to FHWA guidelines, bicycle and Safe Routes to School Program funding; pedestrian facility maintenance, long-term staff positions, transit operations, law enforcement, and . Ensure that disadvantaged communities fully bicycle racks for carpools, vanpools, or private vehicles. share in the benefits of the program; and . Provide a broad spectrum of projects to benefit PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS many types of active transportation users. A Regional ATP Team comprised of representatives from the three involved regional transportation planning Agencies (RTPAs) in the region (EDCTC, PCTPA, SACOG)
Page 1 of 4 will screen applications for eligibility. Applications will be The application process will be specific to the ATP. The removed from the competitive process if found ineligible Regional ATP Team in conjunction with the ATP Working based on the guidelines below. Projects not selected for Group will go through the ranking process to insure that programming in the statewide competition, but deemed 25% of available funds are dedicated to projects and eligible for the state program will be considered; programs benefiting Disadvantaged Communities as applicants will be encouraged to submit a supplemental identified in the State Guidelines. Following this step, the application. projects will ranked on a 95 point scale without the 10 points for the Disadvantaged Communities criteria. Next, the Regional ATP Team forwards the eligible Projects will be ranked and selected for the remaining applications to the ATP Working Group (see below for 75% of funding utilizing both lists for reference. the composition of this Group). The Working Group then Discretion will be placed on the Working Group and prioritizes and ranks the applications, according to its Regional ATP team to select a comprehensive package of own process, but does not discard any applications. projects. Working Group members will not vote or comment on applications from their own organizations. The Working PROJECT SCREENING Group and/or Regional ATP Team staff reserves the right To be selected for funding, a project or program must to contact applicants during this project selection process meet the following screening criteria: for additional information. The Working Group makes its recommendations to the Regional ATP Team. The Work 1. Infrastructure Project is a planned project Group will be multidisciplinary in nature and members included in the SACOG Master Plan or the should represent diverse geography. One Regional ATP Regional Transportation Plan for EDCTC or Team representative from EDCTC, PCTPA and SACOG will PCTPA. Only under special circumstances participate on the Working Group. will an application be considered that is not listed in one of these sources. Working Group Membership 2. Non-Infrastructure Project meets at least one Expertise Recruited from Number of two eligibility requirements identified in Land Use the preceding section. Planners’ Committee 1 Planners 3. Project must be ready for inclusion into the Project Regional Planning 2 Engineers Partnership Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program, with project scope and cost. The 4 Bicycle/ project application may include the cost of Bicycle & Pedestrian (2 advocates, Pedestrian Advisory Committee 2 planners/ preparing environmental documents. When Planning engineers) project design, right-of-way or construction are programmed before the implementing Air Quality Air Districts 1 agency completes the environmental Public Health Public Health 1 process, updated cost estimates, updated Representative analysis of the projects cost effectiveness, Transit Coordinating and updated analysis of the project’s ability Transit 1 Committee to further the goals of the program must be Community Regional Community submitted to appropriate RTPA (EDCTC, 1 Groups Based Organizations PCTPA, or SACOG) following completion of the environmental process for re-
evaluation. Total 11 4. Project is eligible for appropriate funding sources (i.e. TAP, HSIP, State Highway Account funds, Recreation Trails).
Page 2 of 4 5. Project meets the minimum dollar amount for PROJECT SCORING an infrastructure or non-infrastructure Projects will be scored based on the criteria described in projects and includes at least an 11.47% the state ATP guidelines with minor modifications as local match; application is to all project described below. categories. Project Performance Outcomes (0-95 points) a. Infrastructure project minimum is 1. Project has potential to increase walking and $278,675 ($250,000 funding request + bicycling through targeted strategies: $28,675 local match). The increasing access to transit services, recommended infrastructure maximum increasing access to schools, eliminating project request is $3 million, but there gaps or removing barriers in the is no maximum total project cost. bicycle/pedestrian network, and completing b. Non-Infrastructure project minimum is facilities. 0-30 points $55,735 ($50,000 funding request + 2. Project has the potential to reduce the number $5,735 local match). and/or rate of pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities and injuries. 0-25 points
c. Public agencies applying for funding for smaller projects may want to consider 3. Project improves public health through the combining projects to meet the project targeting of populations with high risk minimum thresholds, or consider a factors for obesity, physical inactivity, larger, multi-year program or project. asthma or other health issues. 0-10 points
6. Public Participation & Planning. Project 4. Project demonstrates cost effectiveness, which applicant must clearly demonstrate how a is achieved by minimizing projected capital community-based public participation and operating expenditures while offering process resulted in the identification and strong performance benefits. 0-10 points prioritization of the proposed project. 5. Project provides benefit to a disadvantaged Inclusion of relevant notices and materials. community and includes project features 7. Partnering with Community Conservation that provide benefit for members of this Corps. Project proponent must community. 0-10 points (Please reference demonstrate that the California the project selection process section.) Conservation Corps or a qualified 6. Project advances active transportation efforts to community conservation corps, was sought achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals out to participate as a partner to undertake through reducing or shortening vehicle trips the project; or provide demonstration of today and over time, as established the cost effectiveness clause 23 CFR pursuant to SB 375 and SB 391. 0-10 points 635.204 and provide the relevant documentation. Other Considerations (0-10 points) 7. Performance on Past Grants and/or Federal Aid 8. Projects are not part of developer-funded basic Projects. Applications from agencies with good practices. good performance on delivering prior projects or programs are most likely to In addition to how projects address the program goals succeed with an ATP project award. discussed above, below are scoring criteria considerations that will be used by the Working Group 8. Project sponsor demonstrates readiness to and the Regional ATP Team to make funding move forward on a timely schedule with the recommendations to the SACOG Board. proposed project (i.e. application provides
Page 3 of 4 clear schedule, cost, and partnerships to deliver the project).
9. Project applicant demonstrates evidence of strong support by stakeholders in the community in which the project is located.
Page 4 of 4 Attachment F
State ATP Awards within the Six-County SACOG Region County Applicant Project Title ATP Funding Awarded Total Project Cost PLA City of Roseville Downtown Roseville Class 1 Trail $1,236,000 $2,547,000 Lower Laguna Creek Open Space SAC City of Elk Grove $1,573,000 $1,778,000 Preserve Trail Howe Ave Bike & Pedestrian SAC Sacramento County $1,853,000 $2,067,000 Improvement Project SAC San Juan Unified School District Safe Routes to School $250,000 $278,675 YOL City of Davis Safe Routes to School Program $562,000 $626,461
YOL City of Woodland 2014 SRTS $539,000 $539,000 Safe Routes to School Project & YUB City of Marysville $489,000 $489,000 Programs Total Funding Awarded $6,502,000
Item #14-9-8 Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee Information
August 29, 2014
Metro Chamber Study Mission
Issue: Report on Metro Chamber Study Mission Program.
Recommendation: This is an information only item. There will not be a staff presentation.
Discussion: SACOG will be participating in the Metro Chamber’s Annual Study Mission to Nashville October 7-10, 2014. The focus of this year’s study mission will be how Nashville grew their region to be one of the most desirable places to live and do business with interactive panel discussions on: civic amenities, core economic clusters, education, entrepreneurship, the role of the business and civic leaders, and young professionals.
Regional leaders in Nashville identified transit as their second-highest priority for successful economic growth, behind only education. SACOG is working with the Sacramento Regional Transit District to develop a panel presentation exploring the partnership between the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce and the Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (NAMPO) that launched their Transit Vision initiative and their Citizens Transit Academy model.
SACOG staff is working with NAMPO to create peer learning opportunities for SACOG Board members and staff with our counterparts in the Nashville Area. Participating Board members and staff will return with a report on lessons learned during the Study Mission.
Approved by:
Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer
MM:RS:ts
Key Staff: Rebecca Sloan, Director of External Affairs & Member Services, (916) 340-6224 Erik Johnson, Acting Manager of Policy and Administration, (916) 340-6247
Item #14-9-9 Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee Information
August 29, 2014
Regional Air Quality Planning Update
Issue: What is the status of the various state implementation plans in the SACOG region?
Recommendation: None. This is for information and discussion.
Discussion: Larry Greene from the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District will lead the discussion on current air quality planning efforts in the SACOG region. His presentation will highlight activities that will be concurrent with the 2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy development and adoption.
Approved by:
Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer
MM:RDO:gg
Key Staff: Erik Johnson, Acting Manager of Policy and Administration, (916) 340-6247 Renee DeVere-Oki, Team Manager Regional Air Quality Planning, (916) 340-6219
Item #14-9-10 Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee Information
August 29, 2014
Cap and Trade Update
Issue: Update on Cap and Trade.
Recommendation: None; this is for information only.
Discussion: Staff will briefly summarize for the Committee the substance of the Cap and Trade legislation passed earlier this summer and provide an update on the many activities that are underway to implement the first round of funding next spring. Attached please find electronic copy of document prepared by CALCOG summarizing the statute. We provided hard copies of this document at all Committee meetings earlier this month but did not have time to discuss it.
Approved by:
Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer
MM:ts Attachment
Key Staff: Erik Johnson, Acting Manager of Policy and Administration, (916) 340-6247
CAP & TRADE POLICY BRIEF TRANSIT, HOUSING, & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM
California Association of Councils of Governments June 23, 2014
I. INTRODUCTION
Last week, the Legislature adopted—and the Governor signed—a budget for FY 2014-15 that includes the first investment plan for Cap and Trade auction revenues. This brief outlines the main points of interest for regional transportation planning agencies, summarizes the scope of key programs, and provides selected language from SB 852 (allocations) and SB 862 (cap and trade program trailer bill).
II. CAP AND TRADE PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS
1. The Big News: Ongoing Appropriation. Only two categories (totaling 60% of future revenues) get multi-year allocations: Transit, Housing, and Sustainable Communities (35%) and High-Speed Rail (25%). Other program areas will be subject to the annual budget process. See chart, next page. 2. But FY 14-15 is Different. Funding is different the first year largely because of a $200 million allocation to clean transportation. Thus, $130 million is allocated to affordable housing and sustainable communities; and $50 million for transit split FY 14-15 Appropriations $ in Millions evenly between the Transit Capital and Transit High Speed Rail $250 Clean Vehicle Program $200 Operations. An additional $242 million for non- Housing/Sustainable Comm. $130 transportation related programs for energy, Transit $50 water, waste diversion, and weatherization. Other Programs $242 TOTAL $872 3. Reporting and Quantification. The Air Resource Board will develop guidance on GHG reporting and quantification methods for all state agencies that receive appropriations to ensure that the requirements of AB 32 are met. 4. Strategic Growth Council Change. The Senate and Assembly each get to appoint a public member to the Strategic Growth Council—making the council 3 public members and seven senior members of the Administration. 5. 20% for Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities. This funding is subject to a specific set of rules and guidelines: i. Half for Housing. Half (10%) must be used for affordable housing. SGC will be the lead agency, though SGC likely will “leverage” HCD’s expertise. ii. “Other Half” Eligibility. Threshold eligibilities include projects typically included in a regional transportation plan (see table on page 3). But it also includes agriculture mitigation and undefined “other programs.” iii. Distribution Undetermined. The distribution method is to be determined; no provision is made for regional parity, though non-MPO areas are included.
1100 K Street, Suite 101. Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 557-1170 www.calcog.org
CAP & TRADE: Transit, Housing, and Sustainable Communities June 23, 2014
CAP AND TRADE To Be Allocated Annually MULTI-YEAR ALLOCATIONS High Speed Rail
25% Affordable Housing and 20% Sustainable Communities
35% Capital for Inter-City Rail; 40% 10% Transit 5% Low Carbon Transit Operations
iv. 50% for Disadvantaged Communities. The percentage for disadvantaged communities is doubled from the SB 535 standard of 25% to 50%. v. State Guidelines. The council is directed to “leverage the programmatic and administrative expertise of relevant state departments” in developing the guidelines. Comments from local and regional governments are to be “considered” in the same manner as other stakeholders in public hearings. vi. “Coordinated” Project Selection. After guidelines are developed, the Council is required to “coordinate” with regional agencies to recommend projects.
6. Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program. This program is for commuter and inter-regional rail and bus rapid transit projects. The Transportation Agency will develop guidelines, review applications, and make recommendations to the CTC. Funding must comply with the SB 535-standard 25% for disadvantaged communities; and achieve “geographic equity” and SCS consistency. • Special Note: Clean up language on this element is in the works to explicitly authorize bus transit as an eligible use under the program.
7. Low Carbon Transit. Funding goes out under the State Transit Assistance formula for new and expanded service (including equipment); and 50% of the funding must be expended for disadvantaged communities. Caltrans must approve all expenditures to determine they meet the guidelines.
8. High-Speed Rail. High speed rail gets $250 million in the first year; 25% going forward; and gets an additional $400 million from prior year auction sales.
