P1
SAN JOAQUIN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS MANAGEMENT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE ERNIE’S FOOD & SPIRITS 1351 N. Main Street, Manteca, CA 95336
HOSTED BY: CITY OF STOCKTON
Wednesday, August 15, 2018 Noon
The San Joaquin Council of Governments is in compliance with the American with Disabilities Act and will make all reasonable accommodations for the disabled to participate in employment, programs and facilities. Persons requiring assistance or auxiliary aid in order to participate should contact Rebecca Calija at (209) 235-0600 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.
A G E N D A
1. Call to Order and Self Introductions
2. Public Comments
3. Approve Minutes of June 20, 2018 Action
4. 2017/18 Final Local Transportation Fund Revenue and Apportionment Action Schedule
5. Regional Transportation Impact Fee Third Party Cost Estimate Action for FY 18/19
6. State Route 99/Turner Road Interchagne Programming Action Recommendation
7. Revised Fiscal Year 2018-2019 State Transit Assistance Revenue & Action Apportionment Schedule
8. 2019 SJMSCP Development Fee Annual Adjustment Information
9. Tri-Valley San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority Update Information
10. Executive Director’s Report
11. Other Matters of Business
12. Adjourn to next regular scheduled meeting of Management and Finance Committee Wednesday, September 19, 2018.
P2
AD HOC Committee for Transit To Start Immediately After Management and Finance Committee
No Items.
Chair: Randall Bradley Vice: Steve Schwabauer City of Tracy City of Lodi
P3
AGENDA ITEM 3 P4
SAN JOAQUIN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS MANAGEMENT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Meeting held at Ernie’s Food & Spirits 1351 N. Main Street, Manteca, CA 95336
June 20, 2018
M I N U T E S
1. The meeting was called to order at 12:10 p.m. by Chair Monica Nino.
Attendance and Self Introductions: Tammy Alcantor, Escalon City Manager; Eric Alvarez, Stockton Public Works Deputy Director; Donna DeMartino, SJRTD General Manager/CEO; Midori Lichtwardt, Tracy Interim Assistant City Manager; Stacey Mortensen, SJRRC Executive Director; Monica Nino, County Administrator; Tim Ogden, Manteca City Manager; Steve Schwabauer, Lodi City Manager; Kevin Werner, Ripon Administrator; Andrew Chesley, SJCOG Executive Director; Steve Dial, SJCOG Executive Deputy Director/CFO; Diane Nguyen, SJCOG Deputy Director; Kim Anderson, SJCOG Senior Planner; Rosie Gutierrez, SJCOG Office Administrator.
Other Attendees: None.
Committee Members Not Present: Steve Salvatore, Lathrop City Manager; Kurt Wilson, Stockton City Manager.
2. Public Comments: None.
3. Approve Minutes of May 16, 2018: It was moved/seconded (DeMartino/Alcantor) to approve the minutes of May 16, 2018 with Donna DeMartino’s minor edits. Motion passed (8/0/1) with Monica Nino abstaining.
4. Revised FY 2018-19 Local Transportation Fund Revenue Estimate & Apportionment Schedule: Steve Dial gave a brief background on this item and stated last month the Board made the decision to make RTD the Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA). SJCOG staff revised the allocations to subtract 2% off the top for the Community Transit Services. The 2% off the top for the CTS equals approximately $552,000 which is identified in table 1 of the staff report. In table 2 of the staff report identifies the breakdown of the 2% by claimants based on population.
It was moved/seconded (Alcantor/DeMartino) to adopt the FY 2018-19 Revised Revenue Estimate and Apportionment Schedule. Motion passed unanimously (9/0) by voice vote.
5. FY 2018/19 Unmet Transit Needs Findings: Diane Nguyen stated last month COG staff discussed the findings of the Unmet Transit Needs report. After reviewing comments received on UTN for the region there are two unmet transit needs findings. One finding is for weekend service between San Joaquin County and Dublin/Pleasanton Bart Station and the Mountain House service between Tracy, Mountain House, P5
and Delta College. The final report will go to Board this month for their consideration and adoption of these two unmet transit needs found to be reasonable to meet.
Ms. Nguyen stated there are two additional recommendations for this committee to consider. One is regarding the weekend service to BART. If approved, COG Staff is recommending reprogram $175,000 from the FY 18-19 State Transit Assistance (STA) previously allocated to RTD for Non- Emergency Medical Transportation (NEMT) to provide the weekend service to BART. Secondly, support COG staff to continue collaboration with RTD and City of Tracy to develop a scope and funding strategy for service between Tracy, Mountain House, and Delta College.
It was moved/seconded (Mortensen/Schwabauer) to (1) adopt the Unmet Transit Needs Findings for FY 18/19 (2) set aside $175,000 from the section 99313 regional portion of the FY 18/19 State Transit Assistance Program previously allocated to RTD for Non-Emergency Medical Transportation to be reprogrammed for weekend service from San Joaquin County to BART (3) support continued collaboration with RTD and City of Tracy to develop a scope and funding strategy for service between Tracy, Mountain House, and Delta College. Motion passed unanimously (9/0) by voice vote.
6. 2018 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and 2019 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP): Kim Anderson stated the 2018 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and the 2019 Federal Transportation Improvement Program will be considered for adoption by the SJCOG Board at their June meeting. At that time staff will also be asking the Board to consider the certification of the 2018 Programmatic Environmental Impact Report. Ms. Anderson discussed the RTP/SCS, comments and responses.
It was moved/seconded (Ogden/DeMartino) to recommend approval of the 2018 RTP/SCS and 2019 FTIP. Motion passed unanimously (9/0) by voice vote.
7. Supporting SB-1: Andrew Chesley briefly discussed the background on this item and stated SB 1 was passed under the provisions of Prop 13, which requires a two-thirds vote in both the Assembly and the Senate. Mr. Chesley stated SB 1 revenue adjustments are listed in the staff report. Mr. Chesley said since SB 1 passed, much-needed funding has been funneled to our local cities and county to address a backlog of necessary transportation and public transit projects. Mr. Chesley discussed the proposed November ballot measure to repeal SB 1 and to support SB 1 and funding sources.
**Kevin Werner left the meeting during this discussion.
It was moved/seconded (Schwabauer/Ogden) to support transportation funding from SB 1 and oppose the November 2018 ballot measure to repeal SB 1. Motion passed (7/1) with City of Escalon opposing.
8. Executive Director’s Report: Andrew Chesley announced on the June COG Board agenda he is including SB 828 introduced by Senator Wiener from the Bay Area. Sen. Wiener wants to reform the Regional Housing Needs Allocation process. The action will be to oppose unless amended. P6
Mr. Chesley announced for the month of July, staff does not plan on having a Board meeting or scheduling committee meetings.
Mr. Chesley mentioned an upcoming proposal that will be presented in September or October to the COG Board regarding changing local transportation fund apportionment policy.
9. Other Matters of Business: None.
Adjourn to AD HOC Committee for Transit Meeting at 1:45 p.m.
AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR TRANSIT
A. Short Range Transit Plan Guidelines Diane Nguyen presented this item and stated the Federal Transit Administration requires any transit agency receiving federal funds must have a current Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). Ms. Nguyen stated every agency has a SRTP in San Joaquin County but they vary in their adoption dates. Some plans are a year old while others are over four years old. Therefore, it is difficult to develop a consistent set of unifying assumptions for transit capital and operating needs when the plans are not coordinated. In collaboration with transit operators throughout the county, SJCOG developed the attached SRTP Guidelines to provide for greater consistency in SRTP development throughout the region. It will also involve a commitment by transit operators to better synchronize their plan update schedule.
Ms. Nguyen discussed Kevin Werner’s concern with the cost for small cities and expressed that if there are no major changes to the plan, an agency should not be required to expend financial resources and hire consultants unnecessarily. Ms. Nguyen said staff’s intent is to ensure information is not dated; and, if the plan’s information remains current, there’s no need to expend financial resources.
Monica Nino asked about identifying duplication, redundancies, or gaps in service at a regional level. Ms. Nguyen said that the short range transit plans will not do that on a regional level, but SJCOG’s Regional Transit Systems Plan will do this more effectively if local plans are more current.
It was suggested that staff elaborate on the significance of the Short Range Transit Plan to SJCOG’s regional transit planning process. (Subsequent to the meeting, SJCOG staff revised the staff report to the SJCOG Board to outline the relationship between the local SRTPs and the RTSP).
It was moved/seconded (Schwabauer/Mortensen) to adopt the Short Range Transit Plan Guidelines. Motion passed unanimously (8/0) by voice vote.
The Ad Hoc meeting was adjourned at 12:55 p.m. P7
AGENDA ITEM 4 P8
August 2018 M&F
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: 2017-18 Final Local Transportation Fund Revenue and Apportionment Schedule
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend to the Board adoption of the Final FY 2017-18 Revenue and Apportionment Schedule
DISCUSSION:
BACKGROUND
In February of 2017, the SJCOG Board adopted a Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenue estimate for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 of $29,463,200 and an apportionment schedule which distributes the funds to LTF recipients. This revenue estimate considered economic conditions at the time and historical trends. In June of 2018, a revised LTF revenue estimate of $32,000,000 was adopted by the Board based on updated revenue collections for the fiscal year.
Actual 2017-18 LTF revenues received totaled $32,872,308. Based upon actual receipts, actual LTF revenue was higher by $872,308. This amounts to a 2.73% increase. Adopting this revised revenue estimate, which is routinely prepared at the end of each fiscal year, adjusts the funds available to be apportioned to recipients for purposes such as transit, bicycle and pedestrian projects, and local street repair. Table 1 identifies the new allocation of $32,872,308 million and the “off the top” expenditures. The amount going to the San Joaquin Auditor Controller remains the same at $2,000. The allocation for SJCOG to administer the Transportation Development Act (TDA) also remains the same at $290,000. The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) apportionment remains the same at $3,100,000.
Pursuant to the TDA and SJCOG policy, 2% is allocated to member agencies for bicycle and pedestrian facility projects. This amount is increased to $632,672. The 2.88% planning apportionment for SJCOG also increases to $946,722.
The remainder of the fund estimate, $27,900,914 reflecting an increase of $830,242 is then apportioned to member agencies based upon population. The exception is that San Joaquin Regional Transit District receives all City of Stockton funds less the City’s bicycle and pedestrian allocation and a portion of the County of San Joaquin’s funds to provide transit services in the unincorporated metropolitan area and rural San Joaquin County.
P9
FISCAL IMPACT
The estimate given to the Board in June 2018 has increased by $872,308. Tables 1 and 2 attached display the revised apportionments.
Claimants who have not submitted claims for 2017-18 will be able to submit claims based upon the revised schedule. If a claim has already been filed, claimants can claim the increase on their FY18-19 claim as previous year’s unclaimed apportionment.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
SJCOG staff recommends the Management & Finance Committee propose that the SJCOG Board adopt the attached Local Transportation Fund Final revenue estimate and apportionment schedule for Fiscal Year 2017-18.
Attachments
Final LTF Revenues & Apportionment Tables 1 & 2
P10
TABLE 1
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND FINAL REVENUE ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT FISCAL YEAR: 2017-18 Original Est. 2.73% FINAL REVENUE FY 2017-18 $ 32,872,308 $ 32,000,000 $ 872,308
RECOMMENDATIONS
I. LESS ADMINISTRATIVE ALLOCATIONS
COUNTY AUDITOR* 2,000 2,000 $ -
COG TDA ADMINISTRATION* 290,000 290,000 $ -
A. COG TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 2.88% PLANNING APPORTIONMENT** 946,722 921,600$ 25,122 31,633,586 30,786,400$ 847,186
B. COUNTY AND CITIES 2% BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN** 632,672 615,728$ 16,944 APPORTIONMENT
C. SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION * 3,100,000 3,100,000 $ -
II. BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR 2017-18 BY AREA APPORTIONMENT ARTICLE 4 AND ARTICLE 8 PURPOSES** 27,900,914 27,070,672 830,242
*Upon adoption by the COG Board, these amounts are fixed and will be apportioned "off the top". **These amounts will vary with actual revenues received. See Table 2 for breakdown of 2% bicycle/pedestrian funds and general purpose revenues.
P11
TABLE 2
FINAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND AREA APPORTIONMENT FISCAL YEAR: 2017-18
POPULATION BIKE/PED ARTICLE SJCOG TOTAL CLAIMANTS ESTIMATE* % APPT. 4 OR 8 PLANNING APPT.
SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT ** 463,214 0.63161 0 17,622,571 538,167 17,622,571 LATHROP 22,112 0.03015 19,075 841,232 25,690 860,307 LODI 63,219 0.08620 54,537 2,405,111 73,449 2,459,649 MANTECA 73,841 0.10069 63,701 2,809,216 85,789 2,872,917 TRACY 89,208 0.12164 76,958 3,393,840 103,643 3,470,798 RIPON 14,724 0.02008 12,702 560,162 17,107 572,864 ESCALON 7,065 0.00963 6,095 268,782 8,208 274,877 UNINCORPORATED** 0 0.00000 127,350 0 0 127,350 SAN JOAQUIN REG. RAIL COMM 0 0.00000 0 3,100,000 94,669 3,100,000 STOCKTON 0 0.00000 272,254 0 272,254 COUNCIL OF GOVT'S 1.00000 946,722 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 0.00000
TOTAL 733,383 2.00000 632,672 31,000,914 946,722 31,633,586
SAN JOAQUIN RTD POP. PCT. CITY OF STOCKTON 315,592 0.6813 CO. OF SAN JOAQUIN (24% ) 35,429 0.0765 CO. OF SAN JOAQUIN - CAT (76% ) 112,193 0.2422 ------TOTAL 463,214 1.00
*State Department of Finance population estimates (January, 2016). **Funds apportioned in the unincorporated area outside the Stockton Urbanized will continue to be split 76/24% per previous agreement. The 24% will be apportioned to RTD based upon a new 3-year agreement b/w SJCO & RTD Total Unincorporated population (used to determine bike/ped apportionment) = 147,622
P12
AGENDA ITEM 5 P13
August 2018 Management & Finance
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) Third Party Cost Estimate for FY 18/19
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend SJCOG Board Approval of Estimated Third Party Costs for FY 18/19 As Outlined in Table 1
DISCUSSION:
SUMMARY:
Section 6.4 of the RTIF Operating Agreement establishes the procedure for billing of 3rd party costs incurred by SJCOG to regionally implement the RTIF program. The percentage of estimated on-going third-party costs paid by each participating agency and SJCOG is based on the percentage of the total county-wide program fees retained by each entity. SJCOG staff estimates the need for third-party cost billing for FY 18/19 will be $12,390. Based on the RTIF retained by each entity through December 31, 2017, the amounts shown in the table below will be billed in September 2018.
Table 1: RTIF Retained and Billable 3rd Party Costs Total RTIF Retained through % Agency Billable 3rd Party Costs December 31,2017 Retained City of Escalon $ 245,625.53 0.38% $ 47.39 City of Lathrop $ 4,518,191.60 7.04% $ 871.66 City of Lodi $ 3,847,530.11 5.99% $ 742.27 City of Manteca $ 14,188,428.80 22.09% $ 2,737.26 City of Ripon $ 555,231.95 0.86% $ 107.12 City of Stockton $ 14,261,876.29 22.21% $ 2,751.43 City of Tracy $ 6,947,236.12 10.82% $ 1,340.27 SJ County $ 10,501,237.38 16.35% $ 2,025.92 SJCOG $ 9,157,561.26 14.26% $ 1,766.69 Program Totals $ 64,222,919.04 100.00% $ 12,390.00
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the RTIF third-party cost estimate for FY 18/19 that are shown in Table 1. P14
FISCAL IMPACT:
The ongoing cost of administering the RTIF is anticipated in SJCOG’s FY 18-19 Overall Work Program (OWP) and will not be affected by this action.
BACKGROUND:
Section 6 of the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) Operating Agreement establishes guidelines regarding the program’s administrative costs. Per Section 6.4, each participating agency and SJCOG is responsible for the 3rd party costs to regionally implement the RTIF program which must be approved by the SJCOG Board of Directors. Eligible costs include legal expenses, audit expenses, and consultant costs. SJCOG bills each participating agency for its portion of the third-party costs and allocates the appropriate amount from the SJCOG budget for the SJCOG portion.
The RTIF Operating Agreement indicates that the amount of on-going 3rd party costs each participating agency and SJCOG shall pay is based on the percentage of the total county-wide RTIF Program Fees “retained” by each participating agency and SJCOG. Retained funds are the amount of RTIF funds remaining after 10% of the RTIF funds are distributed by each city to San Joaquin County and 15% of the RTIF funds to SJCOG from each city and San Joaquin County. The diagram below illustrates the process of collecting and forwarding RTIF between participating agencies to arrive at the net retained to calculate the percentage of the 3rd party cost each participating agency is required to offset:
P15
SJCOG is currently collecting FY 18/19 Third-Party Costs for an estimated on-call consultant, auditor, legal, and contingency assistance. These amounts are based on average expenses from the total years (12) of the RTIF’s implementation, excluding major updates to the RTIF program. SJCOG will continually review ongoing expenditures to determine if these amounts can be revised accordingly. The table below summarizes current and projected 3rd party costs.
FY 18/19 Estimated Third-Party Expenses Consultant $ 6,000 Auditor $ 3,000 Legal $ 5,000 Contingency $ 2,000 Future Estimated 3rd Party Expenses $ 16,000
A comprehensive review of past third-party cost revenues and expenditures at the end of FY 17/18 revealed that SJCOG currently has a balance of $3,610 of these funds. Given the current balance of $3,610, to replenish the account to cover estimated annual expenses of $16,000, SJCOG staff is recommending to the Board billing $12,390 this fiscal year, as detailed in Table 1 and summarized below.
$12,390 $3,610 (FY 17/18 (Proposed 3rd $16,000 Balance) Party Cost for FY 18/19)
NEXT STEPS:
SJCOG will be billing each participating agency (signatories to the RTIF Operating Agreement) for their respective shares of future third-party costs.
SJCOG will prepare the RTIF Annual Report for Fall 2018 adoption.
Staff Report prepared by Michelle Lacondeguy, Assistant Regional Planner P16
AGENDA ITEM 6 P17
August 2018 Management & Finance
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: State Route 99 / Turner Road Interchange Programming Recommendation
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Programming a total of $4,170,617 from the Local Partnership Formulaic Program, Highway Infrastructure Program, and Measure K (Lodi) Regional Arterial Program to the State Route 99 / Turner Road Interchange
SUMMARY:
SJCOG, the City of Lodi, and Caltrans previously partnered on preparing a Project Study Report (PSR) to provide operational and safety improvements to the southbound on-ramp of State Route 99 / Turner Road Interchange in Lodi. As Measure K funds were not available at the time, this project was programmed for $3,104,000 of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds in the 2014 STIP. Due to the decrease in fuel excise tax revenue prior to the passage of Senate Bill 1, the project was deleted in the 2016 STIP.
The SJCOG Board committed as part of the adoption of the 2016 STIP that funding for this project would be restored when revenue became available and when the City of Lodi supported moving forward with the project. The City of Lodi is now interested in moving forward with the project. However, there were no available funds to jumpstart the Preliminary Engineering. As a result, SJCOG staff anticipated the ability to provide funding for the project would occur in the 2020 STIP Programming Cycle. However, the 2020 STIP will not be adopted until the spring of 2020.
In June 2018, SJCOG was notified by the state regarding available funding that would provide an opportunity to fulfill the SJCOG Board’s commitment to the State Route 99 / Turner Road Interchange. A mix of state funds from the Senate Bill 1 Local Partnership Program, federal funds from the Highway Infrastructure Program, along with Measure K funds (cost savings), can enable the project to move forward and not have to wait until the 2020 STIP Programming Cycle.
RECOMMENDATION:
SJCOG staff recommends approval of programming $1,629,000 of Local Partnership Formulaic Program funds and $1,791,617 of Highway Infrastructure Program funds, and $750,000 of Measure K funds (from Lodi’s Regional Arterial Allocation) to the State Route 99 / Turner Road Interchange. The total amount would be $4,170,617. P18
FISCAL IMPACT:
This action would commit $4,170,617 of state, federal, and Measure K Regional Arterial funds to the State Route 99 / Turner Interchange Project.
BACKGROUND:
As indicated earlier, the State Route 99 / Turner Road interchange project was an adopted SJCOG Board priority in 2014 and received $3.1 million in funding as part of the 2014 STIP. The purpose of the project is to improve the southbound Turner Road on-ramp entrance geometrics, on-ramp sight distance, and eliminate the weaving movement between the on-ramp traffic and through traffic onto southbound Cherokee Lane.
According to the PSR prepared in 2014, a collision analysis for all ramps within the City of Lodi indicated that the southbound Turner Road on-ramp had the highest amount of collisions within the City of Lodi’s SR 99 Corridor. The PSR further stated that the primary reasons for the high number of accidents are due to insufficient sight distance at the on-ramp entrance, the non-standard geometry of the on-ramp, and the inadequate weaving distance between the off-ramp through traffic onto southbound Cherokee Lane and the on-ramp from Turner Road to SR 99. There were three conceptual alternatives examined in the PSR. The conceptual layout of Alternative 4 which would include construction of a roundabout is pictured below.
P19
The PSR also identified a total project cost of $3.7 million. However, that is a conceptual cost estimate, now dated, and would both need refreshing and detailed preliminary engineering to be more accurate. It is anticipated, depending on the alternative chosen, the project funding needs will exceed this amount.
The project was deleted in the 2016 STIP due to shortfalls in fuel excise tax revenue prior to the passage of Senate Bill 1. The SJCOG Board committed as part of the adoption of the 2016 STIP that funding for this project would be restored when revenue became available and when the City of Lodi supported moving forward with the project.
Since then SJCOG staff have not been able to find sufficient funds to move forward with the State Route 99 / Turner Road Interchange project. STIP funds for the project would not be available for another two years until the adoption of the 2020 STIP (assuming there are funds in the STIP).
In June 2018 the California Transportation Commission (CTC) announced a Call for Projects for the Cycle 2 of the Senate Bill 1 Local Partnership Formulaic Program (LPP). $1,629,000 is available in Fiscal Year 2019/20 to SJCOG as the San Joaquin County Transportation Authority. The CTC directed that a project is identified for CTC consideration in August 2018, a short turnaround.
Also in June 2018, Caltrans notified the regional agencies of funding from the federal Highway Infrastructure Program (HIP). The HIP was created by Congress in the Fiscal Year 2018 Appropriations Act. $1,791,617 is available to SJCOG as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for San Joaquin County. These funds must be obligated by September 30, 2021.
SJCOG staff examined the SJCOG Board’s current priority projects to determine which projects would be suitable to use the available funding. Given the amount of state and federal funding, SJCOG staff examined options to most effectively use these funds and concluded that “bundling” the funds on one project would be the best approach. In consideration of all projects, including Route 99/Turner, SJCOG staff looked at the following criteria:
The project is federalized. Ability to expend funds in Fiscal Year 2019/20. SJCOG Board priority project. Project purpose/need/regional benefits. Support of local agency to move forward. Ability to go to construction quickly. Cannot supplant existing funds committed to the project.
P20
Other Projects Considered
In addition to the SR 99 / Turner Road Interchange, SJCOG staff considered several other projects to receive the LPP and HIP funds. These projects include the following:
City of Lathrop – SR 120/Yosemite Avenue/Guthmiller Road Interchange
The City of Lathrop is completing a Project Study Report for the interchange at SR 120 and Yosemite Avenue/Guthmiller Road. The project has not been federalized, so SJCOG do not recommend programming LPP or HIP funding.
City of Manteca – SR 120/Union Road Interchange
The City of Manteca is currently preparing to reconstruct the interchange at SR 120 and Union Road. This project has not been federalized. The City plans begin construction in Fiscal Year 2018/19. This is sooner than the LPP funds can be programmed, so SJCOG staff do not recommend programming LPP or HIP funds.
City of Manteca – SR 120/McKinley Avenue Interchange
The City of Manteca is constructing a new interchange at SR 120 and McKinley Avenue. This project has already been federalized. The SJCOG Board previously committed $12,300,000 of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds to the project. Due to the regional share of funds already programmed, SJCOG staff do not recommend overcommitting regional funds to the project.
City of Ripon – Stockton Avenue Reconstruction
The City of Ripon is reconstructing Stockton Avenue between 2nd Street and Doak Avenue. The project is fully funded in Fiscal Year 2018/19. As this project will be moving forward to construction sooner than the LPP funds can be programmed, SJCOG staff do not recommend programming LPP or HIP funds.
