Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA | 707.565.5373 | scta.ca.gov | rcpa.ca.gov
Technical Advisory Committee
MEETNG AGENDAPLEASE NOTE: The SCTA/RCPA Business Office is closed, and this meeting will be conducted entirely by
teleconference pursuant to the provisions of the Governor’s Executive Orders N-29-20 and N-35-20, suspending certain requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. TAC Members will be video-conferencing into the
TAC Meeting via Zoom. Members of the public who wish to listen to the meeting may do so via the following platform:
Join Zoom Meeting:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86395004855
Meeting ID: 863 9500 4855
Dial by your location: 1 (669) 900 9128
One tap mobile: +16699009128,,86395004855#
Instructions for Public Comment: Please submit any comments in writing to Seana Gause at [email protected] by 12:30pm on May 28 (please identify the agenda item related to your comment
and indicate whether your comment should be read aloud or only submitted for the record).
May 28, 2020 – 1:30 p.m. Sonoma County Transportation Authority
Meeting to be held remotely via Zoom. Information provided above.
ITEMS
1. Introductions
2. Public Comment
3. Approval of Minutes, April 23, 2020* DISCUSSION/ACTION
4.SB743/VMT Update*
5.Measure M DISCUSSION
5.1 Measure Reauthorization Update: Draft Expenditure Plan
https://scta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/4.1.1c-GoSonoma-Expenditure-Plan-2020-5-26-2020-Final-clean-5-20-20.pdf
5.2 Invoicing/Obligation Status*
5.3 Measure M Project Presentations to Citizens Advisory Committee: REVISED Status and Schedule*
5.4 Measure M revised 20/21 REVISED LSR Estimates*
6. Regional Information Update
6.1 Inactive Federal Obligation Status*: project sponsors should be prepared to address status of inactive obligations at the meeting: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/projects/inactive-projects
1
Currently Inactive: Petaluma, County of Sonoma, Santa Rosa, Windsor; County of Sonoma and Petaluma pending
6.2 HSIP-10 Announcement*
6.3 Local Road Safety Plan – RFP Working Group Update*
7. SCTA/RCPA Board Meeting June 8, 2020 - CANCELLED
8. Other Business / Comments / Announcements
9. Adjourn *Materials attached.
**Materials distributed separately
The next S C T A meeting will be held July 13rd, 2020
The next TAC meeting will be held on June 25th, 2020
Copies of the full Agenda Packet are available at www.scta.ca.gov
DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability that requires the agenda materials to be in an alternate format, or that requires an interpreter or other person to assist you while attending this meeting, please contact SCTA at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation.
SB 343 DOCUMENTS RELATED TO OPEN SESSION AGENDAS: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Technical Advisory Committee after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Sonoma County Transportation Authority office at 411 King St, Santa Rosa, during normal business hours.
TAC Voting member attendance – (6 Month rolling 2019-20)
Jurisdiction Octobe Nov/De Januar Februa March April
Cloverdale Public Works
Cotati Public Works
County of Sonoma DHS*
County of Sonoma PRMD*
County of Sonoma Regional Parks*
County of Sonoma TPW* (by pho
Healdsburg Public Works
Petaluma Public Works & Transit
Rohnert Park Public Works (by pho
Santa Rosa Public Works**
Santa Rosa Transit**
Sebastopol Public Works (by pho
SMART
Sonoma County Transit*
Sonoma Public Works
Windsor Public Works
*One Vote between all **One Vote between all
2
The SCTA/RCPA Business Office is closed, and this meeting was conducted entirely by teleconference pursuant to the provisions of the Governor’s Executive Orders N-29-20 and N-35-20, suspending certain
requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act.
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES
Meeting Notes of April 23, 2020
ITEM
1. Introductions
Meeting called to order at 1:31 p.m. by Seana Gause.
Members: Craig Scott, City of Cotati; Eric Janzen, City of Cloverdale; Larry Zimmer, Chair, City of Healdsburg; Jeff Stuttsman, City of Petaluma; Nancy Adams, City of Santa Rosa; Henry Mikus, City of Sebastopol; Alejandro Perez, Town of Windsor; Steve Urbanek, Sonoma County Transportation and Public Works; Joanne Parker, SMART; Laurel Chambers, Sonoma County – Department of Health Services; Brittany Lobo, Sonoma County – Department of Health Services; Elizabeth Tyree, Sonoma County Regional Parks; Johannes Hoevertsz, Sonoma County Transportation and Public Works; Nader Dahu, Sonoma County Transportation and Public Works; Eydie Tacata, City of Rohnert Park.
Guests: Steve Birdlebough, Sonoma County Transportation and Land Use Coalition.
Staff: James Cameron, Janet Spilman, Drew Nichols, Seana Gause, Tanya Narath, Dana Turrey; Chris Barney.
2. Public Comment
Steve Birdlebough noted he is sending emails to each committee member concerning an effort to rank projects in the CTP project list in terms of their contributions – either reduction or increase - of GHG emissions.
Mr. Birdlebough requested feedback from the committee if these ranks are accurate and highlighted the environmental community would like to see the projects that will reduce GHG emissions be built early.