9. Disadvantaged Communities & CalEnvironscreen. The CalEnviroscreen tool (that identifies disadvantaged communities) came under scrutiny throughout the budget process. New language provides that the Air Resources Board, working with CalEPA, shall develop guidelines for the use of the CalEnviroscreen tool, including how “benefits” should be “maximized.”
www.calcog.org Page 2
CAP & TRADE: Transit, Housing, and Sustainable Communities June 23, 2014
III. SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES SCOPE & ELIGIBILITY
PROGRAM: AFFORDABLE HOUSING & SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES Administered By: Strategic Growth Council
Target: 50% must benefit disadvantaged communities; 50% for Affordable Housing
Project Eligibility: • Affordable housing that supports infill and compact development • Transit capital and programs “supporting transit ridership” • Active transportation projects (infrastructure & non-infrastructure) • TOD projects • Capital projects that implement complete streets • Projects that reduce GHG emissions by reducing auto trips and VMT • Acquisition of easements or other approaches to protect agricultural lands under threat of development • Planning to support SCS implementation, including local plans • Must be in draft or adopted SCS • Subject to SGC guidelines
PROGRAM: TRANSIT & INTER-CITY RAIL (AND BUS) CAPITAL PROGRAM Administered By: Transportation Agency develops guidelines, scores applications. and makes recommendations, CTC allocates funds Target: 25% must benefit disadvantaged communities; achieve geographic equity
Project Eligibility: • Rail capital • Bus rapid transit and other bus investments to increase ridership and reduce GHGs • Service improvements to improve reliability & decrease travel times • Integrated ticketing and scheduling systems, shared-use corridors, related planning efforts and service integration initiatives • Must be consistent with SCS • Subject to SGC guidelines
PROGRAM: LOW CARBON TRANSIT OPERATIONS PROGRAM Administered By: Operator (or RTPA for population-based funds) must submit project to Caltrans for approval and verification that it qualifies as a GHG reducing project. Controller allocates funds
Target: 50% must benefit disadvantaged communities Project Eligibility: • Transit capital and operating expenses that enhance transit service and reduce GHG emissions • Support new or expanded bus or rail services, or expanded intermodal facilities and equipment, fueling and maintenance for those facilities.
www.calcog.org Page 3
CAP & TRADE: Transit, Housing, and Sustainable Communities June 23, 2014
III. FY 14-15 Budget Allocations (SB 852)
FY 14-15 Cap and Trade Allocations Related to Transportation with Budget Line Item and SB 852 Page Number Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities - For Local Assistance (0650-101-3228, page 34) 129,201,000 - For Support of OPR (0650-001-3228, page 40) 799,000 Subtotal 130,000,000 Transit and Rail Capital and Transit Operations - Transit Operations (2640-101-3228, page 116) 25,000,000 - Rail and Transit Capital (2660-101-3228,Page 132) 24,791,000 - Support, Dept. of Transp. (2660-001-3228, page 124) 208,000 - Capital Outlay (2660-301-3228, page 143) 1,000 Subtotal 50,000,000 High Speed Rail - Capital Outlay (2665-306-3228, page 164) 191,414,000 - Capital Outlay (2665-301-3228, page 163) 58,586,000 Subtotal 250,000,000
Clean Transportation (3900-101-3228, Page 275) 197,266,000 ARB Support - All Programs (3900-001-3228, page 274) 11,520,000 TOTAL 638,786,000
Notes: • AB 852 Language. Key provision related to these programs are included at the end of this document. A copy of SB 852 is posted on our website.
• Final Determination and the Last 25%. The last 25% of any fund cannot be allocated until the Department of Finance makes a final determination based on auction proceeds after the last auction of the year. See Section 15.13 of SB 852 (page 683).
• Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities. These funds “may be available for transfer to the Department of Transportation, the Department of Housing and Community Development, the Department of Conservation, and the Natural Resources Agency for support costs and local assistance. . .”
• California Transit Association. A note of appreciation for the California Transit Association for identifying the key line items in SB 852.
www.calcog.org Page 4
CAP & TRADE: Transit, Housing, and Sustainable Communities June 23, 2014
V. SEVEN ADMINSTRATIVE PROCESSES
1. Reporting and quantification methods for GHG reductions Scope: Define how projects further regulatory purposes of AB 32 contribute to reducing GHGs, and applicability of other non-greenhouse gas reduction objectives of AB 32 Agency: Air Resources Board Process: Undefined (ARB hearing likely) Statute: Government Code § 16428.9(b) 2. Identification of Disadvantaged Communities Scope: (Already in Statute) Geographic, socioeconomic, health, environmental hazard, pollution, and concentration of low income, high unemployment, high rent, or other factors. Agency: California Environmental Protection Agency Process: At least one public hearing Statute: Health and Safety Code § 38711 3. Funding Guidelines Relating to Disadvantaged Communities for Administering Agencies Scope: Agencies shall “maximize benefits for disadvantaged communities.” Agency: Air Resources Board, in consultation with CALEPA Process: ARB shall provide an “opportunity for public input” prior to final guidelines. Statute: Public Resources Code § 39715 4. Coordinate Activities of SGC Member Agencies that related to Program Scope: Coordinate programs SGC members in way that is consistent with requirements for disadvantaged communities, GHG reporting, and transit priority projects. Agency: Strategic Growth Council, in consultation with Air Resources Board Process: No public process is defined Statute: Public Resources Code § 75200.1 5. Affordable Housing & Sustainable Community Guidelines and Selection Criteria Scope: Develop guidelines that are consistent with extensive eligibility and policy objectives included in the statute (See Pub. Resources §§ 75210 to 75214). Agency: SGC with member agencies and departments; ARB, other state entities as needed Process: At least two workshops (one north, one south); draft guidelines published 30 days in advance; consider comments from local and regional governments, stakeholders; conduct outreach to disadvantaged communities. Statute: Public Resources Code § 75215 6. Guidelines for Transit and Inter-City Rail Capital Program Scope: Extensive criteria provided by statute Agency: California State Transportation Agency Process: At least two public workshops with draft posted at least 30 days prior. Statute: Public Resources Code § 75222 7. Guidelines for Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Scope: Develop guidelines that describe methodologies that recipient transit agencies shall use to demonstrate that proposed expenditures will meet the established criteria Agency: CalTrans (working with ARB) Process: Undefined Statute: Public Resources Code Section 75230(f)
www.calcog.org Page 5
CAP & TRADE: Transit, Housing, and Sustainable Communities June 23, 2014
VI. ILLUSTRATIVE REVENUE ESTIMATE
The “ballpark” projections below are only “illustrative.” We cannot predict future auction revenues. But planners and economists make such projections all the time—see (for example) any forecast in a regional transportation plan. The table estimates revenues from FY 14-15 through FY 19-20 (but the two auctions in the first half of FY 20-21 are not included). Its based on the following assumptions:
• Total Allowances. ARB has published the number of state allowances that will be sold each year through 2020. But this assumption may be “optimistic” if the state elects to give more allowances away in lieu of sale if (for example) there is significant public concern about the economic effects (e.g, price of gas increases).
• 75% Sell Rate for Allowances. Not all allowances sell at every auction. The table below includes a very “back-of-the-envelope” guess that 75% of the allowances will actually sell. Some would call this assumption “conservative.”
• Price. Under current policy, the minimum price for allowances increases by 5% plus an inflation factor each year. This table starts with the minimum price in the first half of FY 14-15 and adds 5% (with no inflation factor) each year. The LAO noted in its Cap and Trade Report for the FY 14-15 Budget that “several economists” have estimated that the average price would be between $15 and $20 per ton. Thus, this could also be a conservative assumption. The total revenue under these assumptions (counting the omitted two auctions) is approximately $8.8 billion, well shy of the $12 to $45 billion range cited by the LAO. Accordingly, the table below may be a conservative estimate—which is why they are presented here for illustrative purposes only.
FISCAL YEAR 14/15 15/16 16/17 18/19 17/18 19/20 Allowances Offered (in millions) 125 195 182 128 155 68 75% Sell Rate (in millions) 93.75 146.25 136.5 96 116.25 51
Minimum Price $11.34 $11.91 $12.50 $13.78 $13.13 $14.47
TOTAL AUCTION REVENUES $1,063,125,000 $1,741,398,750 $1,706,570,775 $1,323,248,724 $1,526,068,097 $738,124,679
20% - Afford Housing & Sustainable Communities $212,625,000 $348,279,750 $341,314,155 $264,649,745 $305,213,619 $147,624,936
10% - Transit Capital $106,312,500 $174,139,875 $170,657,078 $132,324,872 $152,606,810 $73,812,468
5%- Transit Operations $53,156,250 $87,069,938 $85,328,539 $66,162,436 $76,303,405 $36,906,234
“SUSTAINABLE” TOTAL $372,093,750 $609,489,563 $597,299,771 $463,137,053 $534,123,834 $258,343,638
www.calcog.org Page 6
CAP & TRADE: Transit, Housing, and Sustainable Communities June 23, 2014
VII. SELECTED LANGUAGE from SB 862
SECTION 1. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
. . . . (omitted text) (6) As required by existing law, the use of the moneys appropriated from the GGRF for the Cap- and-Trade Expenditure Plan furthers the regulatory purposes of AB 32 by facilitating the achievement of reductions in greenhouse gases in the state. The Cap-and-Trade Expenditure Plan includes the following programmatic investment areas: (A) Transit, Affordable Housing, and Sustainable Communities. (B) High-Speed Rail. (C) Low Carbon Transportation. (D) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. (E) Natural Resources and Waste Diversion. (7) Programs included in the Cap-and-Trade Expenditure Plan include the following: (A) Expenditures for low-carbon transportation that include, but are not limited to, cleaning up cars, trucks, buses, and freight movement to meet federally mandated clean air requirements and long-term greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals, funding for heavy-duty freight, electric vehicle programs and rebates, and off-road vehicles.
. . . . (omitted text) (D) The Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program, which authorizes the Strategic Growth Council to fund land-use, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects to support infill and compact development that reduces greenhouse gas emissions. These projects, which were described in the AB 32 Scoping Plan, facilitate the reduction of the emissions of greenhouse gases by improving mobility options and increasing infill development, which decrease vehicle miles traveled and associated greenhouse gas and other emissions, and by reducing land conversion, which would result in emissions of greenhouse gases. (E) The Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program, which authorizes the California Transportation Commission to provide grants, based on determinations of the Transportation Agency, to fund capital improvements and operational investments that will modernize California’s transit systems and intercity, commuter, and urban rail systems to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by reducing vehicle miles traveled throughout California. (F) The Low Carbon Transit Operations Program, which authorizes the Controller to provide funding allocations based on project evaluation from the Department of Transportation and the State Air Resources Board, to fund operation investments to increase transit ridership and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by reducing vehicle miles traveled throughout California. (G) The High Speed Rail Program, which authorizes the High Speed Rail Authority to utilize funds to begin the initial operating segment and the Phase I Blended System, and further environmental and design work on the statewide high speed rail system. The Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century (Chapter 20 (commencing with Section 2940) of Division 3 of the Streets and Highways Code), approved by the voters in 2008, specifies that the high-speed train system, once it is completed and becomes operational, will contribute significantly toward the goal of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants and will help reduce California’s dependence on foreign energy sources. As recognized in the AB 32 Scoping Plan, implementation of a high speed rail system will
www.calcog.org Page 7
CAP & TRADE: Transit, Housing, and Sustainable Communities June 23, 2014
facilitate the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants by providing the foundation for a large-scale transformation of California’s transportation infrastructure, displacing millions of vehicle miles traveled on the road, reducing demand for air travel, and increasing train ridership to ensure that the state’s greenhouse gas emission reductions are maintained and continued.
. . . . . (omitted text)
SEC. 3. Section 16428.9 of the Government Code is amended to read:
16428.9. (a) Prior to expending any moneys appropriated to it by the Legislature from the fund, a state agency shall prepare a record consisting of all of the following: (1) A description of each expenditure proposed to be made by the state agency pursuant to the appropriation. (2) A description of how a proposed expenditure will further the regulatory purposes of Division 25.5 (commencing with Section 38500) of the Health and Safety Code, including, but not limited to, the limit established under Part 3 (commencing with Section 38550) and other applicable requirements of law. (3) A description of how a proposed expenditure will contribute to achieving and maintaining greenhouse gas emission reductions pursuant to Division 25.5 (commencing with Section 38500) of the Health and Safety Code. (4) A description of how the state agency considered the applicability and feasibility of other nongreenhouse gas reduction objectives of Division 25.5 (commencing with Section 38500) of the Health and Safety Code. (5) A description of how the state agency will document the result achieved from the expenditure to comply with Division 25.5 (commencing with Section 35800) of the Health and Safety Code. (b) The State Air Resources Board shall develop guidance on reporting and quantification methods for all state agencies that receive appropriations from the fund to ensure the requirements of this section are met. Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 does not apply to the procedures developed pursuant to this subdivision. (omitted text)
SEC. 5. Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read: 39711. (a) The California Environmental Protection Agency shall identify disadvantaged communities for investment opportunities related to this chapter. These communities shall be identified based on geographic, socioeconomic, public health, and environmental hazard criteria, and may include, but are not limited to, either of the following: (1) Areas disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative public health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation. (2) Areas with concentrations of people that are of low income, high unemployment, low levels of homeownership, high rent burden, sensitive populations, or low levels of educational attainment. (b) The California Environmental Protection Agency shall hold at least one public workshop prior to the identification of disadvantaged communities pursuant to this section. (c) Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of the Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code does not apply to the identification of disadvantaged communities pursuant to this section.
www.calcog.org Page 8
CAP & TRADE: Transit, Housing, and Sustainable Communities June 23, 2014
SEC. 6. Section 39715 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read: 39715. (a) The state board, in consultation with the California Environmental Protection Agency shall develop funding guidelines for administering agencies that receive appropriations from the fund to ensure the requirements of this chapter are met. The guidelines shall include a component for how administering agencies should maximize benefits for disadvantaged communities, as described in Section 39711. (b) The state board shall provide an opportunity for public input prior to finalizing the guidelines. (c) Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of the Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code does not apply to the guidelines developed pursuant to this section.