City of Stockton – Lower Sacramento Road Widening
The City of Stockton is seeking funding for their Lower Sacramento Road Widening Project. The project would widen Lower Sacramento Road from Pixley Slough to Royal Oaks Drive, and replace the bridges at Pixley Slough and Bear Creek. However, the environmental and design needs to be updated. Funding is also needed for right of way and construction. Given the large funding amount needed, SJCOG staff do not recommend this project receive LPP or HIP funds.
City of Tracy – I-205 and I-580 International Parkway Interchanges
The City of Tracy is seeking to reconstruct the interchanges of Mountain House Parkway at I-205 and I-580. These projects have recently received $12.8 million from the Trade Corridor Enhancement Program. SJCOG do not recommend these projects receive LPP or HIP funding. P21
City of Tracy – I-205/Lammers Road Interchange
The City of Tracy is constructing a new interchange at I-205 and Lammers Road. This project has already been federalized. However, due to the large funding amount still needed for the right of way and construction phases, SJCOG staff do not recommend this project receive LPP or HIP funding.
San Joaquin County – Grant Line Road Corridor Improvements
The County is currently in the PA&ED phase of realigning and widening Grant Line Road between Tracy and Eleventh Street. This project has not been federalized, so SJCOG staff do not recommend it receive LPP or HIP funding.
SJCOG and Caltrans – SR 99/120 Connector Project
The SR 99/120 Connector Project is currently completing the PA&ED phase. The right of way acquisition phase is currently programmed in Fiscal Year 2018/19 with LPP and STIP funds. The Construction Phase is programmed in Fiscal Year 20/21. Given that the right of way phase is fully funded and the construction phase will occur after Fiscal Year 2019/20, SJCOG staff do not recommend programming additional LPP or HIP funds to the project.
SJCOG and Caltrans – SR 99 South Stockton Landscaping
The final phase of the SR 99 South Stockton Widening project is to complete the landscaping. $4.511 million of Regional Share RSTP funds and $488,000 of Measure K funding have been programmed for this phase. Using LPP or HIP funding to free up the local funding would not be allowed by the CTC.
SJCOG and Caltrans – I-205 Tracy HOV Widening
In 2018 STIP, the CTC pushed back the PA&ED phase of the I-205 Tracy HOV Widening to Fiscal Year 2020/21. Using LPP or HIP could allow the schedule to be advanced. However, not enough funds are available for the PA&ED phase. SJCOG staff does not recommend programming LPP or HIP funds to the project.
SJCOG and Caltrans – SR 120 Widening
SJCOG and Caltrans are completing a Project Study Report to examine widening SR 120 in Lathrop and Manteca between I-5 and Main Street. As SR 120 is not a priority for the SJCOG Board, SJCOG staff do not recommend LPP or HIP funds.
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) – Valley Rail Project
The SJRRC is constructing capital improvements to provide rail service to Ceres and Sacramento. SJCOG staff does recommend programming LPP or HIP funds to the projects due to the over $900 million of state funding already committed to the projects. P22
Tri-Valley – San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority (TVSJVRRA) – Valley Link Project
The TVSJVRRA is studying a rail connection between BART and ACE in Livermore. Future phases would extend the service into San Joaquin County. Funding is being pursued to complete the environmental phase. The final Feasibility Report has not been completed and the Board has not acted on further funding commitment beyond the Feasibility Report at this time.
Programming Recommendation: SJCOG staff believes the Route 99 / Turner Interchange project is the best fit against the criteria in utilizing the above-identified state & federal funding. The City of Lodi has Measure K Regional Arterial funds and $750,000 can be utilized for this Measure K project. Measure K Regional Arterial funds will come from Lodi’s allocation and does not affect any other Measure K Regional arterial project outside of Lodi. While the infusion of $4 million may not completely fund the project through construction, it can help identify a construction cost that SJCOG staff anticipates can be addressed through future funding.
NEXT STEPS:
The City of Lodi is in support of moving forward on the project, with an interest in having SJCOG or Caltrans serve as the implementing agency for the pre-construction phases of the project. SJCOG staff is currently in discussions with Caltrans on this concept and will also ascertain Caltrans interest in serving as implementing agency for construction of the project.
If the programming proposal secures SJCOG Board approval, SJCOG staff will submit the project recommendations to the CTC by their August deadline. The CTC staff will review and develop CTC staff recommendations for action by the CTC at its October 17-18 CTC Meeting in Stockton.
Other project development steps, as applicable, including project cooperative agreements, design engineering resources, the formation of a Project Development Team, etc., will follow the CTC action.
Prepared by: David Ripperda, Associate Regional Planner P23
AGENDA ITEM 7 P24
August 2018 M&F
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Revised Fiscal Year 2018-2019 State Transit Assistance Revenue and Apportionment Schedule
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend the Board adopt the Revised FY 18-19 STA Estimated Revenue and Apportionment Schedule
DISCUSSION:
Background
In March of 2018, the SJCOG Board adopted a State Transit Assistance (STA) revenue estimate for Fiscal Year 2018-2019 based on the State Controller’s estimate issued in January of 2018. The original estimate was $1,337,172 of 99314 funds and $5,234,637 of 99313 funds. The office of the State Controller has issued a revised revenue estimate for San Joaquin County. The new estimate is $1,521,884 of 99314 funds and $6,322,772 of 99313 funds. The revised estimate is 19.4% higher than the original estimate.
The regional allocation of 99313 funds is based upon the ratio of population of San Joaquin County to the total population of the state while the allocation of 99314 funds is based on qualifying revenue amounts for each STA-eligible operator, determined from annual reports submitted to the Controller pursuant to PUC section 99243.
In March, the Board approved a second year of funding of $250,000 for the Non-Emergency Medical Transportation from the 99313 regional transit funds with the remainder allocated to the transit district and ACE rail based on their relative ridership. However, in June, the Board found weekend RTD service to BART in Pleasanton to be an unmet transit need that was reasonable to meet. Funding will be achieved by reducing the FY 18-19 NEMT allocation from $250,000 to $75,000 and using the remaining $175,0000 for the weekend service.
Attached are tables detailing the Revised FY 2018-19 STA Revenue Estimate and apportionments. A revenue comparison table is provided for information. In addition, Table I identifies total funds available by allocation purpose. The specific apportionments for each claimant are detailed in Table II.
P25
STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUND APPORTIONMENTS FISCAL YEAR: 2018/2019 (08-01-18) Original Estimate vs. Revised Estimate Original Estimate Revised Estimate Difference PUC99314 1,337,172 1,521,884 184,712 PUC99313 5,234,637 6,322,772 1,088,135
TOTAL 6,571,809 7,844,656 1,272,847 RECOMMENDATIONS
PUC 99314 Allocations
PTA 99314PTA 99314 SJRTD 594,537 572,342-22,195 LODI 23,476 24,063 587 RIPON 2,690 2,056 -634 TRACY 10,374 9,975 -399 MANTECA 6,089 7,287 1,198 ESCALON 1,313 3,244 1,931 JPA 577 275 -302 SJRRC 698,116 902,642204,526 TOTAL PUC99314 1,337,1721,521,884184,712
PUC 99313 Allocations 5,234,637 6,322,772 1,088,135
2% COG Transit Planning 104,693 126,455 21,763 Allocation Less NEMT -250,000 -75,000-175,000.00 Less Weekend Bart Service 0 -175,000175,000.00 Regional Transit Systems 4,879,944 5,946,3171,066,372.30 Allocation SJRTD 4,191,872 5,107,886916,014.41 SJRRC 688,072 838,431150,358.59 TOTAL PUC99313 5,234,6376,322,7721,088,135
RECOMMENDATION:
The Management & Finance Committee recommend to the Board adoption of the Revised FY18/19 STA Revenue Estimate and apportionments.
FISCAL IMPACT:
These funds are a primary component in transit service delivery throughout the County. Adoption of this apportionment schedule allows the funds to be claimed by eligible recipients. This action will provide a revised estimate that is an increase of $1,272,847 in regional and local transit funding to San Joaquin County.
P26
TABLE 1 STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUND APPORTIONMENTS FISCAL YEAR: 2018-2019 (08-01-18) REVISED STA Apportionment Estimate
ESTIMATED REVENUE FY 2018-19PTA 99313 6,322,772
PTA 99314 1,521,884
Total7,844,656 RECOMMENDATIONS
I. LESS PUC 99314 ALLOCATIONS
PTA Escalon 3,244 Lodi 24,063 Manteca 7,287 Ripon 2,056 Tracy 9,975 San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority 275 San Joaquin Regional Transit District 572,342 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission 902,642
II. BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR APPORTIONMENT BY AREA - PUC 99313 6,322,772
A. REGIONAL APPORTIONMENT 2% COG TRANSIT PLANNING 126,455
B. REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM PURPOSES 6,196,317
Regional Non-Emergency Medical Transportation Set Aside (NEMT) $ (75,000.00) Weekend Bart Service $ (175,000.00) 99313 Regional Transit Systems Apportionment 5,946,317
Note: STA allocation estimate based on State Controller's Office apportionment letter dated August 01, 2018.
P27
TABLE 2 APPORTIONMENT OF FISCAL YEAR 2018/19 STA REVENUE
Ridership Ridership % Transit Appt. Area Appt. TOTAL AGENCY NEMT BART Transit Plng CLAIMANTS FY 14/15 FY 14/15 PUC 99313 PUC 99314 APPTORTIONMENT Set Aside Wknd Svc Appt. (PUC 99313) TOTAL SJ JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY 275 275 0 0 0
SJRTD 4,402,964 85.90% $ 5,107,886 572,342 5,680,228 75,000 175,000 108,625
LODI 281,425 $ - 24,063 24,063 0 0 0
MANTECA 73,001 $ - 7,287 7,287 0 0 0
TRACY 175,982 $ - 9,975 9,975 0 0 0
RIPON 1,743 - $ - 2,056 2,056 0 0 0
ESCALON 2,232 - $ - 3,244 3,244 0 0 0
SJRRC 721,699 14.10% $ 838,431 902,642 1,741,073 0 0 17,830
RIDERSHIP 5,659,046 100.00% 5,946,317 1,521,884 7,468,201
SJCOG TRANSIT PLANNING 126,455 75,000 175,000 NEMT (Non-Emergency Medical Transportation Set Aside) TOTAL 5,946,317 1,521,884 7,468,201 75,000 175,000 126,455 7,844,656 Source: 1 Audited FY 14/15 ridership figures P28
AGENDA ITEM 8 P29
August 2018 Management & Finance
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: 2019 SJMSCP Development Fee Annual Adjustment
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Information Only
DISCUSSION:
Using the adopted 5-year financial analysis model to the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) approved Cat A Cat B in March 2016 by the SJCOG, Inc. Board, the SJCOG, Inc. staff, HTAC Financial Sub-committee members (Table 1) and consultants undertook the Cat C annual analysis in the summer of 2018. The goal of the annual analysis is to establish the next year’s habitat plan fees. The fees are for impacts under the 2019 SJMSCP Fees county-wide SJMSCP permits as defined in the three fee model categories (Category A - Acquisition, Category B - Assessment & Enhancement and Category C - Land Management/Administration).
Table 1 – HTAC Financial Sub-Committee Members:
John Beckman, BIA Dave Stagnaro, Stockton Kyle Stoner, CDFW
Dan Gifford, Conservation Dana Herman, USFWS Stephanie Stowers, SJ County
The proposed 2019 SJMSCP development fees were adjusted using the adopted model for the respective categories and are compared to the 2018 SJMSCP Development fees for where the changes occurred (Table 2). The change is an overall decrease of 41.2% in the Multi-purpose, Agricultural and Natural habitat classifications from the prior year primarily related to the fall in the land acquisition component (Category A) for agricultural land price values of comparable sales.