3. Approval of Minutes, March 26, 2020 - ACTION
Larry Zimmer moved for approval; Steve Urbanek seconded.
The motion was approved unanimously.
4. TFCA FYE21 Proposed Program of Projects
Dana Turrey presented on the TFCA FYE 21 Proposed Program of Projects. This is an annual program from BAAQMD and is managed by the SCTA.
SCTA issued a Call for Projects in February and four project applications were received. Three of these projects are from the transit agencies – an electric bus purchase (Sonoma County Transit), a transit marketing program (Petaluma Transit), and a trip reduction program (Santa Rosa CityBus).
For the competitive program, an application was received from Petaluma Public Works for a portion of the Lynch Creek Trail to convert from a trail to a class 1 pathway.
Staff is requesting the committee to review and to recommend to the SCTA Board of Directors for approval.
Steve Urbanek moved to recommend approval to the SCTA Board of Directors, Nancy Adams second.
3
The motion was unanimously approved.
5. Measure M
5.1. Measure Reauthorization Update: Draft Expenditure Plan
This is included as an informational item. There have been revisions since the last TAC meeting.
James Cameron pointed out the revisions that happened based on input from advocates and the CAC.
There are a couple paragraphs to clarify what is eligible for a project under implementation.
Seana Gause read the Public Comment by Michael Hillber (attached as Attachment A).
5.2. Measure M Maintenance of Effort Policy 14 Revisions
Seana Gause recalled the proposed policy revision for the MOE.
This body recommended revisions to the MOE policy update on February 23.
In March, the revision was presented to the CAC. The CAC requested staff remove the aggregate approach from the proposed policy , and instead each city be judged individually for compliance.
Another change is SCTA staff is asking to consider this policy update for the new measure and also for the existing Measure M policy. This would take effect after the next reporting cycle starting in FY20-21, with the previous three years as the baseline.
Nancy Adams commented this language will address the hiccup in the revenue stream this fiscal year, and next fiscal year, as these will be dramatically decreased.
Seana Gause recalled Staff is looking for a recommendation of approval from the TAC to the SCTA Board of Directors.
Eric Janzen moved for recommendation for approval, Larry Zimmer seconded.
The motion was unanimously approved.
6. TFCA/TDA3 Quarterly Report
Dana Turrey presented on the quarterly report. The report is through Q3.
This is an informational item and is available for any questions or comments.
6.1. TDA3 FYE 21 Proposed Program of Projects
Ms. Turrey further presented on the TDA3 FYE21 program of projects. This is an annual program that is 2% of a quarter-cent sales tax for transportation and is population based.
This year’s program received applications from four jurisdictions – Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Petaluma, and Sonoma County Regional Parks – for bicycle/pedestrian projects.
This is not an action item, but brought to the committee for their information. This will be going to the SCTA Board of Directors in May for approval.
7. SB743/VMT Update – Discussion
7.1. Updated Caltrans Guidance
Chris Barney announced Caltrans has released guidance for VMT projects on the state highway system. The new document called attention on how to analyze land use projects and included a companion document that looks at road projects.
On the SCTA side, progress on the model improvements that will improve the VMT estimate are continuing.
4
The VMT maps/summaries are still current as of this meeting.
8. Sonoma County 2018 Greenhouse Gas inventory update
Tanya Narath updated the committee on the plans for the 2018 GHG inventory update.
RCPA has conducted two prior updates in 2010 and in 2015. This update will cover the same sectors as in the previous update and will also include the emissions from SMART.
The report will also reference a consumption-based report to give a sense of the magnitude of the consumption patterns in Sonoma County.
Staff aims to publish the updated report this summer.
9. Measure M non-Action Items
9.1. Invoicing/Obligation Status
This is a standing item brought to the committee each month.
9.2. Measure M Project Presentations to Citizen’s Advisory Committee: Status and Schedule
Seana Gause announced the project presentations to the CAC have been suspended for the remainder of the fiscal year due to the pandemic.
The revised list for the next fiscal year was provided to the committee for their awareness.
10. Regional Information Update
10.1. Inactive Federal Obligation Status
This is a standing item brought each month.
Each CMA will have to report out on the projects on this list at a sub-regional meeting and explain their best practices on removing inactive projects. Staff
is seeking input from the jurisdictions on their best practices for keeping federal obligation active, and regular actions taken if a project does become inactive.
11. SCTA/RCPA DRAFT Board agenda, May 11, 2020
The May 11 SCTA Board of Directors meeting agenda was not ready for distribution at the time of this meeting. Most items have been moved to consent as staff expects a big discussion on the sales tax renewal.
12. Other Business / Comments / Announcements – Discussion
Elizabeth Tyree announced limited access at the County Parks to begin starting next week.
13. Adjourn Action
The committee adjourned at 2:23 p.m.
5
SCTA Meeting April 23 2020
Comment on Item 5.1 Measure M Reauthorization Draft Expenditure Plan
Michael Hilber, Sonoma County resident and voter, Public comment on the item 5.1 to be read aloud during the meeting:
Measure M, the original measure, only narrowly passed. For this “reauthorization” it would be wise to NOT give voters reasons to vote No.