SEC. 7. Section 39719 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read: 39719. (a) The Legislature shall appropriate the annual proceeds of the fund for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in this state in accordance with the requirements of Section 39712. (b) To carry out a portion of the requirements of subdivision (a), annual proceeds are continuously appropriated for the following: (1) Beginning in the 2015–16 fiscal year, and notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government Code, 35 percent of annual proceeds are continuously appropriated, without regard to fiscal years, for transit, affordable housing, and sustainable communities programs as following: (A) Ten percent of the annual proceeds of the fund is hereby continuously appropriated to the Transportation Agency for the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program created by Part 2 (commencing with Section 75220) of Division 44 of the Public Resources Code. (B) Five percent of the annual proceeds of the fund is hereby continuously appropriated to the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program created by Part 3 (commencing with Section 75230) of Division 44 of the Public Resources Code. Funds shall be allocated by the Controller, according to requirements of the program, and pursuant to the distribution formula in subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 99312 of, and Sections 99313 and 99314 of, the Public Utilities Code. (C) Twenty percent of the annual proceeds of the fund is hereby continuously appropriated to the Strategic Growth Council for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program created by Part 1 (commencing with Section 75200) of Division 44 of the Public Resources Code. Of the amount appropriated in this subparagraph, no less than 10 percent of the annual proceeds shall be expended for affordable housing, consistent with the provisions of that program. (2) Beginning in the 2015–16 fiscal year, notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government Code, 25 percent of the annual proceeds of the fund is hereby continuously appropriated to the High-Speed Rail Authority for the following components of the initial operating segment and Phase I Blended System as described in the 2012 business plan adopted pursuant to Section 185033 of the Public Utilities Code: (A) Acquisition and construction costs of the project. (B) Environmental review and design costs of the project. (C) Other capital costs of the project. (D) Repayment of any loans made to the authority to fund the project. (c) In determining the amount of annual proceeds of the fund for purposes of the calculation in subdivision (b), the funds subject to Section 39719.1 shall not be included.
www.calcog.org Page 9
CAP & TRADE: Transit, Housing, and Sustainable Communities June 23, 2014
SEC. 20. Section 75121 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read: 75121. (a) The Strategic Growth Council is hereby established in state government and it shall consist of the Director of State Planning and Research, the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, the Secretary for Environmental Protection, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of California Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Business, Consumer Services, and Housing, the Secretary of Food and Agriculture, one member of the public appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly, one member of the public appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules, and one member of the public to be appointed by the Governor. The public members shall have a background in land use planning, local government, resource protection and management, or community development or revitalization and shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. (b) Staff for the council shall be reflective of the council’s membership.
SEC. 21. Division 44 (commencing with Section 75200) is added to the Public Resources Code, to read: Transit, Affordable Housing, and Sustainable Communities Program
PART 1. Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities CHAPTER 1. General Provisions
75200. For the purposes of this part, the following terms have the following meanings: (a) “Council” means the Strategic Growth Council established pursuant to Section 75121. (b) “Disadvantaged communities” means communities identified as disadvantaged communities pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code. (c) “Program” means the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program established pursuant to Section 75210.
75200.1. Consistent with Section 75125, the council, in consultation with the State Air Resources Board, shall review and coordinate the activities of member agencies of the council for the programs included in this part. The council shall review these programs, including grant guidelines of each program, consistent with Chapter 4.1 (commencing with Section 39710) of Part 2 of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code, including the recommendations of the investment plan, Article 9.7 (commencing with Section 16428.8) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code, and Chapter 4.2 (commencing with Section 21155) of Division 13 of this code.
CHAPTER 2. Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program 75210. The council shall develop and administer the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through projects that implement land use, housing, transportation, and agricultural land preservation practices to support infill and compact development, and that support related and coordinated public policy objectives, including the following: (a) Reducing air pollution. (b) Improving conditions in disadvantaged communities. (c) Supporting or improving public health and other cobenefits as defined in Section 39712 of the Health and Safety Code. (d) Improving connectivity and accessibility to jobs, housing, and services. (e) Increasing options for mobility, including the implementation of the Active Transportation Program established pursuant to Section 2380 of the Streets and Highways Code. (f) Increasing transit ridership.
www.calcog.org Page 10
CAP & TRADE: Transit, Housing, and Sustainable Communities June 23, 2014
(g) Preserving and developing affordable housing for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (h) Protecting agricultural lands to support infill development.
75211. To be eligible for funding pursuant to the program, a project shall do all of the following: (a) Demonstrate that it will achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. (b) Support implementation of an adopted or draft sustainable communities strategy or, if a sustainable communities strategy is not required for a region by law, a regional plan that includes policies and programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (c) Demonstrate consistency with the state planning priorities established pursuant to Section 65041.1 of the Government Code.
75212. Projects eligible for funding pursuant to the program include any of the following: (a) Intermodal, affordable housing projects that support infill and compact development. (b) Transit capital projects and programs supporting transit ridership. (c) Active transportation capital projects that qualify under the Active Transportation Program, including pedestrian and bicycle facilities and supportive infrastructure, including connectivity to transit stations. (d) Noninfrastructure-related active transportation projects that qualify under the Active Transportation Program, including activities that encourage active transportation goals conducted in conjunction with infrastructure improvement projects. (e) Transit-oriented development projects, including affordable housing and infrastructure at or near transit stations or connecting those developments to transit stations. (f) Capital projects that implement local complete streets programs. (g) Other projects or programs designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other criteria air pollutants by reducing automobile trips and vehicle miles traveled within a community. (h) Acquisition of easements or other approaches or tools that protect agricultural lands that are under pressure of being converted to nonagricultural uses, particularly those adjacent to areas most at risk of urban or suburban sprawl or those of special environmental significance. (i) Planning to support implementation of a sustainable communities strategy, including implementation of local plans supporting greenhouse gas emissions reduction efforts and promoting infill and compact development.
75213. A project eligible for funding pursuant to the program shall be encouraged to promote the objectives of Section 75210, and economic growth, reduce public fiscal costs, support civic partnerships and stakeholder engagement, and integrate and leverage existing housing, transportation, and land use programs and resources.
75214. In implementing the program, the council shall support the goals established pursuant to Chapter 830 of the Statutes of 2012 by ensuring a programmatic goal of expending 50 percent of program expenditure for projects benefiting disadvantaged communities. To the extent feasible, the council shall coordinate outreach to promote access and program participation in disadvantaged communities.
75215. (a) Prior to awarding funds under the program, the council, in coordination with the member agencies and departments of the council, the State Air Resources Board, and other state entities, as needed, shall develop guidelines and selection criteria for the implementation
www.calcog.org Page 11
CAP & TRADE: Transit, Housing, and Sustainable Communities June 23, 2014
of the program. (b) Prior to adoption of the guidelines and the selection criteria, the council shall conduct at least two public workshops to receive and consider public comments. One workshop shall be held at a location in northern California and one workshop shall be held at a location in southern California. (c) The council shall publish the draft guidelines and selection criteria on its Internet Web site at least 30 days prior to the public meetings. (d) In adopting the guidelines and selection criteria, the council shall consider the comments from local governments, regional agencies, and other stakeholders. The council shall conduct outreach to disadvantaged communities to encourage comments on the draft guidelines from those communities. (e) Program guidelines may be revised by the council to reflect changes in program focus or need. Outreach to stakeholders shall be conducted, pursuant to subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) before the council adopts changes to guidelines. (f) Upon the adoption of the guidelines and selection criteria, the council shall, pursuant to Section 9795 of the Government Code, submit copies of the guidelines to the fiscal and appropriate policy committees of the Legislature. (g) Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code does not apply to the development and adoption of the guidelines and selection criteria pursuant to this section.
75216. (a) The council shall leverage the programmatic and administrative expertise of relevant state departments and agencies in implementing the program. (b) The council shall coordinate with the metropolitan planning organizations and other regional agencies to identify and recommend projects within their respective jurisdictions that best reflect the goals and objectives of this division.
75217. The executive director of the council shall report the progress on the implementation of the program in its annual report required pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 75125.
PART 2. Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program 75220. (a) The Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program is hereby created to fund capital improvements and operational investments that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, modernize California’s intercity, commuter, and urban rail systems to achieve all of the following policy objectives: (1) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (2) Expand and improve rail service to increase ridership. (3) Integrate the rail service of the state’s various rail operators, including integration with the high-speed rail system. (4) Improve rail safety. (b) The Transportation Agency shall evaluate applications for funding under the program consistent with the criteria set forth in this chapter and prepare a list of projects recommended for funding. The list may be revised at any time. (c) The California Transportation Commission shall award grants to applicants pursuant to the list prepared by the Transportation Agency.
75221. (a) Projects eligible for funding under the program include, but are not limited to, all of the following: (1) Rail capital projects, including acquisition of rail cars and locomotives, that expand, www.calcog.org Page 12
CAP & TRADE: Transit, Housing, and Sustainable Communities June 23, 2014
enhance, and improve existing rail systems and connectivity to existing and future rail systems, including the high-speed rail system. (2) Intercity and commuter rail projects that increase service levels, improve reliability, and decrease travel times. (3) Rail integration implementation, including integrated ticketing and scheduling systems, shared-use corridors, related planning efforts, and other service integration initiatives. (4) Bus rapid transit and other bus transit investments to increase ridership and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (b) In order to be eligible for funding under the program, a project shall demonstrate that it will achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. (c) The program shall have a programmatic goal of providing at least 25 percent of available funding to projects benefiting disadvantaged communities, consistent with the objectives of Chapter 830 of the Statutes of 2012. (d) In evaluating grant applications for funding, the Transportation Agency shall consider both of the following: (1) The cobenefits of projects that support implementation of sustainable communities strategies through one or more of the following: (A) Reducing auto vehicles miles traveled through growth in rail ridership. (B) Promoting housing development in the vicinity of rail stations. (C) Expanding existing rail and public transit systems. (D) Implementing clean vehicle technology. (E) Promoting active transportation. (F) Improving public health. (2) The project priorities developed through the collaboration of two or more rail operators and any memoranda of understanding between state agencies and local or regional rail operators. (3) Geographic equity. (4) Consistency with the adopted sustainable communities strategies and the recommendations of regional agencies. (e) Eligible applicants under the program shall be public agencies, including joint powers agencies, that operate existing or planned regularly scheduled intercity or commuter passenger rail service or urban rail transit service. An eligible applicant may partner with transit operators that do not operate rail service on projects to integrate ticketing and scheduling with bus or ferry service. (f) A recipient of funds under the program may combine funding from the program with other funding, including, but not limited to, the State Transportation Improvement Program, the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program, the State Air Resources Board clean vehicle program, and state transportation bond funds.
75222. (a) Applications for grants under the program shall be submitted to the Transportation Agency for evaluation in accordance with procedures and program guidelines adopted by the agency. (b) The Transportation Agency shall conduct at least two public workshops on draft program guidelines containing selection criteria prior to adoption and shall post the draft guidelines on the agency’s Internet Web site at least 30 days prior to the first public workshop. Concurrent with the posting, the agency shall transmit the draft guidelines to the fiscal committees and to the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature.
www.calcog.org Page 13
CAP & TRADE: Transit, Housing, and Sustainable Communities June 23, 2014
(c) Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code does not apply to the development and adoption of procedures and program guidelines for the program pursuant to this section.
PART 3. Low Carbon Transit Operations Program 75230. (a) The Low Carbon Transit Operations Program is hereby created to provide operating and capital assistance for transit agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve mobility, with a priority on serving disadvantaged communities. (b) Funding for the program is continuously appropriated pursuant to Section 39719 of the Health and Safety Code from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund established pursuant to Section 16428.8 of the Government Code. (c) Funding shall be allocated by the Controller consistent with the requirements of this part and with Section 39719 of the Health and Safety Code, upon a determination by the Department of Transportation that the expenditures proposed by a transit agency meet the requirements of this part and guidelines developed pursuant to subdivision (f), and the amount of funding requested that is currently available. (d) Moneys for the program shall be expended to provide transit operating or capital assistance that meets all of the following criteria: (1) Expenditures supporting new or expanded bus or rail services, or expanded intermodal transit facilities, and may include equipment acquisition, fueling, and maintenance, and other costs to operate those services or facilities. (2) The recipient transit agency demonstrates that each expenditure directly enhances or expands transit service to increase mode share. (3) The recipient transit agency demonstrates that each expenditure reduces greenhouse gas emissions. (e) For transit agencies whose service areas include disadvantaged communities as identified pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code, at least 50 percent of the total moneys received pursuant to this chapter shall be expended on projects or services that meet requirements of subdivision (d) and benefit the disadvantaged communities, consistent with the guidance developed by the State Air Resources Board pursuant to Section 39715 of the Health and Safety Code. (f) The Department of Transportation, in coordination with the State Air Resources Board, shall develop guidelines that describe the methodologies that recipient transit agencies shall use to demonstrate that proposed expenditures will meet the criteria in subdivisions (d) and (e) and establish the reporting requirements for documenting ongoing compliance with those criteria. (g) Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code does not apply to the development of guidelines for the program pursuant to this section. (h) A transit agency shall submit the following information to the Department of Transportation before seeking a disbursement of funds pursuant to this part: (1) A list of proposed expense types for anticipated funding levels. (2) The documentation required by the guidelines in developed pursuant to subdivision (f) to demonstrate compliance with subdivisions (d) and (e). (i) Before authorizing the disbursement of funds, the department, in coordination with the State Air Resources Board, shall determine the eligibility, in whole or in part, of the proposed list of expense types, based on the documentation provided by the recipient transit agency to ensure ongoing compliance with the guidelines developed pursuant to subdivision (f).
www.calcog.org Page 14
CAP & TRADE: Transit, Housing, and Sustainable Communities June 23, 2014
(j) The department shall notify the Controller of approved expenditures for each transit agency, and the amount of the allocation for each transit agency determined to be available at that time of approval. (k) The recipient transit agency shall provide annual reports to the Department of Transportation, in the format and manner prescribed by the department, consistent with the internal administrative procedures for use of fund proceeds developed by the State Air Resources Board. (l) The Department of Transportation and recipient transit agencies shall comply with the guidelines developed by the State Air Resources Board pursuant to Section 39715 of the Health and Safety Code to ensure that the requirements of Section 39714 of the Health and Safety Code are met to maximize the benefits to disadvantaged communities as described in Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code.