P30
Table 2 - 2019 SJMSCP Development Fees Compared to 2018 SJMSCP Development Fees (Pending CPI Data) Monitoring, Management & Assessment & Total 2019 Fees -Proposed Acquisition Administration, & Total Enhancement Rounded Post-permit Endowment Other Open Space $4,425.00 $1,854.00 $409.43 $6,688.43 $6,688 Natural/Ag Lands $8,850.00 $3,708.00 $817.79 $13,375.79 $13,376 Vernal Pool Grasslands $37,259.00 $14,739.00 $2,491.28 $54,489.28 $54,489 Vernal Pool Wetted $36,581.00 $61,692.00 $2,445.78 $100,718.78 $100,719 Monitoring, Management & Assessment & Total 2018 Fees - Adopted Acquisition Administration, & Total Enhancement Rounded Post-permit Endowment Other Open Space $7,531.00 $1,774.00 $395.97 $9,700.97 $9,701 Natural/Ag Lands $15,062.00 $3,547.00 $790.90 $19,399.90 $19,400 Vernal Pool Grasslands $55,853.00 $14,261.00 $2,409.36 $72,523.36 $72,523 Vernal Pool Wetted $54,837.00 $59,669.00 $2,365.36 $116,871.36 $116,871
Monitoring, Management & Assessment & Total Difference Per Acre ($) Acquisition Administration, & Total Enhancement Rounded Post-permit Endowment Other Open Space ($3,106) $80 $13 ($3,013) ($3,013) Natural/Ag Lands ($6,212) $161 $27 ($6,024) ($6,024) Vernal Pool Grasslands ($18,594) $478 $82 ($18,034) ($18,034) Vernal Pool Wetted ($18,256) $2,023 $80 ($16,153) ($16,153)
Monitoring, Management & Assessment & Total Percent Difference Acquisition Administration, & Total Enhancement Rounded Post-permit Endowment Other Open Space -41.2% 4.5% 3.4% -31.1% -31.1% Natural/Ag Lands -41.2% 4.5% 3.4% -31.1% -31.1% Vernal Pool Grasslands -33.3% 3.4% 3.4% -24.9% -24.9% Vernal Pool Wetted -33.3% 3.4% 3.4% -13.8% -13.8%
Projects which participate under the SJMSCP benefit from a pre-determined streamlined processing of the project rather than navigating through a potentially very long and cumbersome regulatory process outside the habitat plan. By opting for participation, the project can choose any number of ways to provide mitigation for the impacts of the project through the plan and even control much of the mitigation costs if desired. The options are:
1. Pay a fee; 2. Redesign the project to avoid/minimize impacts; 3. Provide land in lieu of the SJMSCP fee which the project will negotiate the easement/fee title costs (Category A component); or 4. Any combination of the above options. P31
Or, the project proponent can choose to not participate in the plan and fulfill mitigation requirements on their own with state and federal permitting agencies independently.
RECOMMENDATION:
The HTAC Financial Subcommittee and SJCOG, Inc. staff recommends the HTAC recommend to the SJCOG, Inc. Board adoption of the 2019 SJMSCP Development Fees, as adjusted pursuant to the Financial Analysis Model.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Development fees will provide funding for SJCOG, Inc. to mitigate project impacts covered under the SJMSCP permits for the subsequent calendar year beginning January 1st.
BACKGROUND:
Annually, the SJMSCP development fees are reviewed and calculated using a formula method [FEE = Category A (acquisition) + Category B (assessment & enhancement) + Category C (management & admin)]. The three components of the formula are adjusted using a specific mechanism which relates to the individual component in the fee based on the most current data. The development fees established must be adopted by each of the jurisdictions and would become effective on January 1st of the subsequent year for projects using the SJMSCP.
Category A (acquisition) – Comparable Land Sales
This category is directly related to land valuation based on comparable land sales in San Joaquin County in specific zones of the plan area (Central Zone, Central/SW Transition Zone and Delta Zone) over an established 2-year period (Attachment 1). Valuation for this category are evaluated on a yearly basis by taking all qualified comparable sales in each zone, including SJCOG, Inc. easements, to set a weighted cost per acre using the same methodology from the 2016, 2017 and 2018 analysis but with a small adjustment to the easement to fee title percentage moving forward.
The criteria to determine valid comparable sales to be used in the weighted calculation are: 1. All SJCOG, Inc. transactions (fee title and appraised value of unencumbered property) 2. Sales not less than 40 acres 3. Sales not greater than 640 acres 4. No parcels with vineyard or orchard (except SJCOG, Inc. transactions for special needs) 5. Must be land which would fulfill mitigation under the plan 6. Not greater than 2 years old from the date of June 30th of each year with all acceptable comparable sales included (criteria 1-5). A minimum of 10 acceptable comparable sales are required for analysis. If the minimum of 10 transactions are not available, the time period will extend at 3-month intervals prior to the beginning date until 10 comparable sales are gathered.
In the current model including the adjustment to the easement to fee title percentage, the Category A analysis results in a 41.2% decrease to the Agricultural/Natural Habitat types of Category A (acquisition) component to be $8,850.00. The primary reasons for the decrease in the Category A P32
component was land sale prices falling for land meeting the specific criteria and an adjustment downward to the easement to fee title percentage.
Category B (assessment & enhancement) –Consumer Price Index w/ Model Data Update
The Category B component of the fee is adjusted using several factors including the California Consumer Price Index (CPI), as reported by the California Department of Finance for the preceding 12-month fiscal year (June 2017 - April 2018 – only available data) and from the updated model numbers completed annually based on the SJMSCP Annual Report.
The unit cost factors (per acre or per year for some items) are adjusted only by the CPI (the California CPI calculation was an increase of 3.4%), but the total cost for Category B is also a function of the SJMSCP Annual Report data updated annually (acres remaining to be acquired and the number of years remaining in the permit term; the fee per acre is a function of those total calculated costs and the land conversion acres remaining) into the fee model.
The calculation results in a 4.5% increase of the Agricultural/Natural Habitat types of Category B (Assessment & Enhancement) component to be $3,708.00.
Category C (management & administration) –Consumer Price Index
Annual cost updates use the California Consumer Price Index (CPI), as reported by the California Department of Finance, for the preceding 12-month fiscal year (June 2017 – April 2018 – only data available) to keep up with inflation on an annual basis. Between financial analysis updates, the CPI is an appropriate measure of annual cost inflation for this category. The California CPI calculation was an increase of 3.4%.
The calculation results in a 3.4% decrease in the Agricultural/Natural Habitat types of Category C (Management & Administration) component from prior years to be $817.79.
In summary, the SJMSCP fees is calculated using the SJMSCP Financial Analysis formula model [FEE = Category A (acquisition) + Category B (assessment & enhancement) + Category C (management & admin)] which the results are shown in final fee table 3 below and Attachment 2 (SJMSCP Cost and 2019 Fee Analysis). The overall result in the fee analysis is a 41.2% decrease in the most commonly impacted Multi-purpose, Agricultural and Natural Habitat Classifications fees for 2019.
Table 3 - 2019 SJMSCP Development Fees – Proposed Pending CPI Data Habitat Type Category A Category B Category C Total Fee Rounded Fee Open Space $4,425.00 $1,854.00 $409.43 $6,688.43 $6,688 AG/Natural $8,850.00 $3,708.00 $817.79 $13,375.79 $13,376 Vernal Pool (grasslands) $37,259.00 $14,739.00 $2,491.28 $54,489.28 $54,489 Vernal Pool (wetted) $36,581.00 $61,692.00 $2,445.78 $100,718.78 $100,719
P33
COMMITTEE ACTIONS:
HTAC FINANICAL SUB-COMMITTEE: Recommended Approval to HTAC HTAC: Recommended Approval to SJCOG, Inc. M&F: Information Only Executive Committee: Information Only SJCOG, Inc. Board: August 23rd Action Required
Prepared by: Steven Mayo, Program Manager P34
Attachment 1 – 2019 Fee Study Property List - Props 24 Month
P35
Attachment 2 – 2019 SJMSCP Cost and Fee Analysis Update
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE FOR ADOPTION - 08/01/2018 DRAFT MATERIAL ONLY P36
Table of Contents List of worksheet tabs and contents Notes to User Model overview and instructions for annual updates Fee Summary Comparison Table showing calculated fee amounts by habitat type and category; comparison to adopted fees; linked from other sheets; includes California CPI factor for Category C annual update A1 PerAcreCostFactorsbyZone Per acre easement cost factors by zone based on input from comparables and appraisal analysis A2 PerAcreAcquisitionCost Weighted acquisition cost factors by habitat type based on distribution of preserves by zone; adds transaction costs A3 AcquisitionCostHabitatType Total acquisition cost by habitat type, for preserves remaining to be acquired A4 AcquisitionFEE Category A fee by habitat type, based on remaining land conversion B1 PreserveEnhancementCost Weighted enhancement cost factors by habitat type based on estimate of acres enhanced and detailed per acre enhancement cost factors B2 AssessmentEnhancementCost All assessment and enhancement cost factors by habitat type B3 AssessEnhancementCostAllocation Total assessment and enhancement cost by habitat type, remainder of permit term B4 AssessmentEnhancementFEE Category B fee by habitat type, based on remaining land conversion C MonitoringAdminFEE Category C fee by habitat type, based on remaining land conversion; links to summary comparison for annual update For 5-Year Update Only => Workbook break: the following tabs for Category C are only used in the 5-year economic analysis update C1 MonitoringCost Monitoring cost factors by habitat type, including post-permit annual cost C2 PMAdminCost Project management and administrative cost factors , including post-permit annual cost C3 Endowment Endowment cash flow, return assumptions, and total in year 51 to support post-permit annual cost C4 MonitoringAdminCostAlloc Total monitoring, management, and administrative cost by habitat type, remainder of permit term and endowment for post permit cost C5 MonitoringAdminFEE Category C fee by habitat type, based on remaining land conversion Source for update acres => Workbook break: the following tabs are updated annually and every 5 years for acres inputs 1 SJMSCP Acres 6_4_2015 Land conversion and preserve acres by habitat type for the 50-year permit term (source table) 2 RemainingPreservetoAcquire Preserve Acres, Total and Remaining to be Acquired (from Table 1 and Annual Report updates) 3 Cumulative Take_Remaining Allowed and Remaining Incidental Take Acreage (from Table 1 and Annual Report updates)
4 PreserveAcquisitionSchedule Preserve Acquisition Schedule, All Habitat Types, by Index Zone, Remaining Permit Term (from Table 2)
SJMSCP Cost and Fee Analysis 2019 Update 2018 Revised Draft Cumm Take_61Percent Calculations.xlsx - TABLE OF CONTENTS - 08/01/2018 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE FOR ADOPTION - 08/01/2018 P37
This workbook of linked worksheets calculates SJMSCP Impact Fees for Categories A, B, and C. The workbook contains all of the elements needed for annual updates as well as the framework for the more complex 5-year economic analysis updates. Category A and Category B are fees for one-time costs for land acquisition, enhancement, restoration and associated site assessments and planning. These fees will be updated annually by updating the per-acre cost factors and updating the acres remaining to be acquired and the remaining acres of land conversion based on data from SJMSCP Annual Reports. - Category A per-acre cost factors updated by comparables analysis, as established in past practice - Category B per-acre and annual cost factors updated by applying California CPI to unit cost factors - The total costs in Category A and Category B for each annual update will reflect the acres remaining to be acquired and the fees for each annual update will reflect the remaining acres of land conversion from SJMSCP Annual Reports. Category C is a fee for on-going annual costs for the remainder of the permit term and post-permit in perpetuity. Annual updates for this fee Category will apply the California CPI to the prior year fee amount, as established in past practice. - Incorporating Annual Report data in the annual updates of on-going permit term and post-permit costs adds unnecessary complexity to the annual update of this component of the SJMSCP fees. - Updating annually the SJCOG, Inc. fund balance and budget analysis used to estimate costs in this category, as well as the endowment cash flow analysis required to estimate post-permit costs, are more complex work efforts not justified to generally keep Category C fees in line with annual cost inflation. Moreover, because these costs are not as sensitive to habitat type, it is not as important to account for the annual variation in preserve acquisition and land conversion captured in the annual updates to Categories A and B. Components of the workbook: 1. The Fee Summary Comparison worksheet compares calculated updated fees to fees currently in effect and includes the California CPI for Category C updates. 2. Category A tabs A1 - A4 calculate the fees for Category A Acquisition. 3. Category B tabs B1 - B4 calculate the fees for Category B Assessment and Enhancement. 4. Category C Fee tab shows the fees by habitat type calculated in the 2016 Economic Analysis, the basis for the subsequent annual fee update. 5. Category C tabs C1 - C5 calculate the fees for Category C Monitoring, Management, and Administration. 5-YEAR UPDATE ONLY 6. Tables 1 - 3 provide background data on preserve acres and land conversion by habitat type, updated annually from the SJMSCP Annual Report; Table 4 showing the preserve acquisition schedule by habitat type and zone is used only in the 5-year update.