Right off, in this expenditure plan, we see that SMART is being given $40 Million. That is reason enough for some people to vote “No.” Believe it or not. It is for something that SMART was to have paid for with their own revenue, including their measure Q tax.
Looking further at the plan, at first glance it appears that 38% will go to roads; and that is a SMALL percentage. That is seen on the page 2 pie chart, 38% to maintain roads. There is also 27% for “improving safety and moving traffic” which people will not be clear on unless they delve deeper reading the details. Also it is vague to say “move traffic” and “improve safety.” So people will be of the impression 38% is going to roads and may vote “no” thinking roads are being shortchanged.
Clearly road conditions are the public’s top priority. This is very true for unincorporated residents using the rural county roads. And the road conditions in the cities are high priority too. Petaluma and Santa Rosa residents expect to see benefit in their city streets and will share in the proceeds of this countywide tax.
But the point is, if they think that only 38% is being allocated to their top priority, namely roads, they may think the funding will be too thin. They may vote “no” thinking the percentage should be higher.
If a quarter percent tax brings in $25M per year, then 38% of that is only $9.5M which doesn’t go too far when split among all the jurisdictions, cities, and county unincorporated area. We all know road repair or reconstruction has become exceedingly expensive. Santa Rosa spent $4 million on just a small section of Fulton Road.
And lastly, for most people bike paths are a negative. They think of the odd green bike lanes put in through Sebastopol, including the ridiculous “squared-off” bike lane in front of the Sebastopol Whole Foods. Most people dislike them. So when they see 12% in the new Measure M for bike paths that may well be a reason to vote “no.” There has even been complaining about the new bike lanes lined out on west 3rd street in Santa Rosa just west of Stony Point. People are saying they are confusing and make it more hazardous for both drivers and bikers.
6
Item 3.0a: Attachment A - Public Comment by Michael Hilber
Sonoma County Transportation Authority
Measure M Appropriation/Invoice Status Report
FY 19/20
Project Sponsor Project Name
Measure M
Program
Prior Apprp
Balance
19/20
Programmed
19/20 Amount
Apprp
Appropriation
Date
Last Invoice
Date
Balance
Remaining Notes
Santa Rosa Hearn Avenue (Phase 3) LSP $595,514 $0 $0 7/10/17 12/17/19 $580,762 R/W
Santa Rosa Hearn Avenue (Phase 3) LSP $1,155,502 $0 $0 7/10/17 12/17/19 $1,001,172 PSE
Santa Rosa Fulton Road Impvrovements LSP $379,860 $0 $0 9/11/17 12/17/19 $28,787 PSE
Santa Rosa Fulton Road Impvrovements LSP $24,928 $0 $0 9/11/17 12/17/19 $28,787 R/W SUP
Sonoma County Airport Blvd Landscaping LSP $20,499 $0 $0 3/27/17 2/20/20 $13,561 CON SUP
Sonoma County Airport Blvd Landscaping LSP $333,583 $0 $0 3/27/17 2/20/20 $320,659 CON CAP
Santa Rosa Santa Rosa Creek Trail Bike/Ped $45,267 $110,000 $0 6/11/18 12/17/19 $44,625 Not prog'd, bal not approp'd in 18/19
Rohnert Park Access Across 101 Bike/Ped $247,011 $0 $0 6/11/2018 2/11/2020 $245,790
Sonoma Co Reg Parks Central Sonoma Valley Trail Bike/Ped $20,000 $0 $0 7/9/2018 10/14/2019 $0
Sonoma Co Reg Parks Bodega Bay Trail Bike/Ped $0 $350,000 $0 Not prog'd, not approp'd in 18/19; push100 prog'd to 20/21
Sonoma Co Reg Parks Sonoma Schellville Trail Bike/Ped $0 $200,000 $0 $100 prog'd, $100 not approp'd in 18/19
Sonoma County TPW Arnold Drive Bike Lanes Bike/Ped $0 $250,000 $0 12/9/2019 2/20/2020 $92,720 Was 1st Invoice final?
Healdsburg Foss Creek Trail Bike/Ped $0 $1,840,000 $0 $1,062 not prog'd, not appop'd in 18/19; on 5/26/20 Agenda
Petaluma Petaluma River Trail Bike/Ped $0 $331,000 $0
SCBC BTW (SCBC) Bike/Ped $0 $13,000 $13,000 4/13/20 $0
SMART NWPRR Bike/Ped $414,896 $0 $0 7/10/19 $140,868 PSE
$3,094,000 $13,000 $2,497,730 total remaining
Project approaching 6 months
Projects that are past 6 months for invoicing or appropriation $524,004 Bike Ped Remaining
OR projects that are programmed for 19/20 that have not been
appropriated after 6 mos. $1,973,726 LSP Remaining
7
411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA| 707.565.5373 | scta.ca.gov | rcpa.ca.gov
Staff Report
To: Sonoma County Transportation Authority – Citizen’s, Transit & Technical Advisory Committee
From: Seana L.S. Gause, Senior – Programming and Projects
Item: Measure M Project Presentations Status and Schedule for FY20/21
Date: April 23rd & 28th, and June 10th, 2020
Issue:
What is the status of the Measure M Project Presentations? On what schedule will the Measure M LSP, LBT, Rail, and Bike/Ped Projects be presented to the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)?