VIII. SB 852 (FY 14-15 Budget Allocations)
A. For Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities
0650-101-3228—For local assistance, Office of Planning and Research, Program 31- Strategic Growth Council ( ) ...... $129,201,000 1. The funds appropriated in this item may be available for transfer to the Department of Transportation, the Department of Housing and Community Development, the Department of Conservation, and the Natural Resources Agency for support costs and local assistance associated with administering the affordable housing and sustainable communities program. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the funds appropriated in this item shall be available for expenditure and encumbrance until June 30, 2017, for support and local assistance.
B. State Transit Assistance (Low Carbon Transit Operations)
2640-101-3228—For local assistance, State Transit Assistance, for allocation by the Controller pursuant to subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 99312, Section 99313, and Section 99314 of the Public Utilities Code ( )…………………….………$25,000,000
1. Notwithstanding Sections 99313 and 99314 of the Public Utilities Code, not more than $14,355 of the amount appropriated in this item shall reimburse the Controller for expenditures for administration of State Transit Assistance funds. 2. Funds appropriated in this item shall not be allocated prior to the enactment of implementing legislation and fulfillment of any specified requirement of that legislation. This implementing legislation shall establish requirements that funds be used to support additional transit services that result in additional greenhouse gas emission reductions to further the regulatory purposes of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, in accordance with Chapter 4.1 (commencing with Section 39710) of Part 2 of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code, including the recommendations of the investment plan, and Article 9.7 (commencing with Section 16428.8) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
www.calcog.org Page 15
CAP & TRADE: Transit, Housing, and Sustainable Communities June 23, 2014
C. Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program Page 117 -118. 2660-101-3228—For local assistance, Department of Transportation, payable from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund .... 24,791,000
1. Funds appropriated in this item shall be available for transit and intercity rail capital programs for allocation by the California Transportation Commission until June 30, 2016, and available for encumbrance and liquidation until June 30, 2020. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds appropriated in this item may be transferred to Item 2660-301-3228. These transfers shall require the prior approval of the Department of Finance.
D. General Provision Relating to Timing of Allocations (Page 683) SEC. 15.13. (a) Any appropriation from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, except for (1) appropriations in Items 2665-301-3228 and 2665- 306-3228 and (2) appropriations for state operations expenditures necessary for program administration, including statewide coordination and reporting activities by the State Air Resources Board for cap and trade expenditures, shall be subject to the restrictions specified in subdivision (b).
(b) No department shall encumber or commit more than 75 percent of any appropriation prior to the fourth cap and trade auction in the 2014–15 fiscal year. Upon determination of the final amount of auction proceeds after the fourth cap and trade auction, the Department of Finance shall make a final determination for the expenditure of the remaining auction proceeds. The Department of Finance shall notify the Joint Legislative Budget Committee no later than 30 days after the final determination.
www.calcog.org Page 16
Item #14-9-11 Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee Information
August 29, 2014
State Advocacy Update
Issue: Update on state advocacy issues related to SACOG.
Recommendation: None, this is for information only.
Discussion: The Legislature will adjourn no later than August 31. The Legislature is still considering several pieces of legislation of interest to SACOG, which will not be acted upon as of this writing. Staff will send an update to the Committee prior to the meeting.
Approved by:
Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer
MM:EJ:ts Attachment
Key Staff: Erik Johnson, Acting Manager of Policy and Administration, (916) 340-6247 SACOG State Legislative Report
. # Author Title Urgency Location Summary AB 380 Dickinson (D) Spill Response For no To Requires a rail carrier to report specified information regarding the transportation of Railroads enrollment hazardous materials to the Office of Emergency Services. Requires each rail carrier to maintain a response management communications center. Requires each rail carrier to provide the office with a summary of the rail carrier's hazardous materials emergency response plan. Requires the office to provide a copy of each summary report to each unified program agency. Prohibits divulging the plan to those unauthorized.
AB 471 Atkins (D) Redevelopment: yes Chaptered Authorizes a infrastructure financing district to finance a project or portion of a project Successor that is located in, or overlaps with, a redevelopment project area or former Agencies redevelopment project area. Authorizes a successor redevelopment agency to schedule Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule payments beyond the payment cycle upon a showing that a lender requires cash on hand beyond that cycle. Authorizes the use of estimates and projects to support payments. Relates to housing administrative costs funding. AB 543 Campos (D) California no Enrolled Requires the Office of Planning and Research to prepare and develop recommended Environmental amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act and for the Secretary of the Quality Act: Natural Resources Agency to certify and adopt those amendments to the guidelines to Translation establish criteria for a lead agency to assess the need for translating those notice into non- English languages. AB 1193 Ting (D) Bikeways no To Requires the Department of Transportation to establish and update minimum safety design enrollment criteria for each type of bikeway, with consideration for the safety of vulnerable populations. Requires the publishing of the new criteria by a specified date. Authorizes a local agency to utilize other minimum safety criteria if adopted by resolution at a public meeting. Repeals related requirements of the Department to include a report to the Legislature about the steps taken to implement certain requirements.
AB 1399 Medina (D) Taxation: no To Allows a credit under the Personal Income and Corporation Tax Laws, and a credit against Insurance Tax: enrollment the retaliatory tax imposed on an insured, in conformity with a federal New Markets Tax Credits: New Credit, for investments in low-income communities. Imposes specified duties on the State Market Tax Credit Competes Tax Credit Committee and GO-Biz with regard to the application for, and allocation of, the credit. Requires fees for application to a New Markets Tax Credit Fund that will defray the costs of the program.
AB 1447 Waldron (R) Global Warming no Enrolled Relates to moneys in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund under the Global Warming Solutions Act of Solutions Act of 2006. Authorizes moneys in the fund to be allocated for an investment in 2006 a traffic signal synchronization component that is part of a sustainable infrastructure component if the project is designed and implemented to achieve cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and includes specific emissions-reductions targets and metrics to evaluate the project's effect. AB 1471 Rendon (D) Water Quality, yes Chaptered Repeals provisions that creates the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of Supply, and 2012. Enacts the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 to Infrastructure authorize the issuance of bonds in a specified amount pursuant to the State General Improvement Obligation Bond Law to finance a water quality, supply, and infrastructure program. Reallocates a specified portion of the funds for the purposes of for specified propositions for the same purposes. AB 1690 Gordon (D) Local Planning: no Enrolled Authorizes a city or county to accommodate the very low and low-income housing need on Housing Elements sites designated for mixed uses if those sites allow a total residential use and require that residential use occupy 50% of the total floor area of a mixed use project.
AB 1720 Bloom (D) Vehicles: Bus no Chaptered Amends existing law that prohibits a publicly owned or operated transit system from Gross Weight procuring a transit bus whose weight on any single axis exceeds a specified weight. Extends the provision that exempts from this prohibition a transit system that is procuring a new bus that is of the same or lesser weight than the bus it is replacing, or if it is incorporating a new fleet class. Authorizes a transit system to procure a transit bus of a certain weight if it is incorporating a new fleet class expansion.
AB 1739 Dickinson (D) Groundwater no To Provides specific authority to a groundwater sustainability agency to impose certain fees. Management enrollment Authorizes the provision of technical assistance to entities that extract or use groundwater to promote water conservation and protect groundwater resources. Requires the publication on a Web site of sustainable management of groundwater best management practices. Authorizes inspections and related warrants. Designates probationary basins. Establishes groundwater reporting requirements.
1 of 4 As of 9/3/2014 SACOG State Legislative Report
AB 1957 Dickinson (D) State Highway no Enrolled Authorizes the Transportation Commission to relinquish to the City of Sacramento the Route 16 portion of State Highway Route 16 that is located within the city limits of that city and to relinquish to the County of Sacramento a specified portion of State Highway Route 16 that is located within the unincorporated area of that county under certain conditions.
AB 2013 Muratsuchi Vehicles: High- no To Governor Increases the number of identifiers that the Department of Motor Vehicles is authorized to (D) Occupancy issue under provisions authorizing the issuance of such identifiers to certain vehicles Vehicle Lanes permitted to use high-occupancy vehicle lanes. Relates to a vehicle that meets the enhanced advanced technology partial zero-emission vehicle (enhanced AT PZEV) standard or transitional zero-emission vehicle (TZEV) standard.
AB 2040 Garcia (D) Elected Officials no To Governor Requires a local agency to report to the Controller the annual compensation of its elected Compensation: officials, officers, and employees. Requires such agency required to report and that Reports and maintains an Internet Web site to post that information on the Controller's Government Disclosure Compensation in California Internet Web site. Requires the Controller to display the financial reports and the public official compensation on that Web site. Requires the entities to consult regarding the reporting requirements for such disclosure.
AB 2119 Stone (D) Local Transaction no Chaptered Authorizes the board of supervisors of a county to levy, increase, or extend a transaction and Use Taxes and use tax throughout the entire county or within the unincorporated area of the county, if approved by the qualified voters of the entire county or the unincorporated area of the county, if levied on the unincorporated area of the county, requires tax revenues to only be used within the area for which the tax was approved by the qualified voters.
AB 2135 Ting (D) Surplus Land: no To Governor Requires an entity proposing to use local surplus land for developing low- and moderate- Affordable income housing to agree to make available less than a specified percentage of the total Housing number of units developed on the parcels at affordable housing cost of affordable rent for a minimum number of years to lower-income households. Requires a local agency to give priority to entities that agree to these requirements. Provides requirements must be in a related recorded covenant. Provides for a lower development total.
AB 2170 Mullin (D) Joint powers no To Governor Provides that parties involved in a joint powers authority agreement may exercise any Authorities: power common to the contracting parties, including, but not limited to, the authority to Common Powers levy a fee, assessment, or tax.
AB 2280 Alejo (D) Community no To Authorizes certain local agencies to form a community revitalization authority within a Revitalization and enrollment community revitalization and investment area, to carry out provisions of the Community Investment Redevelopment Law. Provides for the financing of these activities by the issuance of bonds Authorities serviced by tax increment revenues. Provides for periodic audits of the authority with respect to affordable housing. AB 2398 Levine (D) Vehicles: no Enrolled Amends provisions of existing law that provides fines for violations by drivers of specified Pedestrians and offenses of the road that causes bodily injury or great bodily injury to another person who Bicyclists is a vulnerable road user. Provides for an increase in a related fine range.
AB 2413 Perez J (D) The Office of no Enrolled Creates the Office of Farm to Fork to work with the agricultural industry and other Farm to Fork organizations involved in promoting food access and to increase the amount of agricultural products available to underserved communities and schools in the state. Requires the office to identify urban and rural communities that lack access to healthy food. Creates the Farm to Fork Account in the Department of Food and Agriculture Fund. Requires an overview of the account's income and expenditures. AB 2414 Ting (D) Parking Facilities: no Chaptered Specifies that the use of electricity by state government and other government entities, Electric Vehicle state officers and employees, or other persons for the charging of an electric vehicle in a Charging department maintained or joint use motor vehicle parking facility is not a gift of public funds that is prohibited by the California Constitution.
AB 2707 Chau (D) Vehicles: Buses: no Enrolled Amends an existing law which imposes a limitation on the length of vehicles that may be Bicycle operated on the highways, and which exempts from the limitation a bus, except a Transportation schoolbus, operated by a public agency or a passenger stage corporation, used in transit Devices system service, and provides an exemption therefor. Increases the lengths described in the exemption. HR 29 Gomez (D) Outsourcing Adopted Opposes outsourcing of public services and assets, which harms transparency, Public Services accountability, shared prosperity, and competition, and supports processes that give public service workers the opportunity to develop their own plan on how to delivery cost- effective, high-quality services.
2 of 4 As of 9/3/2014 SACOG State Legislative Report
SB 486 DeSaulnier Department of no To Authorizes the State Transportation Commission to prescribe study areas for analysis and (D) Transportation: enrollment evaluation by the Department of Transportation and to establish guidelines for the State Goals and Transportation Plan. Requires the Department to submit to the Commission an Performance interregional transportation strategic plan directed at a high-functioning and balanced interregional transportation system and to prepare an assess management plan to guide for state highway operation and protection including budgeting.
SB 628 Beall (D) Enhanced no To Authorizes a local government body to establish an enhanced infrastructure financing Infrastructure enrollment district to finance capital facilities and other project to include brownfield restoration, Financing projects on a former military base, and low and moderate income housing. Requires Districts specific events to occur before the district can implement a financing plan. Authorizes projects through tax increment financing. Authorizes projects that are located or overlap in a redevelopment area or a former redevelopment project area.
SB 674 Corbett (D) CEQA: no To Governor Relates to California Environmental Quality Act exemptions for residential infill projects, Exemption: exempts as residential a use consisting of residential units and primary neighborhood- Residential Infill serving goods, services, and retail uses that do not exceed a specified percentage of the Projects total building square footage of the project. SB 969 DeSaulnier Public Works no To Governor Authorizes provisions of existing law to be known and cited as the Public Works Project (D) Oversight Improvement Act. Defines a megaproject as a specified transportation project. Requires the agency administering a megaproject to establish a peer review group and to take specified actions to manage the risks associated with a megaproject including establishing a comprehensive risk management plan, and regularly reassessing its reserves. Requires project-related information to be posted on an agency's Web site.