SJMSCP Cost and Fee Analysis 2019 Update 2018 Revised Draft Cumm Take_61Percent Calculations.xlsx - NOTES TO USER - 08/01/2018 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE FOR ADOPTION - 08/01/2018 P38
Fee Summary Comparison Calculates new annual fees and compares to prior year adopted fees. 1. Paste values of prior year adopted fees in cells C11:E14. 2. Insert updated annual California CPI factor in cell F1. 3. Updated fees for Category A show in cells C5:C8 and updated fees for Category B show in cells D5:D8. The fees are linked to other tabs in this workbook. 4. Formulas in cells E5:E8 calculate Category C fee update amounts based on prior year adopted fee amounts in cells E11:E14. Category A Acquisition A.1 Category A Per-Acre Acquisition Cost Factors by Zone 1. Input results of annual comparables analysis for updated fee title values in Central Zone and Primary Zone of the Delta. 2. Fixed 70% ( 61% approved - 2018 Analysis ) valuation: Track Input results of annual analysis of SJCOG, Inc. appraisals (easement percent of fee title value). Update appraisal list each year and calculate weighted average percent by dividing cumulative total easement value (cost) by cumulative total before value (fee title value). 3. Value of Southwest Zone easement cost remains unchanged until experience indicates it should be updated. A.2 Per-Acre Acquisition Cost Factors by Preserve/Habitat Type No annual input needed. Links and formulas calculate total cost factors per acre for each habitat type. 1. Easement cost factor input linked from A.1. 2. Distribution by preserve type is not changed from 1996 Economic Analysis. 3. Transaction cost and VP acquisition assumptions not changed. A.3 Total Acquisition Costs by Habitat Type, Remainder of Permit Term No annual input needed. Links and formulas calculate total cost for each habitat type. 1. Land acquisition cost factors linked from A.2. 2. Preserve acres remaining to be acquired linked from Table 2 (updated annually based on SJMSCP Annual Report). A.4 Fee Calculations No annual input needed. Links and formulas calculate fee for each habitat type. 1. Cost by habitat type linked from A.3. 2. Land conversion remaining linked from Table 3 (updated annually based on SJMSCP Annual Report).
SJMSCP Cost and Fee Analysis 2019 Update 2018 Revised Draft Cumm Take_61Percent Calculations.xlsx - NOTES TO USER - 08/01/2018 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE FOR ADOPTION - 08/01/2018 P39
Category B Assessment and Enhancement B.1 SJMSCP Preserve land by habitat type, enhancement analysis, and enhancement cost factors per preserve acre 1. 2016 Economic analysis included: refinement of natural lands detail and SJMSCP enhancement requirements refined, and update of costs for enhancements and restoration. Table calculates weighted average cost per preserve acre for agricultural lands, non-vernal pool natural lands, and vernal pool preserves. Update enhancement cost analysis every five years. 2. Annually, in each shaded cell in table column 5 (Enhancement Cost per Acre), substitute prior year value in the formula. Formula references updated annual California CPI factor in cell E1. Formulas calculate updated weighted average cost per preserve acre. 3. Insert updated annual California CPI factor in cell E1. B.2 Category B Assessment, Planning, Restoration and Enhancement Cost Factors 1. Update remaining years in permit term. 2. Annually, in each brown shaded cell in table, substitute prior year value for site assessment, management plans, and enhancement plans in the formula. Formula references updated annual California CPI factor in cell C1. Formulas calculate updated annual costs. 3. Insert updated annual California CPI factor in cell C1. 4. Enhancement and restoration cost factors linked from B.1. B.3 Category B Assessment, Planning, Restoration, and Enhancement Cost Allocation by Habitat Type No annual input needed. Links and formulas calculate total cost for each habitat type. 1. Assessment and planning costs linked from B.2. Formulas calculate total enhancement and restoration costs from factors in B.2. 2. Preserve acres remaining to be acquired linked from Table 2 (updated annually based on SJMSCP Annual Report). B.4 Fee Calculations No annual input needed. Links and formulas calculate fee for each habitat type. 1. Cost by habitat type linked from B.3. 2. Land conversion remaining linked from Table 3 (updated annually based on SJMSCP Annual Report). Category C Monitoring, Management, and Administration C.5 Fee Calculations - Annual Update Only No input needed. Cost and land conversion values frozen based on 2016 Economic Analysis. 1. For 2016 update, Category C fee amounts by habitat type linked to Fee Summary Comparison table. 2. Update annually by applying California CPI factor to prior year Category C fee amounts, as in past practice. Note: this is done in the Fee Summary Comparison worksheet.
SJMSCP Cost and Fee Analysis 2019 Update 2018 Revised Draft Cumm Take_61Percent Calculations.xlsx - NOTES TO USER - 08/01/2018 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE FOR ADOPTION - 08/01/2018 P40
Category C Monitoring, Management, and Administration - INSTRUCTIONS FOR FIVE-YEAR UPDATE C.1 Category C (part) Compliance and Effectivement Monitoring Cost Assumptions 1. Update remaining years in permit term. 2. Preserve acres acquired and preserve acres remaining to be acquired linked from Table 2 (updated based on SJMSCP Annual Report). 3. Update monitoring cost factors (annual costs and annual costs per acre). 4. Total costs by type of monitoring for the remainder of the permit term calculated by worksheet formula. 5. Post permit cost updates by worksheet formula based on updates to detail in rows above. Acres input linked from Tables 2 and 4 (updated based on SJMSCP Annual Report). C.2 Category C (part) Project Management and Administrative Cost Assumptions 1. Update remaining years in permit term. 2. Update annual management and administrative staff cost and cost allocation from analysis of Cumulative Schedule of Receipts and Disbursement in SJMSCP Annual Report, supplemented by cost code detail provided by SJCOG, Inc. staff. 3. Update Existing Preserve Fund Balance input (from SJMSCP Annual Report). Update fund balane allocation using analysis of category breakdown of cumulative fee revenue collected. Worksheet formulas calculate share of existing fund balance available to fund permit term costs and resulting net costs of Project Management and Administration for the remainder of the permit term. 3. Post permit cost updates by worksheet formula based on updates to detail in rows above. C.3 SJMSCP Endowment Fund Cash Flow This table uses estimates of annual post permit costs, existing fund balances, and interest earnings assumptions to estimate the endowment needed at the end of the permit term to fund annual costs in perpetuity. This analysis is to be updated at each 5-year economic analysis review. The worksheet solves for fund balance amount in year 51 that generates the annual income to fully fund annual post permit costs. The worksheet calculates the annual fee revenue required over the remainder of the permit term to achieve that fund balance when added to the existing fund balance for management and administrative costs post permit and interest earnings over the remainder of the permit term. That amount is the total cost to be allocated by habitat type remaining to be acquired. C.4 Category C Monitoring and Project Management/Adminstration, including endowment for post-permit costs, Cost Allocation by Habitat Type No input needed. Links and formulas calculate total cost for each habitat type. 1. Monitoring costs linked from C.1, management and administrative costs linked from C.2; post-permit endowment cost linked from C.3. Formulas allocate total costs by habitat type. 2. Preserve acres remaining to be acquired linked from Table 2 (updated based on SJMSCP Annual Report). C.5 Fee Calculations No input needed. Links and formulas calculate fee for each habitat type. 1. Cost by habitat type linked from C.4. 2. Land conversion remaining linked from Table 3 (updated based on SJMSCP Annual Report).
SJMSCP Cost and Fee Analysis 2019 Update 2018 Revised Draft Cumm Take_61Percent Calculations.xlsx - NOTES TO USER - 08/01/2018 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE FOR ADOPTION - 08/01/2018 P41
Tables 1 - 4 (Source Tables) Table 1 Land Conversion and Preserve Acres by Habitat Type for the 50-year permit term This table was finalized on June 4, 2015 as part of the Economic Analysis update. This table provides the source data by detailed habitat type for the 50- year permit term totals. Table 2 Preserve Acres, Total and Remaining to be Acquired 1. Total Preserve Acres by habitat type linked from Table 1. 2. Annually, update Total Preserve Acres Acquired through 12/31 from the SJMSCP Annual Report. 3. Total Preserve Acres Remaining to be Acquired calculated by worksheet formula; links to cost and fee calculation worksheets. Table 3 Allowed and Remaining Incidental Take Acreage 1. Take Authorizations by habitat type linked from Table 1 and adding multi-purpose open space from SJMSCP Table 1-1 and Table 4.2-2. 2. Annually, update the Cumulative Acres of Take through 12/31 from the SJMSCP Annual Report. 3. Remaining Acres of Land Conversion calculated by worksheet formula; links to cost and fee calculation worksheets. Table 4 Preserve Acquisition Schedule, All Habitat Types, by Index Zone, Remaining Permit Term - ONLY USED IN 5-YEAR UPDATE This table is used in Table C.1 to calculate monitoring costs for the remainder of the permit term for preserves remaining to be acquired. 1. Preserve acres remaining to be acquired by zone linked from Table 2 (updated based on SJMSCP Annual Report). 2. At five-year update, update the years remaining in the permit term in Column C. 3. At five-year update, update the years remaining in the permit term in the denominator of the cell formulas.
SJMSCP Cost and Fee Analysis 2019 Update 2018 Revised Draft Cumm Take_61Percent Calculations.xlsx - NOTES TO USER - 08/01/2018 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE FOR ADOPTION - 08/01/2018 P42
Category A Category B Category C Monitoring, Management & Assessment & 2019 Fees - August 2018 Acquisition Administration, & Total Total Rounded Enhancement Post-permit Endowment Other Open Space $4,425.00 $1,854.00 $409.43 $6,688.43 $6,688 Natural/Ag Lands $8,850.00 $3,708.00 $817.79 $13,375.79 $13,376 Vernal Pool Grasslands $37,259.00 $14,739.00 $2,491.28 $54,489.28 $54,489 Vernal Pool Wetted $36,581.00 $61,692.00 $2,445.78 $100,718.78 $100,719 Category A Category B Category C Monitoring, Management & Assessment & 2018 Fees - Adopted Acquisition Administration, & Total Total Rounded Enhancement Post-permit Endowment Other Open Space $7,531.00 $1,774.00 $395.97 $9,700.97 $9,701 Natural/Ag Lands $15,062.00 $3,547.00 $790.90 $19,399.90 $19,400 Vernal Pool Grasslands $55,853.00 $14,261.00 $2,409.36 $72,523.36 $72,523 Vernal Pool Wetted $54,837.00 $59,669.00 $2,365.36 $116,871.36 $116,871
Monitoring, Management & Assessment & Difference Per Acre ($) Acquisition Administration, & Total Total Rounded Enhancement Post-permit Endowment Other Open Space ($3,106) $80 $13 ($3,013) ($3,013) Natural/Ag Lands ($6,212) $161 $27 ($6,024) ($6,024) Vernal Pool Grasslands ($18,594) $478 $82 ($18,034) ($18,034) Vernal Pool Wetted ($18,256) $2,023 $80 ($16,153) ($16,153)
Monitoring, Management & Assessment & Percent Difference Acquisition Administration, & Total Total Rounded Enhancement Post-permit Endowment Other Open Space -41.2% 4.5% 3.4% -31.1% -31.1% Natural/Ag Lands -41.2% 4.5% 3.4% -31.1% -31.1% Vernal Pool Grasslands -33.3% 3.4% 3.4% -24.9% -24.9% Vernal Pool Wetted -33.3% 3.4% 3.4% -13.8% -13.8% SJMSCP Cost and Fee Analysis 2019 Update 2018 Revised Draft Cumm Take_61Percent Calculations.xlsx - Fee Summary Comparison - 08/01/2018 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE FOR ADOPTION - 08/01/2018 P43
TABLE A.1 SJMSCP Fee Update - 2018 (for 2019 SJMSCP Development Fee Cycle) Category A Per-Acre Acquisition Cost Factors by Zone (2018 dollars) Primary Zone of Southwest Central Zone the Delta Zone 3 Fee title value1 a $14,551 $13,708 na Easement percent of fee title value2 b 61% 61% na Easement costs a × b $8,876 $8,362 $1,000 1. SJCOG, Inc. Fee Study Property List, Table A and Table B 2. SJCOG, Inc. Appraisals as of May 2018 3. Based on standard easement cost in Southwest Zone of $1,000/acre.