Background:
The CAC is tasked with public oversight of the implementation of Measure M. The CAC review is meant to provide transparency of the project delivery process for the general public. As such, each fiscal year Measure M project sponsors programmed to receive Measure M funds are scheduled to come before the CAC and discuss the status of their projects. Specifically, how Measure M funds have been used on the project to date, how many dollars will be used in the future and for what purpose. Sponsors generally come before the CAC with a project status sheet, showing scope, schedule and cost of the project, matching funds being used (if any) and location of the proposed project.
Because of the COVID-19 Health emergency and Countywide shelter-in-place order, staff is proposing to suspend all remaining presentation for the 19/20 fiscal year. Many jurisdictional staff are serving emergency response duties and addressing issues arising from the shelter in place orders, as well as trying to work remotely themselves wherever possible. Rather than try to force project presentations to conform to the approved schedule, SCTA staff is proposing that project presentations be suspended until the end of the current fiscal year and resume in July 2020 at the beginning of FY20/21. The projects that are affected by this suspension are as follows:
Project Name Project Sponsor Meeting Date
Petaluma River Trail Petaluma March 30, 2020
Access Across 101 Rohnert Park March 30, 2020
NWPRR/SMART Bike Tr SMART April 27, 2020
No Mtg in May
Bicycle Safety and Education SCBC June 29, 2020
8
Additionally, the Citizens Advisory Committee has expressed repeated interest in hearing from the Measure M Local Bus Transit (LBT) recipients. SCTA staff has added the Transit Operators to the schedule of presentation for FY20/21.
Below is a proposed schedule for the Measure M projects to be brought before the CAC for review in FY20/21:
Project Name Project Sponsor Meeting Date Petaluma River Trail Petaluma July 27, 2020 Access Across 101 (Rohnert Park) Rohnert Park August 31, 2020 TRANSIT OPERATORS ALL September 28, 2020 Bike Safety and Education SRTS SCBC October 26, 2020 Bike Safety and Education Bike Month SCBC October 26, 2020 116/121 Intersection Improvements SCTA November 30, 2020 No Mtg in December Foss Creek Trail Healdsburg January 25, 2021 Airport Blvd Landscape Improvements So Co TPW February 22, 2021 Arnold Drive Bike Lanes So Co TPW February 22, 2021 Hearn Avenue Interchange Improvements
Santa Rosa March 29, 2021
Fulton Ave Improvements Santa Rosa March 29, 2021 Santa Rosa Creek Trail Santa Rosa March 29, 2021 Farmers Lane Extension Santa Rosa March 29, 2021 Central Sonoma Valley Trail So Co Reg Parks April 26, 2021 Sonoma Schellville Bike Trail So Co Reg Parks April 26, 2021 Bodega Bay Trail So Co Reg Parks April 26, 2021 No Mtg in May NWPRR/SMART Bike Trail SMART June 28, 2021
There are no meetings scheduled in December or May.
This proposed schedule places the deferred projects from the previous fiscal year early in the presentation order so as to lose as little time as possible in reporting out to the Citizens Advisory Committee.
Policy Impacts:
None, this action is consistent with policy 4.11 in the 2019 Measure M Strategic Plan.
Fiscal Impacts:
None
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the TAC, TTAC and CAC review and accept the above listed approach and schedule.
9
490 Mendocino Ave. #206, Santa Rosa, CA| 707.565.5373 | scta.ca.gov | rcpa.ca.gov
Staff Report To: SCTA Technical Advisory Committee
From: Seana L. S. Gause, Senior – Programming and Projects
Item: REVISED Measure M Local Streets Rehabilitation Allocation Estimates
Date: May 28, 2020
Issue:
What are the revised annual fund estimates for the LS program in Measure M due to COVID-19 Shelter in Place orders?
Background:
Policy 4.1 of the 2019 Measure M Strategic Plan requires that SCTA provide annual fund estimates to the jurisdictions that receive Measure M funds in the above mentioned programs no later than February 1 of each year. The fund estimates for FY20/21 are attached.
On March 16, 2020, the State of California issued Shelter in Place (SIP) orders due to the Health Emergency posed by outbreak of COVID-19. Revenues from sales taxes since then have been much lower than usual due to the SIP order. Revenues are expected to continue to be impacted into FY 20/21. As such, SCTA staff have revised the 20/21 LSR estimates that were distributed to the Measure M LSR recipients in January.
The new estimates are based on projections of sales tax revenues*, rather than actual receipts, as the previous estimates were.
Policy Impacts:
None, this procedure is compliant with the existing policy.
Recommendation:
None, this item is informational.