SB 1077 DeSaulnier Vehicles: Road no Enrolled Requires the Chair of the State Transportation Commission to create a Road Usage Charge (D) Usage Charge Technical Advisory Committee to study the charge alternatives to the gas tax and make Pilot Program recommendations on the design of a pilot program. Authorizes the Committee to make recommendations on the criteria to be used to evaluate the program. Requires the preparation and submission of a program related report to Legislative committees. Requires the Commission to include same in its annual report to the Legislature.
SB 1129 Steinberg (D) Successor no To Relates to the procedures of an successor redevelopment agency regarding the receipt of Agencies to enrollment a finding of completion of a project entered into by the previous redevelopment agency. Redevelopment Relates to the recalculation of the accumulated on the remaining balance of a loan. Agencies Relates to the rejection of an enforceable obligation from a recognized obligation payment scheduled for a successor agency that has received a finding of completion. Provides an agency officer or employee may acquire an interest in project property.
SB 1168 Pavley (D) Groundwater no To Relates to groundwater management. Requires the development of prioritization criteria Management enrollment for identifying groundwater basins and subbasins that should be prioritized based on impacts to habitat and surface water resources. Prohibits the adoption of groundwater management plans by local agencies after a specified date. Provides for sustainability plans and for the authority of local agencies that elect to become groundwater sustainability agencies. Provides for inspections and warrants.
SB 1183 DeSaulnier Surcharge for no To Governor Authorizes a city, county, or regional park district to impose and collect, as a special tax, (D) Bicycle a motor vehicle registration surcharge for bicycle infrastructure purposes. Requires the Infrastructure Department of Motor Vehicles to administer the surcharge and to transmit the net revenues to the local agency. Requires the local agency to use the revenues for improvements to paved and natural surface trails and bikeways, including existing and new trails, and for associated maintenance purposes. Requires related reports.
SB 1236 Monning (D) Transit Districts: no Chaptered Authorizes transit district employees or security officers to enforce State laws regarding Transit Offenses prohibited acts on or in public transportation systems or property, facilities, or vehicles. and Enforcement Prohibits giving false information to district employees or security officers and violating district rules regarding having bicycles on district vehicles.
SB 1312 Steinberg (D) Transportation no To Amends existing law requiring California Transportation Commission to adopt an annual Commission: enrollment report for submission to the Legislature. Deletes the provision relating to the loan and Annual Report transfer summary and discussion that was to be included in the reports submitted between certain calendar years.
3 of 4 As of 9/3/2014 SACOG State Legislative Report
SB 1319 Pavley (D) Hazardous no To Creates the Regional Railroad Accident Preparedness and Immediate Response Force in the Materials: enrollment Office of Emergency Services. Designates this force as being responsible for providing Railroad Tank regional and onsite response capabilities in the event of a release of hazardous materials Cars from a railroad tank car or a railroad accident involving a tank car. Requires an accident preparedness and immediate response plan. Requires a schedule of fees for transportation through the state. SB 1353 Nielsen (R) Local no To Governor Amends the Williamson Act, which authorizes a city or county to enter into contracts with Government: owners of land devoted to agricultural use, whereby the owners agree to continue using Williamson Act the property for that purpose, and the city or county agrees to value the land accordingly for purposes of property taxation. Authorizes a county to utilize the process for revising or entering into contracts to specify certain terms indefinitely and to utilize the process for revising or entering into contracts for certain farmland.
SB 1433 Hill (D) Local Agency no To Relates to the Local Agency Public Construction Act. Extends the authorization for a Public enrollment transit operator to enter into a design-build contract and to submit required information. Construction: Design-Build Contract
4 of 4 As of 9/3/2014
Item #14-9-12 Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee Information
August 29, 2014
State and Federal Transportation Funding Update
Issue: Update on state and federal transportation funding issues.
Recommendation: None, this item is for information only.
Discussion: With Congress on break in August, in lieu of a regular federal update, staff has prepared a very high-level overview of state and federal transportation funding issues. This item covers the overall funding challenges at the state and federal levels, and outlines some of the options proposed to create reliable transportation funding. Staff is available to provide more information to the committee, individual board members, or member jurisdictions if they are interested in more detail about how transportation funding currently works and what may change in the future. Staff will also bring back information about local transportation funding issues this fall. This information is also being provided to the Transportation Committee.
Federal On August 8, President Obama signed an extension of the Highway Trust Fund and the surface transportation authorization law, MAP-21. This extension provides certainty about federal funding through May 2015; however, the Highway Trust Fund will continue to exist with a structural deficit and remain dependent on transfers from the General Fund to remain solvent. The Highway Trust Fund is funded by the federal fuel excise tax (18.4 cents per gallon), which has not been increased since 1993. Revenues generated by the federal excise tax are insufficient to cover annual expenditures from the Highway Trust Fund. Between 2008 and 2010, Congress authorized the transfer of $35 billion from the General Fund to keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent. Construction cost increases, general inflation, and more fuel-efficient vehicles all have eroded the purchasing power of the excise tax. Adjusted for inflation alone, the tax would need to be raised to 30 cents per gallon to match the 1993 level. While MAP-21 provided a slight inflation adjustment for formula programs, as a whole, it provides less than the prior transportation authorization, SAFETEA-LU, did ($55 billion vs. $57 billion per year). By comparison, between the 1991 and 1998 transportation bills, there was a 70 percent increase in funding, and another 50 percent increase between 1998 and 2005. Attached is a memo from Transportation for America that outlines some of the federal issues and what options exist for fixing the Highway Trust Fund.
State California’s State Highway Account, Public Transportation Account, and other transportation accounts also face demands far in excess of the monies available on an annual basis, and depend on transfers from the General Fund or other accounts and transportation project delays to remain solvent. Similar to federal fuel taxes, California’s fuel taxes have declined in purchasing power over the last couple of decades with a base excise tax that has not increased since 1994. The fuel tax swap passed by the Legislature in 2010 replaced the state sales tax on gasoline with an equivalent indexed excise tax, but did not result in any net increase in fuel tax receipts. The fuel tax swap also redirected truck weight fees out of the State Highway Account to make debt service payments on the nearly $20 billion Proposition 1B bond package passed by voters in 2006, further reducing the ongoing funding available to programs dependent on the account. The funding generated by Proposition 1B will be fully spent in the next couple of years. The attached chart from a Caltrans transportation funding guide provides a simplified overview of how transportation revenues are used in California. State and Federal Transportation Funding Update Page 2
At the state level, there has been discussion of funding alternatives to the fuel tax, with Cap-and-Trade being the most recent. However, the cap-and-trade funding included in the 2014-15 State Budget does not fund road or transit maintenance, the two most critical funding needs in the state. Another funding idea, which would potentially replace the excise tax in the future, is a mileage-based user fee, or vehicle-miles traveled fee. Also attached is a recent report from the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) that provides a good California-focused overview of funding options. The positions represented by ACEC do not reflect those of SACOG, but the report is a valuable information source.
Approved by:
Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer
MM:EJ:gg Attachments
Key Staff: Erik Johnson, Acting Manager of Policy and Administration, (916) 340-6247 Clint Holtzen, Associate Planner, (916) 340-6246
1707 L Street NW • Suite 250 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-955-5543 Fax: 202-955-5543 www.t4america.org
TO: Sacramento Area Council of Governments FROM: Transportation for America DATE: August 18, 2014 RE: Highway Trust Fund
Action Taken By Congress in July Just before Congress recessed for the August recess, they passed legislation to both extend MAP-21 through May 31, 2015 and transfer $10.8 billion from the general fund to cover the anticipated shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund over the next 10 months.
During debate over the legislation in the Senate there was a bipartisan effort to shorten the length of the extension to December 31, 2014 and reduce the transfer from general fund correspondingly. One of the lead Senators in pushing this effort was Senator Boxer. Although the amendment received bipartisan support when it was voted on by the Senate the House did not support the amendment. As a result, it was not included in the final version of the legislation that was passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by the President of August 8, 2014.
Both the Senators who championed the amendment as well as transportation stakeholders, including Transportation for America, who supported the amendment argued that tackling the ongoing funding shortfall the Highway Trust Fund has faced over the past several years during the lame duck session of Congress may take away some of the political pressures members face before an election and enable them to truly pass a long-term funding solution to the Highway Trust Fund.
Concerns About the Length of the Extension One of the greatest concerns of transportation stakeholders about the both the length the extension of MAP- 21 as well as the when the next must pass fix to the Highway Trust Fund will hit is the other must pass legislation Congress will be working on at the same time.
Specifically, the Department of Treasury will hit the statutory debt limit in mid-March 2015. If Congress does not pass legislation to increase the statutory debt limit by mid-March the U.S. government will have to default on some of its obligations and will have to shut down some programs, an event that would cause severe market turmoil. Additionally, Congress must pass legislation before March 31, 2015 delay reductions to the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR), which is used to determine physicians’ reimbursement rates under Medicare. The current SGR formula has threatened to impose steep cuts in Medicare physician fee schedule payments for care provided to America’s seniors because of how the SGR is calculated. To prevent this, Congress has passed a series of temporary fixes to the SGR to prevent these payment reductions so that doctors will continue to see Medicare patients.
The combination of the debt limit and the SGR fix have many transportation stakeholders concerned that Congress will face too many must do pieces of legislation at approximately the same time as MAP-21 will expire and the Highway Trust Fund will need a general fund transfer. Also, many are concerned that in addition to these must pass pieces of legislation as well as 2016 being a presidential election year that a true conversation about passing a funding fix to the Highway Trust Fund and a reauthorization of MAP-21 could slip until after the 2016 election. Transportation for America (T4America) is an alliance of elected, business and civic leaders from communities across the country, united to ensure that states and the federal government step up to invest in smart, homegrown, locally-driven transportation solutions — because these are the investments that hold the key to our future economic prosperity.
Page 2 of 4
Options for Fixing the Looming Insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund As Congress continues to debate a long-term solution for the Highway Trust Fund, a number of different funding mechanisms are being considered. One of the greatest obstacles to Congress developing a long-term funding solution is members of Congress are concerned about voting for a tax increase. Last time Congress voted to increase the gas tax it was was paired with a deficit reduction package. This comes at the same time as numerous national poles indicate Americans support investment transportation, but this support decreases when they do not have a good sense of what this increased investment is actually purchasing them.
Corporate Tax Reform As part of the President’s MAP-21 reauthorization proposal, the GROW AMERICA Act, the President proposed to increased investment in transportation by 37 percent over MAP-21. To raise this revenue, the President has talked about corporate tax reform but has not released a specific proposal to raise the revenue. The Administration’s proposal simply indicates that the GROW AMERICA Act will dedicate $150 billion in one-time transitional revenue from pro-growth business tax reform to pay for critical transportation improvements.
Increasing the Gas Tax A number of traditional transportation stakeholders support an increase to the gas tax, at least in the short term, to address the continuing shortfall in revenue facing the Highway Trust Fund. In supporting an increase the gas tax, they also support indexing the gas tax to inflation to ensure its purchasing power does not continue to wane. Another point that is raised in support of increasing the gas tax is as cars become more fuel efficient, the gas tax collecting is shrinking but the need to repair and make improvements to our transportation infrastructure are increasing. A number of transportation stakeholders are pointing to data that demonstrates that when a state increases its gas tax, the price of gas does not increase proportionality.
In Congress, Congressman Blumenauer (D-OR) has introduced legislation H.R. 3636, the UPDATE Act, which would phase in a 15-cent increase in the gas tax over three years. In the Senate Senator Murphy (D-CT) and Senator Corker (R-TN) have proposed to increase the gas tax by 12-cents over the next two years.
Also, when the Senate Finance Committee considered legislation to shore up the Highway Trust Fund in the immediate future Senator Carper (D-DE) and Senator Enzi (R-ID) introduced an amendment to simply tie the gas tax to inflation. Senator Carper also introduced an amendment to increase the gas tax 12-cents over the next two years and tie it to inflation.
The President has indicated in the past that he would not support a gas tax increase. However, as Secretary Foxx has traveled to promote the GROW AMERICA Act he has ever so slightly opened up to a potential gas tax increase to shore of the Highway Trust Fund.
Converting the Gas Tax to an Up Barrel Sales Tax Congressman DeFazio (D-OR) has introduced legislation H.R. 4848, the Repeal and Rebuild Act, that would repeal the federal gas tax and replace it with an increased tax on a barrel of oil that is processed into gasoline to $6.75. This tax would be indexed to inflation. Also, the legislation would index the diesel tax in inflation. This revenue would backfill the Highway Trust Fund shortfall. Congressman DeFazio argues this legislation would support a $324 billion six-year reauthorization of MAP-21.
Greater Use of Bond, Infrastructure Banks and Public-Private Partnerships Senate Finance Committee Chairman Wyden (D-OR) and Senator Hoeven (R-ND) have introduced S. 1250, the Transportation and Regional Infrastructure Project (TRIP) Bonds Act to allow states to issues up to $50
1707 L Street, N.W., Suite 250 • Washington, DC 20036 www.t4america.org
Page 3 of 4 billion - $1 billion per state – in bonds for transportation infrastructure projects over a six year period. These bonds would be issued by or for the benefit of a state infrastructure bank to fund qualified projects. Under the legislation, qualified projects include roads, bridges, rail and transit systems, ports and inland waterways proposed and approved by a state infrastructure bank. As the conversation surrounding a long-term solution to the Highway Trust Fund continues in Congress, we expect Chairman Wyden to continue to push for TRIP Bond proposal, especially as the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee.