SJMSCP Cost and Fee Analysis 2019 Update 2018 Revised Draft Cumm Take_61Percent Calculations.xlsx - A1 PerAcreCostFactorsbyZone - 08/01/2018 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE FOR ADOPTION - 08/01/2018 P44
TABLE A.2 SJMSCP Fee Update - 2018 (for 2019 SJMSCP Development Fee Cycle) Per Acre Acquisition Cost by Preserve/Habitat Type (2018 dollars) SJMSCP Zone Total Land Total Transaction Acquisition Primary Zone of Southwest Weighted Central Zone Costs 5 Costs Per the Delta Zone Acquisition Acre Preserve/Habitat Type Cost A B C A + B + C = D D × 5% = E D + E Easement cost by zone 1 d $8,876 $8,362 $1,000 Agricultural Lands Percent in zone 2 e 98% 2% 0% Weighted costs 3 d × e $8,716 $151 $0 $8,867 $443 $9,310 Natural Lands Non-vernal pool natural lands Percent in zone 2 f 77% 4% 18% Weighted costs 3 d × f $6,857 $371 $183 $7,411 $371 $7,782 Vernal pool grasslands 4 n/a n/a n/a $11,641 $582 $12,223 Vernal pool wetted 4 n/a n/a n/a $11,641 $582 $12,223 1. See Table A.1. 2. Percent of total lands in each category assumed to be in a given zone. Based on 1996 Economic Analysis. 3. Weighted average cost based on generalized proportion of total preserve land in each zone. Assumes easement acquisition for lands categorized as agriculture and all natural lands except vernal pool habitat. 4. Assumes fee title acquisition for vernal pool lands. Vernal pool habitat fee title land costs assumed to be about 80% of average Central Zone fee title costs. 5. Transaction costs include biological baseline reporting, appraisal, escrow, and survey costs. Costs are estimated at 5 percent of acquisition cost.
SJMSCP Cost and Fee Analysis 2019 Update 2018 Revised Draft Cumm Take_61Percent Calculations.xlsx - A2 PerAcreAcquisitionCost - 08/01/2018 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE FOR ADOPTION - 08/01/2018 P45
TABLE A.3 SJMSCP Fee Update - 2018 (for 2019 SJMSCP Development Fee Cycle) Total Acquisition Costs by Habitat Type, Remainder of Permit Term (2018 dollars) Land Preserve Acres Total Costs of Acquisition Remaining to be Acquisition Preserves by Habitat Type Cost Per Acre Acquired Agricultural lands $9,310 50,243.47 $467,766,706 Natural lands Non-vernal pool natural lands $7,782 17,736.77 $138,027,544 Total for Natural/Ag Lands $8,911 67,980.24 $605,794,250
Vernal pool grasslands $12,223 15,792.42 $193,030,689 Vernal pool wetted $12,223 2,115.00 $25,851,645 Sources: SJCOG, Inc., SJMSCP 2015 Annual Report , and Hausrath Economics Group.
SJMSCP Cost and Fee Analysis 2019 Update 2018 Revised Draft Cumm Take_61Percent Calculations.xlsx - A3 AcquisitionCostHabitatType - 08/01/2018 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE FOR ADOPTION - 08/01/2018 P46
TABLE A.4 SJMSCP Fee Update - 2018 (for 2019 SJMSCP Development Fee Cycle) Category A Acquisition Fee Calculations (2018 dollars)
Habitat Type Preserve Land Acquisition
Costs associated with natural/agricultural lands conversion $605,794,250 Natural/Agricultural land conversion (acres) , remaining 50,971.92 Multi-purpose open space conversion (acres), remaining1 34,959.22
Multiplier for natural/agricultural land conversion 1 Multiplier for multi-ourpose open space conversion1 0.5
Acquisition Component of Natural/Agricultural Lands Fee $8,850
Acquisition Component of Multi-Purpose Open Space Fee1 $4,425
Costs associated with vernal pool grasslands $193,030,689 Vernal pool grassland conversion (acres), remaining 5,180.80 Acquisition Component of Vernal Pool Grasslands Fee $37,259
Costs associated with vernal pool wetted $25,851,645 Vernal pool wetted conversion (acres), remaining 706.70 Acquisition Component of Vernal Pool Wetted Fee $36,581 1. As described in SJMSCP Section 7.4.1.2, the fee calculation allocates the costs associated with agricultural habitat and non-vernal pool natural lands preserves to conversion of both those high value lands (agricultural land and non-vernal pool natural land) and lower value multi-purpose open space. In other words, the SJMSCP does not enhance multi-purpose open space lands but allocates some of the costs of enhancements on agricultural and natural lands preserves to the conversion of multi-purpose open space lands to assist with the financing of those enhancements.
Sources: SJCOG, Inc., SJMSCP 2015 Annual Report , and Hausrath Economics Group.
SJMSCP Cost and Fee Analysis 2019 Update 2018 Revised Draft Cumm Take_61Percent Calculations.xlsx - A4 AcquisitionFEE - 08/01/2018 P47 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE FOR ADOPTION - 08/01/2018
update annually, California CPI factor 3.4% California CPI factor (June 2016 - June 2017) substitute value from prior year workbook in formula in shaded cells in table column 5. TABLE B.1 SJMSCP Fee Update - 2018 (for 2019 SJMSCP Development Fee Cycle) Category B Assessment, Planning, Restoration and Enhancement SJMSCP Preserve land by habitat type, enhancement analysis, and enhancement cost per preserve acre (2018 dollars) Perimeter Total Preserve Acres Hedgerow or (including Percent of Acres Benefiting Other Linear Enhancement neighboring lands Preserve Acres from Habitat Feature ( Enhancement Cost per Preserve Habitat Type preserves) Enhanced1 Enhancements acres)2 Cost per Acre3 Total Enhancement Cost Acre 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agricultural Habitat Lands4 57,935 10% 5,794 776 $58,772 $45,606,704 $787
Natural Lands Ditches 378 33% 126 $126,297 $15,913,409 Grasslands 14,559 33% 4,853 $21,555 $104,605,270 Oak woodlands 858 33% 286 $33,903 $9,696,199 Riparian 2,725 33% 908 $99,723 $90,581,812 Submerged aquatic in the Delta 10 100% 10 $72,723 $727,233 Subtotal 18,530 6,183 $35,826 $221,523,922 Other natural lands5 6,445 33% 2,148 $35,826 $76,966,128 Subtotal Non VP Natural 24,975 $298,490,050 $11,952 Vernal pool wetted 2,121 33% 707 $61,740 $43,650,279 $20,580 Vernal pool grasslands 15,811 33% 5,270 $14,406 $75,922,778 $4,802
Subtotal All Natural Lands 42,907 14,309 $418,063,107
Total 100,842 20,103 $463,669,811 See notes on following page 1. Enhancement criteria derived from the SJMSCP, Section 5.4.6.
2. Unlike most other habitat types, agricultural lands are enhanced by treating linear features that run along the edge of or through fields--features such as roads or drainage ditches. In these cases, the land area of direct enhancement activity is substantially less than that area benefiting from the enhancement. This has the advantage of minimizing impacts to agricultural land production. Installing pollinator hedgerows at the edges of fields and grassland borders along irrigation and drainage ditches, and planting nest trees and associated shrubs and grasses, are enhancements used in the cost analysis to represent the range of types of agricultural land enhancements outlined in the SJMSCP. In addition to benefits to species, these linear features offer benefits of preventing soil erosion and reducing costs for weed control and linear water conveyance infrastructure maintenance. They also enhance the entire field they are associated with, meeting the 10 percent enhancement criterion while also minimizing loss of productive agricultural land. The enhancement cost estimate for agricultural lands is therefore based on the acres of hedgerow or other linear feature multiplied by the cost per acre to install hedgerows and similar linear features.
3. The enhancement cost applies to the acres where construction and/or installation actually takes place. In the case of hedgerows or other edge features, this is only the relatively small area of activity, not the total area that is thereby enhanced. Enhancement cost includes costs for materials, construction labor, and equipment. In addition to the installation activity, the cost per enhanced acre also includes a cost for project oversight and contract adminstration and three years of maintenance and monitoring. For vernal pool wetted restoration, the cost includes 15 years of post- restoration monitoring.
4. For agricultural habitat lands, a SJMSCP describes a broad range of enhancement activities and a generalized target of 10 percent enhancement; providing benefits to species without substantially reducing the amount of agricultural land in production. This can be achieved by implementing the linear features described in footnote 2. Pollinator hedgerows or similar linear features enhance the entire field that they are associated with, thereby counting toward the 10 percent enhancement criteria while taking substantially less land out of production.
5. Estimated based on the weighted average cost for all other non-vernal pool natural lands. Sources: Table A.1, SJCOG, Inc., ICF, and Hausrath Economics Group
SJMSCP Cost and Fee Analysis 2019 Update 2018 Revised Draft Cumm Take_61Percent Calculations.xlsx - B1 PreserveEnhancementCost - 08/01/2018 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE FOR ADOPTION - 08/01/2018 P48
TABLE B.2 SJMSCP Fee Update - 2018 (for 2019 SJMSCP Development Fee Cycle) Category B Assessment, Planning, Restoration and Enhancement Cost Factors (2018 dollars) Remainder of Permit Term Remaining years in permit term 32 used in formulae below to calculate costs for the remainder of the permit term
Biological Site Assessment Number of site visits per year 10 assumes 6 hours per visit Annual cost $8,171 replace value from prior year workbook in formula before changing CPI every year Total Site Assessment cost remainder of permit term $261,472
Preserve Management Plan Preparation Number of management plans per year 10 assumes 40 hours per plan Annual cost $54,472 replace value from prior year workbook in formula before changing CPI every year Total Preserve Management Plan cost remainder of permit term $1,743,104
Preserve Enhancement Plan Preparation Number of enhancement projects per year 5 assumes 40 hours per plan for each enhancement project Annual cost $27,236 replace value from prior year workbook in formula before changing CPI every year Total Preserve Enhancement Plan cost remainder of permit term $871,552
Preserve Enhancements on Agricultural Lands Enhancement cost per preserve acre $787
Preserve Enhancements on Non-Vernal Pool Natural Lands Enhancement cost per preserve acre $11,952
Vernal Pool Creation/Enhancement Enhancement cost per preserve acre $20,580
Vernal Pool Upland Grassland Enhancement Enhancement cost per preserve acre $4,802 Sources: SJCOG, Inc., ICF, and Hausrath Economics Group
SJMSCP Cost and Fee Analysis 2019 Update 2018 Revised Draft Cumm Take_61Percent Calculations.xlsx - B2 AssessmentEnhancementCost - 08/01/2018 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE FOR ADOPTION - 08/01/2018 P49
TABLE B.3 SJMSCP Fee Update - 2018 (for 2019 SJMSCP Development Fee Cycle) Category B Assessment, Planning, Restoration and Enhancement (2018 dollars) Cost Allocation by Habitat Type Remainder of Permit Term Costs - Remainder of Permit Term Cost per acre multiplied by Total cost allocated by preserve type percent of total preserve preserve acres by type remaining land remaining to be acquired to be acquired Acres Remaining to Percent of Biological Site Preserve Preserve Preserve Vernal Pool Preserves by Habitat Type be Acquired1 Total Assessment Management Plans Enhancement Plans Enhancements Restoration Agricultural lands 50,243.47 58% $152,959 $1,019,699 $509,850 $39,551,896 na Non-vernal pool natural lands 17,736.77 21% $53,997 $359,971 $179,985 $211,981,957 na Vernal pool grasslands 15,792.42 18% $48,078 $320,510 $160,255 $75,833,534 na Vernal pool wetted 2,115.00 2% $6,439 $42,924 $21,462 na $43,526,799 85,887.66 100% $261,472 $1,743,104 $871,552 $327,367,387 $43,526,799 1. Includes 600 acres of neighboring lands preserves. Sources: SJCOG, Inc., SJMSCP 2015 Annual Report , ICF, and Hausrath Economics Group.