*See HDL estimates attached
10
SONOMA COUNTY MEASURE MEXTENDED TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX BUDGET ESTIMATE
FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25Industry Group Actuals Projection % Projection % Projection % Projection % Projection % Projection %Autos & Transportation 4,700,842 3,521,119 -25.1% 3,255,119 -7.6% 3,548,119 9.0% 3,725,119 5.0% 3,874,119 4.0% 4,029,119 4.0%Building & Construction 4,011,548 3,401,338 -15.2% 3,349,338 -1.5% 3,684,338 10.0% 3,868,338 5.0% 4,061,338 5.0% 4,264,338 5.0%Business & Industry 5,410,885 4,385,118 -19.0% 4,145,118 -5.5% 4,249,118 2.5% 4,355,118 2.5% 4,464,118 2.5% 4,576,118 2.5%Food & Drugs 1,899,213 1,907,240 0.4% 1,957,240 2.6% 1,996,240 2.0% 2,036,240 2.0% 2,077,240 2.0% 2,119,240 2.0%Fuel & Service Stations 2,185,853 1,672,483 -23.5% 1,696,483 1.4% 1,781,483 5.0% 1,834,483 3.0% 1,889,483 3.0% 1,946,483 3.0%General Consumer Goods 6,351,749 5,818,619 -8.4% 5,743,619 -1.3% 6,030,619 5.0% 6,151,619 2.0% 6,274,619 2.0% 6,399,619 2.0%Restaurants & Hotels 2,948,328 2,375,581 -19.4% 2,184,581 -8.0% 2,337,581 7.0% 2,454,581 5.0% 2,577,581 5.0% 2,706,581 5.0%Transfers & Unidentified 126,019 123,549 -2.0% 549 -99.6% 549 0.0% 549 0.0% 549 0.0% 549 0.0%Total 27,634,438 23,205,047 -16.0% 22,332,047 -3.8% 23,628,047 5.8% 24,426,047 3.4% 25,219,047 3.2% 26,042,047 3.3%Administration Cost (580,850) (514,841) (491,305) (519,817) (537,373) (554,819) (572,925)Total 27,053,588 22,690,206 -16.1% 21,840,742 -3.7% 23,108,230 5.8% 23,888,674 3.4% 24,664,228 3.2% 25,469,122 3.3%Pre Advance for 3Q18 (255,300)With Accrual 26,798,288 22,690,206 -15.3% 21,840,742 -3.7% 23,108,230 5.8% 23,888,674 3.4% 24,664,228 3.2% 25,469,122 3.3%
*Estimate is on an accrual basis (allocations for sales through June)
Note: Estimates assumes a recessionary impact from the Coronavirus pandemic. HdL’s Consensus Forecasts modeled sales tax impacts based on our analysis of previousrecessions plus a review of industry, economist and news reports. Current forecast assumes shelter in place (SIP) continues through May 31; Forecast to be re-evaluated asmore is known about the progression of COVID-19 related events. Business-level sales tax data from the State reflecting the first weeks of this crisis arrives at the end of May;data reflecting the April-June impacts will be available in August.
Assumptions reflect full Wayfair implementation. Forecast DOES NOT account for cash flow impacts that may arise from 90-day deferral and 12-month tax loan Executive OrderPrograms. 2018-19's results include $1,150,000 worth of 2017-18 delayed payments caused by CDTFA’s computer system conversion.
FY 2019-2020: Reflects extensive # of retailers’ temporary closures through May 31 including restaurants, retail centers, auto related businesses plus SIP order whichdecreases point of sale activity; business investment is deferred or eliminated; unemployment spikes in 1q20; continues into 2q20.
FY 2020-21: COVID-19 negative impacts extend into end of calendar year; recovery is underway in latter part of fiscal year; pace of improved revenues subject to businessesreopening, reemployment. Recoveries by industry group will vary greatly.
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION - DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE WITHOUT AUTHORIZATIONHdL · 909.861.4335 · www.hdlcompanies.com4/22/2020 8:20 AM Prepared: 4/22/20 By: knn
11
5/22/2020
Local Road Rehab Funding ALLOCATION AMOUNT
Index Code Project Code Measure M ProjectUpdated
Percentage ShareJanuary 2020 Total
Estimate for FY 2020/21May 2020 COVID-19
Revised 20/21 Estimate
793208 M20001 Cloverdale 1.59304900001% 84,400.53$ 69,586.74$
793208 M20002 Cotati 1.27105400421% 67,341.07$ 55,521.53$
793208 M20003 Healdsburg 2.18486767573% 115,755.37$ 95,438.26$
793208 M20004 Petaluma 9.78354944266% 518,337.30$ 427,359.96$
793208 M20005 Rohnert Park 6.23705282968% 330,442.15$ 272,443.72$
793208 M20006 Santa Rosa 28.14875829571% 1,491,335.18$ 1,229,579.54$
793208 M20007 Sebastopol 1.28393021572% 68,023.26$ 56,083.98$
793208 M20008 Sonoma 1.84037095542% 97,503.77$ 80,390.13$
793208 M20009 Windsor 4.61373970712% 244,438.22$ 201,535.00$
793208 M20010 Sonoma County 43.04362787375% 2,280,472.76$ 1,880,209.54$ 100.00000000000% 5,298,049.60$ 4,368,148.40$
Formula is 50/50 Population/Road Miles with updated Road Miles 9/15/2019 and January 1, 2019 DOF population numbers.