Senator Warner (D-VA) has introduced S. 1716, the BRIDGE Act to establish a Infrastructure Financing Authority to provide direct loans and loan guarantees for the construction or repair of transportation, water and energy infrastructure projects. Projects to receive assistance under the BRIDGE would have to have an anticipated cost of $50 million or more, expect for rural projects where the anticipated project cost would have to be $10 billion. The Infrastructure Financing Authority would fund no more than 49 percent of a project costs. One of the objectives of the legislation is to spur private sector investment.
Congressman John Delaney (D-MD) and Senator Bennet (D-CO) have both introduced the Partnership to Build America Act with bipartisan support. This legislation would establish an American Infrastructure Fund to provide bond guarantees and make loans to states, local governments and non-profit infrastructure providers for transportation, energy, water, communication and educational facility infrastructure projects. To encourage the private sector to purchase these bonds, they would be able to repatriate a certain amount in overseas earnings tax-free for every $1 they invest in the bonds.
Moving to a Vehicles Miles Traveled Funding Stream The previous transportation authorization bill, SAFETEA-LU, recognized the looming shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund by authorizing two commissions to evaluate and make recommendations for alternative funding sources for the Highway Trust Fund. The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission (Commission) recommended transitioning from a gas tax to a user-fee based on vehicles miles traveled. The Commission highlighted that new vehicle designs are more fuel-efficient and public transit ridership is increasing, leading to less gas consumed. Also, the Commission pointed out that inflation has eroded the purchasing power of the fuel tax. All of these trends have created a dent in gas tax revenue, and the Commission argues that the vehicles-miles-traveled fee would be a way to mitigate these losses. Included in SAFETEA-LU was a provision to enable Oregon to try this on a pilot basis.
Congressman Blumenauer has introduced legislation that would fund a vehicle-miles-traveled pilot program to examine a new source of funding that the Congressman argues would help make up for the Highway Trust Fund deficit. The legislation calls of the Secretary of Treasury to undertake a series of studies to demonstrate the viability of a vehicles-miles-traveled revenue source in every state. Also, Chairman Boxer’s MAP-21 reauthorization bill passed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee includes a provision encouraging states to look at alternative mechanisms to fund transportation.
At the federal level criticism to moving to vehicle-miles-traveled system of funding the Highway Trust Fund mainly centers on the implications of a vehicles-miles-traveled funding mechanism.
Devolving the Transportation Program to the States Senator Lee (R-UT) and Congressman Graves (R-GA) have introduced legislation, the Transportation Empowerment Act that would devolve the federal surface transportation program to the states. Specifically, the legislation would lower the gas tax from 18.4 cents-per-gallon to 3.7 cents-per-gallon in five years. During that same time period, the bill would transfer authority over federal highways and transit programs to states and replace current congressional appropriations to block grants. Proponents of the legislation argue
1707 L Street, N.W., Suite 250 • Washington, DC 20036 www.t4america.org
Page 4 of 4 transportation investment decisions are best left to the states, while opponents argue the federal government is suited to handle transportation infrastructure that runs across state lines.
When the Senate considered legislation to extend MAP-21 through May 2015 and transfer $10.8 billion from the general fund to cover the shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund, a vote was taken on an amendment that was exactly the same as the bill. It failed on a vote of 28-69.
Impact on California and the Sacramento Metropolitan Region According to the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Highway Statistics Series 2001-2012, “Revenue Used by States” 48.1% of California’s capital transportation budget is federal dollars. If Congress does not find a long-term solution to the Highway Trust Fund, California would stand lose $4,874,210,701 in federal highway and transit funding annually. This is based on FHWA’s Revised Apportionment for Federal-aid Highway Funds for FY2014, Table 1 and Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Allocations for Formula and Discretionary Programs by State FY1998-2014. The Sacramento metropolitan region would stand to lose $59,451,807 in federal highway and transit funding. This is based on the FHWA’s “Fiscal year 2014 Supplementary Tables, Tables 3 and 10” and FTA’s FY2014 Apportionment Tables.
1707 L Street, N.W., Suite 250 • Washington, DC 20036 www.t4america.org A Simplified Overview of Transportation Funding Chart 1 Revenues State State Federal State State Diesel Base Price- Fuel Truck 1/4% Local Excise base Tax Weight Sales General Sales Toll Tax Sales Tax Tax Excise Fees Tax Tax Measures Prop 1B (AB 105) (Hwy Trust Fund) (AB 105) (TDA) (Chart 5) (Charts 18 & 19) (Chart 6) (Chart 10) (Chart 8)
Accounts Motor Vehicle
Fuel Account Hwys
Transportation Debt Service Fund (General Local Transp. Bay Area Fund) Funds (LTF) Toll Account Federal Aid Refunds & Aeronautics Highway Users
Transfers Account Tax Account (Chart 13) (Chart 2) Public Transp. Account (PTA) Chart 7 Federal Aid Transit
Active City & County State Highway Transportation Road Funds Account (SHA) Program (Chart 9) (Chart 3 & 4) (Chart 14)
Expenditures
Economic Analysis Branch (Chart 11 &12) (Chart 15) Division of Transportation Planning California Department of Transportation 2/2014 10 BUILD CALIFORNIA BETTER
AnOptions ACEC California For Long-TermInfrastructure Discussion Road PaperAnd Highway Funding
ACEC California J u n e 2 0 1 4 June 2014
William Wagner ACEC California is committed to advancing dialogue on infrastructure-related issues President facing California in the 21st century. This white paper on long-term road and highway Mary Erchul funding is the first in a series of discussion documents we plan to issue over the next President-Elect few years.
Bruce Presser California’s problems with funding transportation improvements are not going away, Vice President even as the overall economy itself improves. Finding the funds to make sure our roads Jeffrey Walker and highways are well maintained becomes an even higher priority than it was during Secretary-Treasurer the economic downturn. The pressure on our roads, highways and bridges, the daily John Moossazadeh wear and tear, the constant repairs and the dire need for roadway improvements to Immediate Past President reduce commute times will only become greater as California’s resurging economy adds jobs and vehicle traffic increases. While the move toward greater fuel efficiency should Eddie Kho ACEC National Director be applauded as it benefits our long-term environment, it will do nothing to relieve the wear and tear on our roadways. As cars use less gasoline, funding for transportation Brad Diede Executive Director paid as a tax per gallon will continually erode, while non-gasoline vehicles wear out roadways without paying a fair share. Federal and state gas taxes are already insufficient to keep pace with needed highway improvements and gas tax increases required to meet these needs are unlikely to be palatable to the state’s taxpayers.
The state gas tax was designed as a user fee. Only those who used the roads paid the tax. But it is a user fee that is reaching its natural limit. It’s time to rethink the way we fund highway infrastructure and develop sustainable and practical user fees to compensate for the growing shortfall in funding from the gas tax. This paper raises the question and looks at some of the alternatives being put forward in California today as well as the approaches taken in other states.
We hope you find the ideas presented in this white paper informative and illuminating. ACEC California will continue to contribute to the important discussion taking place today so that Californians can make informed decisions and create more sustainable jobs as we Build California Better.
William Wagner Brad Diede President Executive Director ACEC California ACEC California BUILD CALIFORNIA BETTER : OPTIONS FOR LONG-TERM ROAD AND HIGHWAY FUNDING
An ACEC California Infrastructure Discussion Paper
alifornia’s transportation infrastructure is at a crossroads. The C average pavement condition in a majority of counties is considered “at risk,”1 and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has projected a US$290 billion shortfall through 2020 for the maintenance and expansion of roads and highways.2 Caltrans also is preparing for fewer funding options. The successful $20 billion Proposition 1B bond program that financed transportation projects over the last several years is ending. Meanwhile, state and federal revenue for future transportation funding is expected to drop by about 40 percent, compared to the 2008 through 2013 time period.3
ACEC California June 2014 Build California Better: Options for Long-Term Road and Highway Funding
Like many other states in the country, California lacks a the gas pump. Not only must carmakers nominally long-range plan to raise the funds necessary to maintain achieve an average of 54.5 miles per gallon across its transportation infrastructure, let alone improve it their passenger fleets by 2025 to comply with aggressive to handle future needs. California’s business leaders Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards set and politicians, however, recognize that the state’s by the Obama Administration in 2012, but California economic growth depends on a sound transportation also leads the nation in the push to expand the number system. Subsequently, they have begun to search for of electric, hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles on the sustainable funding solutions as it becomes clear that roads. In his 2014 State of the State address, for the fuel tax model to raise transportation revenues is example, Governor Jerry Brown proclaimed that the becoming obsolete. state was on its way to putting “a million electric
Real Gas Tax Revenues Have Not Kept Pace With Road Use
160%
140
120
100
80
60 Inflation-Adjusted Gas Tax Revenue Vehicle-Miles Traveled 40 Inflation-Adjusted Gas Tax Revenue
20 Vehicle-Miles Traveled
91-92 93-94 95-96 97-98 99-00 01-02 03-04 05-06
Source: California Legislative Analysts Office, 2008
While raising the state’s current 39.5-cent excise tax on vehicles” on the road as part of his proposal to fund a gallon of gas could temporarily help bridge a funding electric automobile programs with a portion of the gap, many view this tax as unfair since not all users pay. $200 million raised in cap and trade auctions. This Even if the public were to approve such a tax increase, puts the state at the forefront when it comes to delivering the relief would be short-lived as more fuel-efficient sustainable, environmentally responsible transportation, vehicles increasingly populate the roads and bypass but according to some estimates, it could also result in the loss of more than $400 million annually in state gas tax revenue. That funding needs to be replaced since electric References cars cause the same degree of wear and tear on roads as gasoline-powered vehicles.4 1. Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd., California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment, January 2013. What’s more, the federal Highway Trust Fund, which 2. California State Auditor, Report 2013-601, Updated Assessment of High- is financed by the 18.4-cent federal excise tax on fuel Risk Issues the State and Select State Agencies Face, September 2013. and provides about $46 billion annually to state and 3. California State Department of Finance eBudgets local governments, is rapidly depleting its reserves and 4. Rick Geddes and Brad Wassink, Bring Highway Funding up to Speed, Wall Street Journal, June 17, 2014. could be insolvent by the end of the summer. One 5 5. U.S. PIRG Education Fund, A New Direction: Our Changing Relationship reason for this is that people are driving less. But a with Driving and the Implications for America’s Future, May 14, 2013 bigger factor is that inflation has eroded the value of
ACEC California June 2014 Page 3 Build California Better: Options for Long-Term Road and Highway Funding
gas tax receipts by 30 percent since it was last raised in have endeared it to forward-thinking transportation 1993.6 By 2030, as much as half of the revenue collected minds nationwide. But privacy concerns in an era of via the gas tax is projected to be lost to inflation.7 Trans- surveillance drones and National Security Agency fers from the general fund have propped up the highway eavesdropping revelations have thus far limited a fund for the past several years, and at least $16 billion in more robust debate. additional revenues are needed annually to simply main- tain current funding levels. The Obama Administration Nevertheless, states and the federal government are has proposed boosting the fund over the next four years beginning to explore the concept more aggressively. with $150 billion raised through corporate tax reform, “The consensus among transportation researchers is but viable reform options were never proposed and the that given the unknown array of vehicle power sources proposal was largely considered dead on arrival. It would that will be used over the next 50 years, it really makes be a dangerous gamble for state leaders to assume that sense to get away from a per-gallon tax on gas and diesel the federal government will continue to pour money and go to a system of charging by the mile,” said Robert into the Highway Trust Fund as spending for Social Poole, Jr., Searle Freedom Trust Transportation Fellow Security, Medicare and other entitlements continues and Director of Transportation Policy at the Reason to increase.8
With those challenges in mind, the California organization of the American Council of Engineering Companies, a nonprofit association “The concept’s nature as a true user fee — those who use that has been representing private engineering the roads most pay the most…[has] endeared it to forward and land surveying businesses for more than 50 thinking transportation minds nationwide.” years, is endeavoring to advance the discussion concerning future road and highway funding solutions. ACEC California consulted research issued by respected transportation policy analysts and Foundation. “What’s not going to change is the fact interviewed national and local experts who are leading that people are still going to go from point A to point efforts to find new ways to finance infrastructure. B—there are going to be wheels on the road—so they This report looks at a handful of new and not-so-new should pay for the roads they actually use.” funding possibilities, highlights the experience of states In California, ACEC California and others support the that have tried them, and provides some of the benefits and concept of establishing a mileage-based fee pilot program drawbacks of each. The programs are by no means the only by January 2016.9 While still early in formulation, it potential solutions available, but they are currently among would authorize Caltrans, the California Department of the best candidates, as indicated by funding experiments Motor Vehicles and other agencies to track vehicle miles. and debates occurring nationwide. ACEC California recognizes that persuading taxpayers to embrace new The Southern California Association of Governments has ideas when it comes to solving transportation funding estimated that a fee of 5 cents per mile beginning in 2025 needs will be a difficult challenge requiring education would raise $110.3 billion across the association’s six and patience, but it believes that stakeholders must counties.10 Still, officials in Riverside and San Bernardino pursue every opportunity available to secure the future counties have expressed skepticism about a mileage-based of California’s critical transportation infrastructure. References Mileage-Based Fees – An Idea 6. Loren Kaye, Clean Vehicles Should Lead the Way on Transportation Whose Time Has Come? Finance Overhaul, Sacramento Bee, June 12, 2014. The potential solution receiving the most attention from 7. Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, Text of SB 1077, February 19, 2014 the media and policy experts today is the mileage-based 8. Interview of Robert Poole, Jr., Searle Freedom Trust Transportation fee, also known in some states as the vehicle mileage tax Fellow and Director of Transportation Policy, Reason Foundation, (VMT). In its simplest form, this solution charges March 26, 2014. drivers for each mile traveled. The concept’s nature 9. California Transportation News, Should Alternative Powered Vehicles Pay for Highways? May 20, 2014. as a true user fee—those who use the roads most pay 10. Southern California Association of Governments, Regional the most—and its detachment from the gas pump Transportation Plan 2012-2035, Executive Summary, April 2012.