SJMSCP Cost and Fee Analysis 2019 Update 2018 Revised Draft Cumm Take_61Percent Calculations.xlsx - B3 AssessEnhancementCostAlloc - 08/01/2018 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE FOR ADOPTION - 08/01/2018 P50
TABLE B.4 SJMSCP Fee Update - 2018 (for 2019 SJMSCP Development Fee Cycle) Category B Assessment, Planning, Restoration and Enhancement Fee Calculations (2018 dollars) Remainder of Permit Term
Agricultural and Total for Agricultural Total for Vernal Preserve Preserve Non VP Natural and Non VP Natural Vernal Pool Pool (incl. Biological Site Management Enhancement Land Land (incl. assessment Restoration / assessment and Habitat Type Assessment Plans Plans Enhancement and plans) Enhancement plans)
Costs associated with natural/agricultural lands conversion $206,956 $1,379,670 $689,835 $251,533,853 $253,810,314 Natural/Agricultural land conversion (acres), remaining 50,971.9 50,971.9 50,971.9 50,971.9 50,971.9 Multi-purpose open space conversion (acres), remaining1 34,959.2 34,959.2 34,959.2 34,959.2 34,959.2
Multiplier for natural/agricultural land conversion 1 1 1 1 1 Multiplier for multi-purpose open space conversion1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Assessment & Enhancement Component of Natural/Agricultural Lands Fee $3 $20 $10 $3,675 $3,708
Assessment & Enhancement Component of Multi-Purpose Open Space Fee1 $2 $10 $5 $1,838 $1,854
Costs associated with vernal pool grasslands $48,078 $320,510 $160,255 $75,833,534 $76,362,377 Vernal pool grassland conversion (acres), remaining 5,180.8 5,180.8 5,180.8 5,180.8 5,180.8 Assessment & Enhancement Component of Vernal Pool Grasslands Fee $9 $62 $31 $14,637 $14,739
Costs associated with vernal pool wetted $6,439 $42,924 $21,462 $43,526,799 $43,597,624 Vernal pool wetted conversion (acres), remaining 706.7 706.7 706.7 706.7 706.7 Assessment & Enhancement Component of Vernal Pool Wetted Fee $9 $61 $30 $61,592 $61,692 1. As described in SJMSCP Section 7.4.1.2, the fee calculation allocates the costs associated with agricultural habitat and non-vernal pool natural lands preserves to conversion of both those high value lands (agricultural land and non- vernal pool natural land) and lower value multi-purpose open space. In other words, the SJMSCP does not enhance multi-purpose open space lands but allocates some of the costs of enhancements on agricultural and natural lands preserves to the conversion of multi-purpose open space lands to assist with the financing of those enhancements. Sources: SJCOG, Inc., SJMSCP 2015 Annual Report , ICF, and Hausrath Economics Group.
SJMSCP Cost and Fee Analysis 2019 Update 2018 Revised Draft Cumm Take_61Percent Calculations.xlsx - B4 AssessmentEnhancementFEE - 08/01/2018 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE FOR ADOPTION - 08/01/2018 P51
TABLE C.5 for Annual Update SJMSCP Fee Update - 2018 (for 2019 SJMSCP Development Fee Cycle) Category C Monitoring and Program Management/Administration, including endowment for post-permit costs Fee Calculations (2018 dollars) Remainder of Permit Term Project Management & Administration Project Land Manager Financial Plan 5- Habitat Type Monitoring Management Administration Coordination Year Updates Post Permit Costs Total
Costs associated with natural/agricultural lands conversion $19,920,137 $12,542,577 $5,413,076 $211,667 $411,840 $14,921,108 $53,420,405 Natural/Agricultural land conversion (acres) , remaining 53,133.4 53,133.4 53,133.4 53,133.4 53,133.4 53,133.4 53,133.4 Multi-purpose open space conversion (acres), remaining1 35,288.7 35,288.7 35,288.7 35,288.7 35,288.7 35,288.7 35,288.7
Multiplier for natural/agricultural land conversion 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Multiplier for multi-purpose open space conversion1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Monitoring & Administration Component of Natural/Agricultural Lands Fee $281 $177 $76 $3 $6 $211 $755
Monitoring & Administration Component of Multi-Purpose Open Space Fee1 $141 $89 $38 $2 $3 $106 $378
Costs associated with vernal pool grasslands $4,443,040 $2,797,529 $1,207,347 $47,211 $91,858 $3,328,043 $11,915,028 Vernal pool grassland conversion (acres), remaining 5,180.8 5,180.8 5,180.8 5,180.8 5,180.8 5,180.8 5,180.8 Monitoring & Administration Component of Vernal Pool Grasslands Fee $858 $540 $233 $9 $18 $642 $2,300
Costs associated with vernal pool wetted $595,034 $374,659 $161,694 $6,323 $12,302 $445,708 $1,595,720 Vernal pool wetted conversion (acres), remaining 706.7 706.7 706.7 706.7 706.7 706.7 706.7 Monitoring & Administration Component of Vernal Pool Wetted Fee $842 $530 $229 $9 $17 $631 $2,258 Note: Accounts for existing preserve fund balances applied against these costs. 1. The fee calculation allocates the costs associated with agricultural habitat and non-vernal pool natural lands preserves to conversion of both those high value lands (agricultural land and non-vernal pool natural land) and lower value multi-purpose open space, thereby assisting with the financing of management and monitoring on agricultural and natural lands preserves. Sources: SJCOG, Inc. and SJMSCP 2014 Annual Report (February 2015 draft), ICF, and Hausrath Economics Group.
SJMSCP Cost and Fee Analysis 2019 Update 2018 Revised Draft Cumm Take_61Percent Calculations.xlsx - C MonitorAdminFEE - 08/01/2018 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE FOR ADOPTION - 08/01/2018 P52
TABLE 1 2018 Economic Analysis and Fee Update Land Conversion and Preserve Acres by Habitat Type for the 50-year Permit Term Number of Preserve Total Preserve Neighboring Land Total All Acres to Land Acres for Protection Preserve Percent Habitat Type Land Conversion Conversion Acres Compensation Preserves Acres Total Acres Agricultural lands1 57,635 1.00 57,635 300 57,935 57%
Natural Lands Ditches2 126 3.00 378 378 0.37% Grasslands3 4,853 3.00 14,559 14,559 14.44% Oak woodlands4 286 3.00 858 858 0.85% Riparian5 900 3.00 2,700 25 2,725 2.70% Submerged aquatic in the Delta Zone 3 3.00 10 10 0.01% Vernal pool grasslands6 VP - wetted surface area 707 3.00 2,121 2,121 2.10% VP -upland grassland 5,187 3.00 15,561 15,561 15.43% VP -Neighboring Land Protection preserves7 na 250 250 0.25% Other natural lands8 2,140 3.00 6,420 25 6,445 6.39% Subtotal Natural Lands 14,202 42,607 300 42,907 42.55%
Total 71,837 100,242 600 100,842 100.00% NOTE: In the following footnotes, "type" refers to the mapped habitat unit identified in the SJMSCP Biological Analysis (Chapter 2). The following footnotes provide summaries only and the reader should refer to the Biological Analysis for a detailed desription of each habitat type. 1. Neighboring Land Protection Preserves consist of ditched agricultural lands providing habitat for giant garter snake and pond turtle and other lands as needed for compensation to other covered species associated with agricultural land preserves, 2. Drainage ditches (unlined) generally found in agricultural fields (D types). 3. Valley grasslands (G types) and Foothill grasslands (G2 types). 4. Blue Oak woodlands, savanna and forests (BL types), Blue Oak Conifer woodlands, savana and forests (BCN types), Valley Oak Woodland, savanna and forests (V types), and Mixed Oak Woodlands, savanna and forests (O types). 5. This category includes those portions of rivers and major streams located outside the Primary Zone of the Delta (Mokelumne, Calaveras, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin Rivers). These were originally included in a separate "Riparian Zone" during the SJMSCP planning process (i.e., "Riparian" refers to a zone rather than to the "Riparian" habitat type. The Riparian Zone was "absorbed" or combined into its surrounding zone (i.e., Central/Central-Southwest) in the final SJMSCP. It generally included River and Deep water channel (W), Tributary Streams (W2), Creeks-intermittent and perennial (W3, W3-i, W3-p), Dead-end sloughs (W-4) and their associated riparian habitats (Great Valley Riparian - R, R2, R3, R5, R4, S, S2). This category includes 25 acres of Neighboring Lands Protection Preserves for Valley elderberry longhorn beetle habitat. 6. Vernal pool grasslands (G3 type) . 7. The vernal pool preserves for Neighboring Land Protection consist of existing vernal pools (no creation requirement). Enhancements will benefit the tiger salamander. 8. This category includes all natural land types except for Vernal Pools. Cost estimates in this category are an average of the costs of acquiring, restoring, enhancing the Natural Land categories specified in the preceding categories excluding Vernal Pools. This category also includes natural lands not included in other categories: All Water Features (W types), Channel islands (I types), tule island and mudflat (I2) marsh, and Diablan sage scrub (S3 types) and all other types of Natural Lands.
SJMSCP Cost and Fee Analysis 2019 Update 2018 Revised Draft Cumm Take_61Percent Calculations.xlsx - 1 SJMSCP Acres 6_4_2015 - 08/01/2018 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE FOR ADOPTION - 08/01/2018 P53
TABLE 2 2018 Economic Analysis and Fee Update Preserve Acres, Total and Remaining to be Acquired Total Preserve Total Preserve Acres Remaining Total Preserve Acres Acquired to Be Acquired Acres - 50-year through (links to A.3, B.3. Preserve/Habitat Type Permit 12/31/2017 and C.4) Agricultural lands 57,935 7,691.53 50,243.47 Natural lands Ditches 378 - 378.00 Grasslands 14,559 7,156.83 7,402.17 Oak woodlands 858 - 858.00 Riparian 2,725 50.80 2,674.20 Submerged aquatic in the Delta 10 - 10.00 Other natural lands 6,445 30.60 6,414.40 Subtotal non-vp natural lands 24,975 7,238.23 17,736.77 Total Non VP Natural/Ag Lands 82,910 14,929.76 67,980.24
Vernal pool wetted 2,121 6.00 2,115.00 Vernal pool grasslands 15,811 18.585 15,792.42
Total 100,842 14,954.35 85,887.66 Sources: Table 1 and SJCOG, Inc., 2017 Annual Report Table 6 and Table 12
SJMSCP Cost and Fee Analysis 2019 Update 2018 Revised Draft Cumm Take_61Percent Calculations.xlsx - 2 RemainingPreservetoAcquire - 08/01/2018 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE FOR ADOPTION - 08/01/2018 P54
TABLE 3 2018 Economic Analysis and Fee Update Allowed and Remaining Incidental Take Acreage Take Authorizations - 50-year Permit Cumulative Acres Remaining Acres of (including multi- of Take through Land Conversion, (links Preserve/Habitat Type purpose open space) 12/31/2017 to A.4, B.4. and C.5) Agriculture 57,635 14,433.64 43,201.36 Multi-purpose (other open space) 37,465 2,505.78 34,959.22 Natural lands Vernal pool wetted 707 0.30 706.70 Vernal pool upland grassland 5,187 6.20 5,180.80 All other natural lands 8,308 537.77 7,770.56 Total 109,302 17,483.69 91,818.64 Sources: Table 1, SJMSCP Table 1-1 and Table 4.2-2; SJCOG, Inc., 2017 Annual Report Table 4 (revised)
SJMSCP Cost and Fee Analysis 2019 Update 2018 Revised Draft Cumm Take_61Percent Calculations.xlsx - 3 Cumulative Take_Remaining - 08/01/2018 P55
AGENDA ITEM 9 P56
August 2018 Management & Finance STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Tri-Valley San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Information
SUMMARY: The Tri-Valley-San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority (Authority) was created under AB 758 (2017) and is tasked with the mission:
“to plan and help deliver a cost-effective connection from the San Joaquin Valley to the Bay Area Rapid Transit District’s rapid transit system and the Altamont Corridor Express in the Tri-Valley, to address regional economic and transportation changes” (Section 2 of AB 758 (Chapter747)).
The Authority is governed by a board of directors composed of 15 members, 7 of whom represent San Joaquin County jurisdictions. AB 758 requires that a “project feasibility report” must be completed by July 1, 2019. On July 25, 2018, the Authority’s board of directors reached the first major milestone towards achieving this goal by taking five actions related to the preferred project alternative identified by the Authority staff, known as “Valley Link.” Adopted a preferred project alternative for advancement into project-level environmental clearance and design Approved overall work program milestones and 12-month schedule for completion of the Project Feasibility Report and project-level environmental clearance and design Authorized the executive director to negotiate and execute an addendum to the contract to complete the Project Feasibility Report Authorized the executive director to negotiate a contract option for preparation of project level environmental documentation Directed staff to initiate environmental project scoping process Attachment A provides a summary of recommendation slides included in the staff presentation to the Authority on July 25, 2018. “Valley Link” is intended to provide a cost-effective and reliable transit option between Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) rail system. More P57 specifically, this option provides San Joaquin County residents a direct connection to the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. Currently, San Joaquin County residents have two options for non-auto travel to BART during the AM/PM commute period: 1. Bus service. RTD’s Route 150 travels between Downtown Stockton and East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station; stopping at Michigan Park-N-Ride (Stockton), Walmart Park-N-Ride (Manteca), Save Mart Park-N-Ride (Lathrop), and Tracy Transit Center. 2. ACE Option. ACE travels to Pleasanton, where commuters can use Wheels Bus route 53 to access the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station.