Measure M Allocation for LSR Fiscal Year 2020-21
REVISED Estimated Disbursements
MM_LSR_Percentage_Share_Ratios_FY2020-21 REVISED.xls LSR 20-21 Estimated Allocation12
Inactive Obligations
Local, State Administered/Locally Funded and Rail Projects
Updated on 05/11/2020 Projects > $50k
Project Number
Status Agency Action Required State Project No
Project Prefix
District County Agency RTPA MPO Project Description Latest Date Earliest Authorization Date
Latest Payment Date
Last Action Date
Program Codes Total Cost Amount
Obligations Amount
Expenditure Amount
Unexpended Balance
5920118 Inactive Project is inactive. Funds at risk. Invoice immediately. Provide status to DLAE.
0400020427BRLO
4 SON Sonoma County MetropoMetrop
CHALK HILL RD OVER MAACAMA CREEK, BRIDGE1/10/2019 4/10/2012 1/10/2019 1/10/2019
L11E
531,180.00$ $531,180.00 $160,345.44 $370,834.565920146 Future Invoice under review by Caltrans. Monitor 0415000064BRLO 4 SON Sonoma County MetropoMetropKING RIDGE RD OVER BIG AUSTIN CREEK, REPLA9/27/2019 9/16/2014 9/27/2019 9/27/2019 M2E3,M233 628,000.00$ $628,000.00 $326,616.99 $301,383.0132L0502 Future Invoice under review by Caltrans. Monitor 0418000272ER 4 SON Sonoma County MetropoMetropFITCH MOUNTAIN ROAD MUD FLOW SLIP OUT OV7/2/2019 7/2/2019 1/0/1900 10/15/2019 Q240,ER14 302,120.00$ $267,466.00 $0.00 $267,466.005920137 Future Invoice under review by Caltrans. Monitor 0413000089STPLZ 4 SON Sonoma County MetropoMetropWOHLER ROAD OVER RUSSIAN RIVER BR#20C019/27/2019 4/8/2013 9/27/2019 9/27/2019 Z233,M2E3,M233 1,750,000.00$ $1,650,000.00 $1,401,056.43 $248,943.575920164 Future Invoice ASAP to avoid inactivity. 0419000304STPL 4 SON Sonoma County MetropoMetropON THE JOE RODOTA TRAIL NEAR THE CITY OF S9/6/2019 9/6/2019 9/6/2019 Z240 272,225.00$ $241,000.00 $0.00 $241,000.005920125 Future Invoice under review by Caltrans. Monitor 0400021024BRLO 4 SON Sonoma County MetropoMetropHAUSER RD BRIDGE OVER SOUTH FORK OF GUA8/30/2019 4/13/2011 8/30/2019 8/30/2019 Z233,M233,L1CE, 7,046,101.00$ $7,046,101.00 $6,895,606.62 $150,494.385920147 Future Invoice under review by Caltrans. Monitor 0415000107STPL 4 SON Sonoma County MetropoMetropSONOMA CO.(SONOMA MARIN AREA TRAIL TRAN9/19/2019 2/17/2015 9/19/2019 9/19/2019 M23E 395,347.00$ $350,000.00 $212,968.79 $137,031.215920154 Future Invoice under review by Caltrans. Monitor 0416000459STPL 4 SON Sonoma County MetropoMetropBASE BID LOCATIONS: 1. D STREET - PM 10.00 TO8/30/2019 1/25/2017 8/30/2019 8/30/2019 Z230 4,080,024.00$ $3,377,000.00 $3,250,217.90 $126,782.105920059 Future Invoice under review by Caltrans. Monitor 04071764L STPLZ 4 SON Sonoma County MetropoMetropSONOMA CREEK BR. @ BOYES BLVD (BR.20C-0269/27/2019 9/3/1996 9/27/2019 9/27/2019 Z233,Q110,M240, 8,388,503.00$ $2,078,995.00 $1,969,046.77 $109,948.2332L0565 Future Invoice ASAP to avoid inactivity. 0420000056ER 4 SON Sonoma County MetropoMetropPETRIFIED FOREST ROAD; STEWARD POINT-SKA9/25/2019 9/25/2019 12/9/2019 Q240,ER14 97,792.00$ $97,792.00 $0.00 $97,792.005920153 Future Invoice under review by Caltrans. Monitor 0416000460STPL 4 SON Sonoma County MetropoMetropBODEGA HWY FROM SEXTON LANE TO SEBASTO8/30/2019 1/25/2017 8/30/2019 8/30/2019 Z230 1,149,180.00$ $1,000,000.00 $921,338.00 $78,662.00
1of213
Inactive Obligations
Local, State Administered/Locally Funded and Rail Projects
Updated on 05/11/2020 Projects < $50kProject Number
Status Agency Action Required State Project No
Project Prefix
District County Agency RTPA MPO Project Description Latest Date Earliest Authorization Date