ACEC California June 2014 Page 4 Build California Better: Options for Long-Term Road and Highway Funding
fee because their residents are forced to drive longer Among other results, the state concluded that a VMT distances due to expansive geography and great distances system with different options could be easily adminis- between populations.11 tered; a private market for service providers exists; and a fee of 1.56 cents per mile was generally acceptable California’s endeavor would follow Oregon’s lead, which as a price point.12 Oregon also found that the per-mile has conducted two short-term VMT pilot programs charges generated 28 percent more revenues in 121,371 with some 385 subjects over the last eight years. The miles traveled when compared with the anticipated yield first program was GPS-based and drivers paid at the gas of the state’s fuel tax of 30 cents a gallon. The pilot pump. While Oregon’s Road User Fee Task Force came vehicles averaged 24.7 miles per gallon.13 away with favorable impressions, it held off on legislation amid citizen concerns over privacy. On July 1, 2015, Oregon will launch a program that will charge 5,000 volunteers 1.5 cents per mile and provide In its second experiment, Oregon gave drivers options fuel tax rebates for vehicles. It will also give drivers a such as paying a high up-front fee for unlimited miles or range e of cost options of e driving for cost mileage andof driving Oregon collecting and gas Oregon tax and in perspective reporting,gas tax in perspective using a private vendor to track mileage through a smart- Gas taxes and aGas potential taxes androad a usagepotential charge road represent usage charge a small represent a small including one thatportion does of thenot annualportion use cost ofvehicle the of driving.annual location cost of driving. technol- phone to determine in-state and out-of-state driving. It ogy. To alleviate privacy concerns for GPS-based systems, also provided the volunteers with a fuel tax credit. (The $5,000 $5,000 the Totalstate cost plansTotalTotal to cost cost destroyTotal costmileage data 30 days after second pilot program included drivers and transporta- $4,000 with current withwith potential current with potential 14 payment$4,000gas tax or aroad collectiongas usage tax road dispute usage is resolved. Current State Current State tion departments in Nevada and Washington.) system. charge.system. charge. Gas Tax Gas Tax $3,000 $3,000 Potential RoadPotential Road Usage Charge Usage Charge
$2,000 $2,000 Fuel (electricityFuel or gas) (electricity or gas) The Cost of Driving and Oregon Gas Tax in Perspective Maintenance Maintenance $1,000 & Insurance & Insurance Gas taxes and a potential road usage charge represent a small$1,000 portion of the annual cost of driving. e cost of driving and Oregon gas tax in perspective Costs based on 12,000 miles driven per year Gas taxes and a potential road usage charge represent a small at $3.50 per gallon of gasoline and assumed portion of the annual cost of driving. Hybrid VehiclesHybrid VehiclesElectric VehiclesElectric Vehicles electricity cost of $.035 per mile for electric Costs based on 12,000Costs based miles ondriven 12,000 per milesyear at driven $3.50 per per year gallon at $3.50of gasoline per gallon and assumed of gasoline electricity and assumed electricity vehicles, based on national average price per $5,000 cost of $.035 percost mile of for $.035 electric per milevehicles, for electric based on vehicles, national based average on national price per average kWh. Assumedprice per kWh. Assumed fuel efficiency is fuel50 MPG efficiency for hybrids. is 50 MPG Maintenance for hybrids. and Maintenance insurance costs and wereinsurance estimated costs forwere 2012 estimated for 2012 kWh. Assumed e fuel cost efficiency of driving is 50 MPGand for Oregon gas taxmodelTotal in year cost perspectiverepresentativemodel yearTotal vehicles representative cost using Edmunds.com vehicles using data Edmunds.com for both classes data offor vehicle both classes above. of vehicle above. ewith current current Oregon e withcurrentstate gas potential Oregon tax rate state is $0.30 gas taxper rate gallon is $0.30 and the per road gallon usage and charge the road is $0.0156 usage charge is $0.0156 hybrids. MaintenanceGas and taxes insurance and a potential costs road usage$4,000 charge representper mile; the roada persmall usage mile; charge the road for usage each classcharge of forvehicle each above class ofis thevehicle same, above as the is theannual same, mileage as the annual mileage travelledgas wastax assumed roadto be the usage same for each. Current State were estimated for 2012 model yearportion e of cost the annual of driving cost of driving. andsystem. Oregontravelled charge. wasgas assumed tax to be in the sameperspective for each. Gas Tax representative vehicles using Edmunds.comGas taxes and a potential road usage charge represent a small e cost$5,000 of driving and Oregon gas tax in perspective$3,000 Potential Road data for both classes of vehicle above. The portion of the annual cost of driving. Usage Charge Gascurrent taxes and Oregon a potentialTotal state cost gasroad tax Totalusage rate cost charge is $0.30 represent per a small e cost of driving and Oregonportion withgas currentof tax the $5,000 inannualwith perspective potential cost of driving. $2,000 Fuel (electricity or gas) $4,000gallon and thegas road tax usage roadcharge usage is $0.0156 Current State Gas taxes and a potential roadper mile; usage the charge roadsystem. represent usage charge acharge. small for eachTotal classcost of Total cost Gas Tax Maintenance $5,000 portion of the annual cost of driving. with current with potential & Insurance $3,000vehicle above is the same,$4,000 as the annualgas mileagetax road$1,000 usage Potential Road Current State Total cost Total cost system. charge. Usage Charge Gas Tax $5,000 with current travelledwith potential was assumed to be the same for each. $4,000 gas tax road usage $3,000 Current State Potential Road Total cost Total cost system. $2,000charge. Gas Tax Fuel (electricity or gas) Usage Charge with current with potential $4,000 gas tax road usage Potential Road $3,000 Current State Maintenance Fuel (electricity or gas) system. charge. $1,000 $2,000Gas Tax Usage Charge & Insurance Hybrid Vehicles Electric Vehicles $3,000 Potential Road Source:Maintenance Oregon DoT $2,000 Usage Charge Fuel (electricity or gas) & Insurance $1,000 Costs based on 12,000 miles driven per year at $3.50 per gallon of gasoline and assumed electricity References Maintenancecost of $.035 per mile for electric vehicles, based on national average price per kWh. Assumed Fuel (electricity or gas) $2,000 $1,000 & InsurancefuelSimilarly, efficiency the is 50University MPG for hybrids.of Iowa Maintenance conducted aand federally insurance costs were estimated for 2012 11. Steve Scauzillo, California could start taxing motorists for every mile they model year representative vehicles using Edmunds.com data for both classes of vehicle above. drive, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, MayMaintenance 2, 2014. efunded current two-year Oregon fieldstate gas study tax rateinvolving is $0.30 2,600per gallon volunteers and the road usage charge is $0.0156 & Insurance $1,000 12. Oregon DepartmentHybrid of Transportation, Vehicles Road Usage ChargeElectric Pilot Pro Vehicles- pernationwide mile; the road using usage GPS charge systems. for each Researchers class of vehicle determined above is the same, as the annual mileage gram 2013 & Per-Mile Charge Policy in Oregon, February 2014. travelledthat a nationwide was assumed system to be the is same feasible for each. and found that Costs based on 12,000 miles driven per year at $3.50 per gallon of gasoline and assumed electricity 13. Ibid. cost of $.035 per mile for electricHybrid vehicles, Vehiclesbased on nationalparticipants’ averageElectric price impression Vehiclesper kWh. Assumed of the mileage-based fee concept 14. Oregon Departmentfuel efficiency of Transportation. is 50 MPG for hybrids. Maintenance and insurance costs were estimated for 201215 Costs based on 12,000 miles drivenimproved per year at as $3.50 the study per gallon advanced. of gasoline Minnesota and assumed has electricity also Hybrid15. Vehicles Sean Slone,model Future year of Mileage-Based representativeElectric VehiclesUser vehicles Fees, The using Council Edmunds.com of State dataconducted for both classes a limited of vehicle mileage-based above. fee experiment, and e current Oregon statecost gas taxof $.035 rate is per $0.30 mile per for gallon electric and vehicles, the road based usage on charge national is $0.0156average price per kWh. Assumed Governments, Oct. 9, 2012. fuel efficiency is 50 MPG for hybrids. Maintenance and insurance costs were estimated for 2012 Costs based on 12,000 milesper driven mile; perthe yearroad at usage $3.50 charge per gallon for each of gasoline class of andvehicle assumed above electricityis the same, as the annual mileage Hybrid Vehicles Electric Vehiclestravelled was assumed to modelbe the yearsame representative for each. vehicles using Edmunds.com data for both classes of vehicle above. cost of $.035 perACEC mile Californiafor electric vehicles, June 2014 based on e national current average Oregon price state per gas kWh. tax Assumedrate is $0.30 per gallon and the road usage charge is $0.0156Page 5 fuel efficiency is 50 MPG for hybrids. Maintenance and insurance costs were estimated for 2012 Costs based on 12,000 miles driven per year at $3.50 per gallon of gasoline andper assumed mile; the electricity road usage charge for each class of vehicle above is the same, as the annual mileage model year representative vehicles using Edmunds.comtravelled data wasfor both assumed classes to ofbe vehiclethe same above. for each. cost of $.035 per mile for e electric current vehicles, Oregon based state on gas national tax rate average is $0.30 price per gallonper kWh. and Assumed the road usage charge is $0.0156 fuel efficiency is 50 MPGper for mile; hybrids. the road Maintenance usage charge and forinsurance each class costs of werevehicle estimated above is for the 2012 same, as the annual mileage model year representativetravelled vehicles was using assumed Edmunds.com to be the datasame for for both each. classes of vehicle above. e current Oregon state gas tax rate is $0.30 per gallon and the road usage charge is $0.0156 per mile; the road usage charge for each class of vehicle above is the same, as the annual mileage travelled was assumed to be the same for each. Build California Better: Options for Long-Term Road and Highway Funding
along with Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Texas, and Wis- tion in April floated a proposal to lift a ban that prevents consin continues to give the idea serious consideration.16 states from establishing tolls on interstates. While law- North Carolina is considering a pilot program,17 and U.S. makers from both sides of the aisle swiftly rebuffed the Rep. Earl Blumenauer from Oregon continues to pursue idea, it nevertheless reflects the need for new highway legislation that would require the federal government to funding sources. The Reason Foundation, for example, set up a national mileage-based fee experiment. 18 maintains that it will cost $1 trillion in net present value over the next 20 years to replace or repair the interstate Proponents of a mileage-based fee system face a handful system – one that accounts for only 2.5 percent of the of challenges to sway public opinion. Not only would nation’s highway lane miles but that handles 25 percent the assemblage of such a program need to alleviate of all vehicle miles of travel.24 concerns over privacy, but it would also have to overcome driver resistance to paying a direct tax bill Several states and local jurisdictions have already begun versus paying a “hidden” tax at the pump. For those to pursue modern, all-electronic toll road projects reasons, providing drivers with several options, from expansions, primarily to relieve congestion using High annual odometer readings to cell phone-based tracking, Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes. Colorado, Florida, Geor- is critical to its acceptance.19 The notion that a miles- gia, Minnesota, and Washington are among other states based fee program could lower insurance costs by creat- that operate HOT lanes.25 ing policies and rates more precisely tailored to time on the road – similar to the “safe driver discount” concept In California, HOT lanes are operational in the Bay 26 – could be an additional selling point.20 Area, Orange County, San Diego, and Silicon Valley. Additionally, the Metropolitan Transportation Commis- Among other drawbacks, the costs involved in administer- sion is developing a regional “Express” or HOT Lane ing a widespread mileage-based fee system are still largely network that will extend from Sonoma County in the unknown. Oregon’s pilot programs, for example, were too small to make any reasonable cost as- sumptions,21 although it is anticipated that just “Reason Foundation…maintains that it will cost $1 trillion setting up a program would require a long lead time and incur high costs.22 What’s more, any in net present value over the next 20 years to replace or program would have to consider potential issues repair the interstate system.” such as rebates or credits for miles driven out of state, a task accomplished more easily with location-tracking devices than odometer readings.23 north to Gilroy in the south, and the governor’s office is looking to develop a broader managed-lane program.27 Toll Roads – A Usage Fee Alternative Organizations such as the Self Help Counties Coalition Tolling is another concept that, like the mileage-based support proposed legislation that, under the state’s fee, would charge the most frequent users of highways managed lane policies, would give local agencies control and roads, but it is one that has generally met with of revenues generated within their corridors for use in resistance, particularly from trucking interests. Still, the those corridors.28 managed-lane concept is generating increasing analysis and discussion, so much so that the Obama Administra-
References 17. Minutes of Funding and Appropriations Strategies Committee, 23. Poole. North Carolina Board of Transportation, April 2, 2014. 24. Poole, Interstate 2.0: Modernizing the Interstate Highway System via Toll 18. Pete Kasperowicz, Dem proposes taxing drivers by the mile, The Hill, Finance, Policy Study 423, Reason Foundation, September 2013. Dec. 4, 2013. 25. Ibid. 19. Poole 26. http://www.metro.net/projects/expresslanes/expresslanes_us/, U.S. 20. Ibid. HOT Lanes, March 2014 21. Road Usage Charge Pilot Program 2013 & Per-Mile Charge 27. AB 2250 hearing and analysis, California Assembly Committee on Policy in Oregon. Transportation, April 21, 2014. 22. Paul Frisman, Vehicle Miles Traveled Transportation Funding, 28. Ibid. Office of Legislative Research, Connecticut, Jan. 17, 2012.