“Valley Link” would offer a direct rail transit link from San Joaquin County to the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, with trains departing every 24 minutes (meeting every other BART train) during the peak period, and every 60 minutes off-peak. Phase 1 would serve North Lathrop, River Islands, Downtown Tracy, Ellis Historical (optional), and Mountain House; while Phase 2 would extend to downtown Stockton. The projected travel time would be 47 minutes from Mountain House to BART, which is competitive with the automobile during peak periods.
Source: Tri-Valley San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority, July 2018 When the Authority began this venture, it was unknown whether BART would approve the long- discussed extension into Livermore (alternatives terminating at Isabel Avenue and Greenville Road). However, BART decided not to advance the Livermore extension or any other alternatives while finalizing their EIR in May 2018. Thus, to fulfill its mission to connect BART and ACE, the Authority is responsible to expand the project all the way to East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The Authority created a list of recommendations on project purpose and need, (proposed) project & phasing options, alignment, stations & connectivity, service characteristics, and vehicle technology. More detail can be found in the discussion section of this staff report. P58
RECOMMENDATION: This is an information item; no action is requested. FISCAL IMPACT: SJCOG previously approved the use of $300,000 of STA funds for this project. Depending on the results of the Project Feasibility Report, SJCOG may or may not be requested to allocate additional funding for the design, development, operation, and maintenance. These figures will be defined at a later time. BACKGROUND: In October 2017, the Governor signed AB 758, establishing the Tri-Valley San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority. The Authority is comprised of 15 representatives from San Joaquin County and San Francisco Bay Area including: BART, San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC), Mountain House Community Service District, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA), Counties of San Joaquin and Alameda, Town of Danville, and Cities of Dublin, Lathrop, Livermore, Manteca, Pleasanton, Stockton, Tracy, and San Ramon. Caltrans is a partner of the Authority. Seven out of 15 seats are held by San Joaquin County representatives including: SJCOG Board Member and Ripon Vice Mayor Leo Zuber (San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission) SJCOG Board Member and San Joaquin County Supervisor Bob Elliot (San Joaquin County) SJCOG Board Member and Stockton City Councilmember Susan Lofthus (City of Stockton) Director Bernice Tingle (Mountain House Community Services District) Vice Mayor Debby Moorhead (City of Manteca) Councilmember Paul Akinjo (City of Lathrop) Mayor Pro Tem Veronica Vargas (City of Tracy) LAVTA is designated by AB 758 as the managing agency at least until the July 1, 2019 deadline for the Project Feasibility Report. In January 2018, LAVTA Executive Director Michael Tree presented on the project to the SJCOG Board. In addition, the 18-month budget for $1.3 million feasibility study (July 2019 completion date) was announced. The $1,571,100 budget (including administrative costs) was comprised of $300,000 of SJCOG State Transit Assistance (STA) funds, $521,400 of Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Regional Measure 1 funds, and $750,000 of Caltrans Sustainable Communities Grant. During those 18 months, the Authority is proceeding with the following goals/objectives: 1. Holding multiple TAC and Board meetings to discuss project purpose and need, station design, project delivery, vehicles & technology, and project review to guide the development of the preferred local alternative (i.e. Valley Link); 2. Deciding on a preferred alternative; P59
3. Simultaneously starting the project feasibility report and environmental impact report; 4. Adopting a project by July 2019. The Authority held a multitude of TAC and Board meetings starting in January 2018. These meetings revolved around project purpose and need, station design, alignment, project delivery, vehicles and technology, and project review. The overall goal was to produce a reasonable product for the feasibility study. On May 24, 2018, BART certified the EIR to extend BART to Livermore but voted 5 to 4 against extending BART and 5 to 3 against any other alternative. However, BART passed the responsibility onto the Authority to connect the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station with San Joaquin County. BART’s decision may allow the Authority access to a portion of $635 million in funds allotted for the BART Livermore extension. In June 2018, the Authority officially named this project “Valley Link.” On July 25, 2018, the Authority took action on multiple recommendations related to the Valley Link project. The complete “Valley Link Binder” (370 pages), staff report, and presentation are downloadable from the Authority’s website: https://www.acetobart.org/upcoming-meeting Below are recommendations that were approved at the July meeting. Project Purpose and Need Rail connectivity between the Bay Area Rapid Transit District’s rapid transit system and the Altamont Corridor Express commuter service in the Tri-Valley. Project implementation that is fast, cost-effective and responsive to the goals and objects of the communities it will serve. Improves connectivity within the Bay Area Megaregion: connecting people, jobs, and housing. Supports the vision of the California State Rail Plan to connect the Northern California Megaregion to the State rail system. Project & Phasing Options Rail service from the existing Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station to the proposed ACE North Lathrop Station, utilizing transportation rights-of-way where feasible: Phase 1 – Rail service from the existing Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station to the proposed ACE North Lathrop Station Phase 2 – Rail service extended from the ACE North Lathrop Station to the existing ACE and Amtrak Stockton Station Further, explore opportunities for early action (a minimum operable segment). Alignment Rail service from the existing Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station to the proposed ACE North Lathrop Station Utilizing existing transportation rights-of-way where feasible P60
Explore connectivity and partnerships to not preclude future expansions or connectivity to other State or regional hubs and/or destinations. Tri-Valley Segment Recommendation – BART connection at Dublin/Pleasanton Station, at-grade single track alignment in I-580 median with passing sidings between stations Altamont Pass Segment Recommendation – Alignment with former Southern Pacific Railroad corridor, and consider one grade separation at Altamont Pass Road San Joaquin Valley Segment Recommendation – Consider a maintenance facility at Hansen Road. Conduct negotiations with Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) to determine options and confirm the feasibility of viable alignment alternatives to the railroad corridor.
Source: Tri-Valley San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority. July 2018 Stations & Connectivity Including the following stations in the proposed project: Dublin/Pleasanton BART Intermodal Station (Tri-Valley) Isabel Station (Tri-Valley) Greenville ACE Intermodal Station (Tri-Valley) Mountain House (San Joaquin County) Downtown Tracy (San Joaquin County) River Islands (San Joaquin County) North Lathrop ACE Intermodal (San Joaquin County) The following stations will be considered as infill stations in the CEQA document: South Front Station (Tri-Valley) Grant Line Road Station (San Joaquin County) P61
Ellis Station (San Joaquin County) Advance efficient station planning consistent with community goals and objectives.
Source: Tri-Valley San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority. July 2018 Service Characteristics Regular service throughout the day in both directions with the ultimate goal of matching BART hours of operation and frequency. Initial service to include: Peak period 12-minute and off-peak (weekday nights and weekends) 30-minute frequency from BART Dublin/Pleasanton Station to Greenville Station Peak period 24-minute and off-peak (weekday nights and weekends) 60-minute frequency beyond Greenville Station Operate initial service from 5:00 am to 8:00 pm with a goal to extend to 4:00 am to 1:00 am
Vehicle Technology Focus analysis on a Multiple Unit with hybrid technology (e.g. diesel and electric), with the ability to convert to battery power in the future.
P62
NEXT STEPS: SJCOG will provide comments, continue to coordinate with the Authority and bring any future funding requests before the Board for consideration. The Authority’s timeline (Attachment B) indicates the following future steps: o Develop Project Feasibility Report and CEQA/NEPA documents (now until June 2019). o Project Adoption (July 2019) o Design and Construction (4 – 7 years) o Service Start (2023 – 2026)
ATTACHMENTS: A. Project Recommendations – Excerpt from Presentation Given at Authority Boarding Meeting on July 25, 2018 (Full presentation available at https://www.acetobart.org/upcoming-meeting)
B. Valley Link Time Line
Prepared by: Travis Yokoyama, Associate Regional Planner
ATTACHMENT A - Project Recommendations -P63 Authority Board Meeting on July 25, 2018 P64 1. Purpose and Need • Rail connectivity between the Bay Area Rapid Transit District’s rapid transit system and the Altamont Corridor Express commuter service in the Tri-Valley. • Project implementation that is fast, cost-effective and responsive to the goals and objectives of the communities it will serve. • Improve connectivity within the Bay Area Megaregion: connecting people, jobs and housing. • Supports the vision of the California State Rail Plan to connect the Northern California Megaregion to the State rail system. P65 2. Project + Phasing Options Recommendation
• Rail service from the existing Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station to the proposed ACE North Lathrop Station, utilizing existing transportation rights-of-way where feasible: – Phase 1 – Rail service from the existing Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station to the proposed ACE North Lathrop Station – Phase 2 - Rail service extended from the ACE North Lathrop Station to the existing ACE and Amtrak Stockton Station • Further explore opportunities for early action (a minimum operable segment) P66 3. Alignment Recommendation
• Rail service from the existing Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station to the proposed ACE North Lathrop Station • Utilizing existing transportation rights-of-way where feasible • Explore connectivity and partnerships to not preclude future expansions or connectivity to other State or regional hubs and/or destinations P67 3.1 Segment 1: Tri-Valley Recommendation
• BART connection at Dublin/Pleasanton Station, at-grade single track alignment in I-580 median with passing sidings between stations P68 3.2 Segment 2: Altamont Pass Recommendation • Alignment within former Southern Pacific Railroad corridor, and consider one grade separation at Altamont Pass Road. P69 Segment 2: Altamont Pass P70 3.3 Segment 3/4: San Joaquin Valley Recommendation • Consider a maintenance facility at Hansen Road. • Conduct negotiations with railroad to determine options. • Confirm feasibility of viable alignment alternatives to the railroad corridor. P71 Segment 3/4: San Joaquin Valley P72 4.1 Stations Recommendation
Include the following stations in the proposed project: – Dublin/Pleasanton BART – Mountain House Intermodal – Downtown Tracy – Isabel – River Islands – Greenville ACE Intermodal – North Lathrop ACE Intermodal P73 Greenville ACE Intermodal P74 Mountain House Station P75 Downtown Tracy Station P76 River Islands Station P77 North Lathrop ACE Intermodal P78 4.2 Infill Stations Recommendation
The following stations will be considered as infill stations in the CEQA document:
• South Front • Grant Line Road • Ellis Historical P79 4.3 Stations Recommendation
• Further explore station locations for the viable alignment alternatives to the railroad corridor • Advance efficient station planning consistent with community goals and objectives P80 5. Service Characteristics
• Regular service throughout the day in both directions with the ultimate goal of matching BART hours of operation and frequency. • Initial service to include: Peak period 12-minute and 30- minute off-peak frequency from BART Dublin/Pleasanton Station to Greenville Station and 24-minute peak and 60 minute off-peak frequency beyond Greenville Station. Operate initial service from 5:00 am to 8:00 pm. P81 6. Vehicle Technology Recommendation
• Focus analysis on a Multiple Unit with hybrid technology with the ability to convert to battery power in the future P82 TRI-VALLEY/SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY JULY 2018 Valley Link Rail Project Delivery PREPARED BY MIG,INC.
PHASE ONE: IDENTIFY LOCALLY PREFERRED PHASE TWO: ADVANCE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PHASE THREE: DESIGN ALTERNATIVE PREPARE PROJECT DELIVERY PLAN AND CONSTRUCTION
Technical Technical Technical Member Member Member Advisory Advisory Advisory Agency Agency Agency Committee Committee Committee Coordination Coordination Coordination ATTACHMENT B – Valley Link Timeline
Design & Construction
Authority Board Meetings Decision on Authority Board Meetings Project Service • Project Purpose and Need Locally Preferred • Station Area Plans Adoption Start • Stations Alternative • Project Funding Plan • Project Delivery • Transit Connectivity • Vehicles & Technology • Management, Operations and Maintenance Plan • Project Review • Project Delivery Method
Project Feasibility Report
CEQA (EIR)/NEPA (EIS)
COMMUNITY COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNITY COMMUNICATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT AND ENGAGEMENT
JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUNE JULY-AUG SEP NOV FEB APR JUNE JULY 4-7 YEARS 2023-2026 2018 2019 2018 2019