Latest Payment Date
Last Action Date
Program Codes Total Cost Amount Obligations Amount
Expenditure Amount
Unexpended Balance
5022050 Inactive Project is inactive. Funds at risk. Invoice immediately. Provide status to DLAE.
0400020947L-0 BHLS
4 SON Petaluma Metropo Metropo
WASHINGTON STREET BRIDGE OVER PETA8/30/2018 4/5/2011 8/30/2018 8/30/2018
Q120
250,000.00$ $221,325.00 $221,249.07 $75.934442090 Inactive Project is inactive. Funds at risk. Invoice
immediately. Provide status to DLAE.04924841L ER
4 SON Sonoma County Metropo Metropo
MSH-SONCO-002 , EMERGENCY OPENING 4/27/2010 2/18/2009 4/27/2010 6/25/2013
ER60
25,842.65$ $25,842.65 $25,842.65 $0.005028047 Inactive Project is inactive. Funds at risk. Invoice
immediately. Provide status to DLAE.04924890L SR2SF
4 SON Santa Rosa Metropo Metropo
VARIOUS SCHOOLS WITHIN THE CITY OF SA3/15/2012 5/2/2008 3/15/2012 3/18/2014
LU10
289,935.15$ $237,286.12 $237,286.12 $0.005472011 Inactive Project is inactive. Funds at risk. Invoice
immediately. Provide status to DLAE.04074668L HP21L
4 SON Windsor Metropo Metropo
US 101 @ ARATA LANE INTERCHANGE S/B O12/27/2010 11/7/2008 12/27/2010 12/27/2010
Q920
1,375,000.00$ $1,031,989.00 $1,031,989.00 $0.005920107 Inactive Project is inactive. Funds at risk. Invoice
immediately. Provide status to DLAE.04074544L RPSTPLE
4 SON Sonoma County Metropo Metropo
SANTA ROSA CREEK TRAIL REACH-F, CONS6/27/2013 9/12/2008 6/27/2013 6/26/2014
L220
436,006.24$ $373,680.24 $373,680.24 $0.006204069 Inactive Project is inactive. Funds at risk. Invoice
immediately. Provide status to DLAE.040A10U4L HPLUL
4 SON Caltrans Metropo Metropo
US 101 BET. STEELE LANE AND WINDSOR R10/10/2013 6/11/2008 10/10/2013 10/10/2013
LY10,HY10
86,106,541.00$ $5,039,440.00 $5,039,440.00 $0.006204101 Inactive Project is inactive. Funds at risk. Invoice
immediately. Provide status to DLAE.0400020503L HPLUL
4 SON Caltrans Metropo Metropo
U.S. 101 IN PETALUMA AT EAST WASHINGTO9/9/2014 7/8/2011 9/9/2014 11/22/2015
LY20,HY20
10,834,090.00$ $10,007,184.27 $10,007,184.27 $0.006204102 Inactive Project is inactive. Funds at risk. Invoice
immediately. Provide status to DLAE.0400020503L2 HPLUL
4 SON Caltrans Metropo Metropo
U.S. 101 IN PETALUMA AT EAST WASHINGTO7/17/2014 7/8/2011 7/17/2014 11/18/2015
H660
951,241.89$ $951,241.89 $951,241.89 $0.006204108 Inactive Project is inactive. Funds at risk. Invoice
immediately. Provide status to DLAE.0412000649L DEMO
4 SON Caltrans Metropo Metropo
SAN ANTONIO CR BR TO PETALUMA BLVD S4/25/2014 7/2/2013 4/25/2014 4/25/2014
LY20
170,000.00$ $170,000.00 $170,000.00 $0.0032L0503 Future Invoice under review by Caltrans. Monitor 0418000273L ER 4 SON Sonoma County Metropo MetropoCALISTOGA ROAD SLOPE EROSION SLIP OU7/3/2019 7/3/2019 1/0/1900 10/15/2019 Q240,ER14 24,360.00$ $21,565.00 $0.00 $21,565.005022063 Future Invoice under review by Caltrans. Monitor 0419000554L HSIPL 4 SON Petaluma Metropo MetropoVARIOUS LOCATION THROUGHOUT THE CIT9/6/2019 9/6/2019 1/0/1900 9/6/2019 Z240 20,000.00$ $20,000.00 $0.00 $20,000.005022062 Future Invoice under review by Caltrans. Monitor 0419000520L HSIPL 4 SON Petaluma Metropo MetropoVARIOUS INTERSECTIONS THROUGHOUT T9/6/2019 9/6/2019 1/0/1900 9/6/2019 Z240 18,000.00$ $18,000.00 $0.00 $18,000.005920148 Future Invoice under review by Caltrans. Monitor 0415000108L STPL 4 SON Sonoma County Metropo MetropoSPRINGS AREA PLAN IN SONOMA COUNTY.9/19/2019 2/17/2015 9/19/2019 9/19/2019 M23E 508,303.00$ $450,000.00 $435,160.96 $14,839.04
2of214
Local Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 10 Call for Projects
(https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/highway-safety-improvement-program/apply-now)
Application Due Date: Friday, September 4, 2020 Announcement Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2020
Call Size: Approx. $220 million of HSIP funds
Minimum Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR): 3.5
On Monday, May 4, 2020, Caltrans Division of Local Assistance (DLA) announced Cycle 10 Call for Projects for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The total funds available for HSIP Cycle 10 is estimated at approximately $220 million. The application submittal deadline is Friday, September 4, 2020 (midnight).