ACEC California June 2014 Page 6 Build California Better: Options for Long-Term Road and Highway Funding
“We need to look at how people who use the roads pay Special Fees for Transportation for the roads, and tolling is going to be part of our fu- Another solution that officials in California and sev- ture,” said Keith Dunn, Executive Director of Self Help eral states are exploring is earmarking revenue raised Counties. “Whether it is a large or small part will play through higher annual vehicle registration fees or out, but it is something we should not ignore.” retail surcharges for transportation infrastructure. As those and other projects like Colorado’s E-470 Such measures are akin to an incremental middle-of- toll road demonstrate, the technology to track us- the-road approach: they link infrastructure improve- age through transponders or license plate imaging is ments to vehicle administration or everyday economic replacing the need for toll booths, allowing authorities activity. Like the notion of raising gas taxes, however, to seamlessly charge drivers and collect fees. A 2012 the efforts have received mixed reviews from a public study of three all-electronic tolling systems in Colorado, that’s wary of any proposed tax increase, regardless of Florida, and Texas, found that the costs to collect tolls its purpose. amounted to about 5 percent of the revenue.29 Transportation California, a coalition of construction- Additionally, toll roads could facilitate infrastructure related business organizations and labor unions, includ- funding by providing financing through private-public ing the California Alliance for Jobs, spearheaded a recent partnerships (P3s). In a P3, private investment can be effort to increase the annual vehicle registration fee of secured to advance capital costs and pay off the debt 0.65 percent by 1 percentage point over five years. It pro- using future tolling proceeds. Tolling could also be used posed to target the additional revenue for transportation in a two-tiered system that would collect tolls from vehi- spending, and was expected to eventually raise $3 billion cles using major highways and then levy a mileage-based annually.32 Transportation California sought to put the fee on all other roads.30 measure on the November 2014 ballot, and it received support from transportation interests as well as city and Unlike the mileage-based fee concept, public concerns county organizations. Yet as proponents were finalizing about an expansion of toll roads center around the use the ballot language, public polling predicted that it would of fees rather than privacy. Truckers especially reject the probably not pass, and the proposal was tabled. 33 notion that existing highways should include tolls and have been able to point to instances where proposed Virginia lawmakers, on the other hand, last year tolls on a stretch of highway would be used for other successfully passed a package that is expected to raise road projects in the state. The public also suspects that $3 billion for transportation funding over the next five states will divert toll revenues to other uses, such as years.34 The state replaced its fuel tax of 17.5 cents a mass transit projects or tourism promotion, and can cite gallon with a wholesale fuel tax of 3.5 percent on gaso- a number of examples. Additional wariness focuses on line and 6 percent on diesel. It also boosted its non-food the prospect of double taxation – paying tolls in addi- sales tax to three-tenths of a percentage to 5.3 percent tion to the fuel tax – and the possibility of shifting more for most of the state (the Northern Virginia and Hamp- traffic to free parallel routes.31 ton Roads regional authorities have higher sales taxes), earmarking the additional revenue as well as other sales tax receipts in the general fund for transportation proj- ects. Additionally, Virginia increased vehicle title fees to References 4.15 percent from 3 percent.
29. Daryl S. Fleming, P.E., Ph.D., et al., Dispelling the Myths: Toll and Still, one part of the effort failed dramatically. In an at- Fuel Tax Collection Costs in the 21st Century, Policy Study 409, Reason Foundation, November 2012. tempt to make up for lost gas tax revenue resulting from 30. Poole. more efficient vehicles, lawmakers approved a plan to 31. Poole, Value-Added Tolling: A Better Deal for America’s Highway Users, charge hybrid owners an additional $64 registration fee. Policy Brief 116, Reason Foundation, March 2014. While that was down from the original proposal of $100, 32. Interview of Jim Earp, Executive Director, California Alliance for Jobs, thousands of hybrid owners in the state petitioned for a April 24, 2014. repeal of the fee, arguing that they shouldn’t be penal- 33. Ibid. ized for making “green” or cost-saving choices. Early 34. Linda McMinimy, Executive Director, Virginia Transit Association, this year, the state scrapped the surcharge on hybrids Virginia Enacts Transportation Revenue Bill, October 2013. although all-electric car owners still pay it.35 35. Rita Beamish, Are Special Fees for Driving Green a Penalty? Stateline, The Pew Charitable Trust, May 1, 2014.
ACEC California June 2014 Page 7 Build California Better: Options for Long-Term Road and Highway Funding
Nevertheless, Colorado, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Returning to the Pump Washington have instituted registration surcharges for Despite the unpopularity of raising the gas tax and ex- all-electric vehicles ranging from $50 to $100.36 pectations that such a move would result in diminishing Other states that have enacted extra charges for trans- returns, some state and federal lawmakers continue to portation include Pennsylvania, which has boosted a advocate lifting rates. The solution could best be viewed number of fees related to vehicle registration and the as a stopgap measure to maintain transportation funds licensing of drivers.37 Meanwhile, Michigan lawmakers until taxpayers become more amenable to long-term 40 are negotiating a plan to raise some $450 million in road mechanisms like a mileage-based fee. funds by generally retooling annual registration fees and Six states and Washington, D.C., have raised gasoline replacing the 19-cent per-gallon gas and 15-cent per-gal- taxes in the last year, including Wyoming, which increased lon diesel taxes with a wholesale fuel tax of at least 6 it by 10 cents to 24 cents a gallon to raise around $70 percent, which would likely grow over time.38 Some million a year.41 New Hampshire’s gas tax will increase Michigan lawmakers are backing a competing transpor- 4 cents on July 1, and is expected to raise $30 million tation funding proposal to increase the gas tax to 49 annually. Legislators are also mulling proposed increases cents a gallon. In November, Missouri voters will decide in Delaware and New Jersey, among other states. Some whether to accept a 10-year, three-quarter cent sales tax federal lawmakers have pushed for a hike in the federal increase that is expected to raise $534 million annually fuel tax of 3 to 4 cents a gallon each year for four years for transportation projects.39
Combined Local, State and Federal Gasoline Taxes (Cents per Gallon), April 2013
55.9 38.0 45.1 49.9 46.2 41.4 49.4 47.0 51.3 41.9 43.4 40.4 68.9 51.4 32.4 59.3 63.4 40.4 50.7 51.5 43.9 32.9 37.2 41.4 57.5 58.5 42.9 41.9 40.4 53.1 38.4 41.9 (DC) 68.5 43.4 35.7 48.3 56.2 39.8 37.4 35.4 37.3 40.2 35.2 U.S AVERAGE: 49.0 37.2 39.3 46.9 38.4 Greater than 49.0 38.4 67.1 40.0–49.0 Less than 40.0 53.9
26.4
Source: American Petroleum Institute
References
36. Ibid. 39. David Lieb, Missouri voters to decide transportation sales tax, Kansas City 37. Jon Schmitz, Many fees for Pa. vehicles set to rise April 1, Pittsburgh Star, May 14, 2014. Post-Gazette, March 23, 2014. 40. Earp. 38. Egan, Lawmaker: Time running out to fix Michigan’s road funding crisis, 41. Josh Mitchell, States Raise Gas Taxes to Pay for Infrastructure, The Wall Detroit Free Press, May 20, 2014. Street Journal, April 4, 2014.
ACEC California June 2014 Page 8 Build California Better: Options for Long-Term Road and Highway Funding
and then indexing the rate to inflation. A bipartisan plan a long-range transportation funding plan is the first put forward this month in the U.S. Senate by Chris Mur- critical step to ensure that California remains one of the phy (D-Conn.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) would raise country’s most powerful engines of economic growth. the federal gas and diesel taxes each by 12 cents over the next two years (in increments of 6 cents each) and then While several options to ultimately replace the gasoline index to keep pace with inflation.42 tax exist, they’re still largely viewed as experiments. None have proved themselves over the long haul. Offi- To gain support for fuel tax increases, state and federal cials in some states have opted to increase sales taxes or politicians are increasingly pointing out that inflation registration fees and/or raise the gas tax or convert it has eaten away at the levy’s effectiveness. In California, to a wholesale tax. But a growing number acknowledge the combined state and federal gas taxes amounted to that user fees tied to miles traveled or tolling instead of roughly 17.2 percent of the price of a gallon of gas in the gas pump are perhaps the fairest and most equitable 2011, down from 32 percent in 1970.43 methods to generate revenue.
California transportation interests recognize that state California is no different considering the fact that lawmakers lack the political will to raise fuel taxes amid various organizations are supporting state legislative heightened skepticism about the government’s ability efforts that would establish a mileage-based fee pilot to deliver big projects in light of recent snafus, such as program as well as provide local agencies with the the cost overruns and construction issues related to ability to control and use funds derived from toll lanes the eastern expansion of the Bay Bridge.44 Additionally, for transportation spending within the managed-lane officials realize that any increase would only serve as a corridors. The governor’s backing of mileage-based fee short-term fix, and could inflict particular pain on lower experiment further suggests that it is the most likely wage workers who often drive long distances in older, path for the state to follow. As the University of Iowa less fuel-efficient vehicles. and Oregon pilot results found, participants over time viewed the concept with increasing favor, and concerns Conclusion about privacy can be allayed if programs include options As the state auditor noted in 2013, California’s infra- and policies designed to mitigate state intrusion. structure is the backbone that connects businesses, communities and people. It drives the state’s economy With the gas tax’s dwindling effectiveness and the and improves the life of its residents. But as elsewhere in federal Highway Trust Fund’s looming insolvency, the the country, roads and bridges have fallen into disrepair urgency in finding a solution has hardly been lost on as a result of budget constraints and declining gas tax California’s transportation interests. Jim Earp, Executive revenues. For transportation stakeholders, settling on Director with the California Alliance for Jobs, suggests that infrastructure stakeholders could unify behind a plan in the next year or two. But then they would have References to persuade voters to back it. 42. Burgess Everett, Corker, Murphy tee up bipartisan proposal to increase gas tax, Politico.com, June 18, 2014. “California is a big state, and it’s hard to deliver a unified 43. Mitchell Weiss, History of the Excise Tax on Gasoline, California Trans- message to voters without proper resources,” he said. portation Commission, Jan. 8, 2013. “That’s where the rubber meets the road.”
*** ACEC California is a 50 plus year old, nonprofit association of private consulting engineering and land surveying firms. As a statewide organization, we are dedicated to enhancing the consulting engineering and land surveying professions, protecting the general public and promoting use of the private sector in the growth and development of our state.
Our members provide services for all phases of planning, designing and constructing projects. Member services include civil, structural, geotechnical, electrical and mechanical engineering and land surveying for all types of public works, residential, commercial and industrial projects.
The ACEC California family includes 22 local chapters covering the state, a 61-member Board of Directors (elected by the chapters), 24 Committees, 1 Academy, 5 Affiliated Organizations and a state office staff of 10.
ACEC California is the nation’s largest Member Organization in the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC). Membership in ACEC California means automatic membership in ACEC, and representation at the national level.
ACEC California June 2014 Page 9
Item #14-9-13 Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee Action
September 3, 2014
Amendment to Contract with URS for Downtown/Riverfront Transit Study
Issue: Should SACOG amend its contract with URS for its work on the Sacramento/West Sacramento Streetcar?
Recommendation: That the Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee recommend that the Board authorize an amendment to the contract with URS, consisting of a change order for additional work in the amount of $29,000.
Discussion: SACOG is acting as the Project Manager for the Sacramento/West Sacramento Streetcar Project, in partnership with the cities of Sacramento and West Sacramento, the Sacramento Regional Transit District, and the Yolo County Transportation District. In June 2013, the SACOG Board awarded a contract to URS for Phase 2 of the Downtown/Riverfront Transit Study in the amount of $600,000. Since that time, the Project has advanced beyond the expectations of the partners. While started as a project to study the feasibility of a streetcar, the Project has advanced into federally-approved project development and staff will shortly request that construction of the Project be included in the President’s FY 2016 Budget. These developments have necessitated additional work for project management by the URS team and additional work to complete the environmental analysis of the proposed Project, particularly with respect to cultural resources in Downtown Sacramento.
As a federally-funded project, approval of the change order must meet federal requirements for a sole source contract. Staff has concluded that it does so for at least two reasons. First, the proposed change order would avoid substantial duplication of costs if SACOG were to go through its normal procurement processes. Because URS already has completed an administrative draft of the environmental documentation, award to another contractor would result in substantial additional and unnecessary costs for a new contractor to get up to speed given the highly specialized nature of the services. Second, stopping the processing of the environmental documentation would create an unacceptable delay. As noted, staff is moving quickly to optimize the opportunities for federal funding of the project and delaying the environmental process to conduct a new procurement would cause an unacceptable delay.
Approved by:
Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer
MM:KT:EJ:ts
Key Staff: Kirk Trost, Chief Operating Officer/General Counsel, (916) 340-6210 Erik Johnson, Acting Manager of Policy and Administration, (916) 340-6247