All applications will be submitted electronically with no hard copies. Applicants must submit the applications before the deadline. Any submittal after midnight of 9/4/2020 will not be accepted. It is highly recommended that you submit your applications as early as possible after completion.
Please contact your DLAEs if you have any questions regarding this Call for Projects. For DLAE contact information, go to: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/other-important-issues/local-assistance-contacts. For program guidelines, application form and other useful documents, please follow the link on top.
HSIP Cycle 10 specifics:
There are two application categories in HSIP Cycle 10: Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) and Funding Set-asides (SA). There are four (4) set-asides: Guardrail Upgrades, Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements,Installing Edgelines and Set-aside for Tribes. For Funding Set-aside applications, BCR calculation isnot required.
Summary of Application Categories for HSIP Cycle 10
Application Category Description Max number of
applications per agency Max amount per
agency
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) No Limit $10 million
Guardrail Upgrades 1 $1 million
Funding Set-asides (SA)
Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
1 $250,000
Installing Edgelines 1 $250,000
Tribes 1 $250,000
Page | 1 5/5/2020
PDWG Item 2B.f
15
State funds will be used for all projects selected for funding in HSIP Cycle 10. Senate Bill (SB) 137 (Chapter 639 of the 2019 Statues) allows up to $100 million of federal local assistance funds being exchanged for non-federal State Highway Account (SHA) funds per year.
HSIP Analyzer is required to be used for all applications. It is a PDF form-based software that streamlines the project cost estimate, safety improvement countermeasure evaluation, crash data input and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) calculation. For a funding set-aside application, the BCR calculation is not required and the HSIP Analyzer will be used for cost estimate only.
Local agencies ineligible for applying HSIP funds in Cycle 10 include: (1) local agencies that have
existing HSIP projects red-flagged for not meeting the HSIP delivery requirements and the red-flags
cannot be resolved as of 9/30/2020; and (2) local agencies who have more than one existing HSIP
projects that have not been in construction phase five years after the project selection (as of9/30/2020), even if time extension has been approved by Caltrans.
For a BCR Application, the minimum BCR to be submitted is 3.5.
Due to the uncertainty of the BCR cutoff in selecting applications for funding, it is allowed to submit multiple applications for a project of systemic type. By including different number of locations that have similar characteristics, these applications will have different BCRs.
Please see the Application Form Instructions for more details.
Page | 2 5/5/2020
16
Tips for a Successful Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Application
No flaws in the BCR calculation
1. The BCR is key for a project to be selected for funding. It is critical to make sure the BCR iscalculated correctly. Please read through Manual for HSIP Analyzer before you start any calculation.
2. Do the safety countermeasures (CMs) selected target the particular crash types at the projectlocations? Are collisions used in the benefit calculation within the influence area of the CMs? Themajority of the rejected applications in the previous cycles were due to:
a. Misuse of CMs
b. The use of crashes not in CM’s influence area
3. For an application proposing shoulder widening or roadway realignments, documentation isrequired to show that an incremental approach has been tried but failed to reduce crashes.Incremental approach would entail installing/adding/upgrading warning signs, delineation, flashingbeacons, installing high friction surface treatment, etc.
4. Have you reviewed the specific requirements that some CMs have in Appendix B of the LocalRoadway Safety Manual? For example, before a traffic signal can be considered for HSIP funding, itwill need to satisfy warrant 4, 5 or 7.
Maximize the project benefit
5. Select locations & corridors with highest numbers of crashes. Identify highest crash corridors firstand then look for projects in those corridors. Do not identify projects first and then look forcollisions to justify the project.
6. Select CMs with high Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) when applicable.
7. Combine multiple CMs or multiple locations with similar characteristics into one application toimprove safety effectiveness and project delivery efficiencies. Use multiple solutions in high crashcorridors. Apply other CMs (e.g. rumble strips/signing upgrades/high visibility striping). If the BCR isvery high (e.g. 30), consider adding other locations that have similar characteristics, face similarsafety issues but have no high number of crashes.
Lower the project cost
8. Focus on low-cost, quick-delivery projects – rumble strips, High Friction Surface Treatments,Pedestrian Crossings, warning signs, etc.
9. Minimize adding non-safety-related components into the project scope – Non-safety-relatedcomponents will make the project harder to deliver and lower the project’s BCR.
Page | 3 5/5/2020
17
Local Road Safety PlanWorking Group Participants
As of 5/21/20
Confirmed Participant Name Jurisdiction PSAFunding Request
X Nader Dahu TPW X nader.dahu@sonoma‐county.org
X Hunter McLaughlin TPW X hunter.mclaughlin@sonoma‐county.org
X Vanessa Garrett Rohnert Park [email protected]
X Jeff Stutsman Petaluma X X [email protected]
X Curt Bates Healdsburg X [email protected]
X Craig Scott Cotati X X [email protected]
Henry Mikus Sebastopol X [email protected]
X Nancy Adams Santa Rosa X X [email protected]
X Rob Sprinkle Santa Rosa X X [email protected]
X Mona Ibrahim Windsor X [email protected]
*Cloverdale and Sonoma are not participating
18
