MOBILITY PARTNERSHIP AGENDA

Transcription

1 1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL MOBILITY PARTNERSHIP Wednesday, September 14, :30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Gilroy City Council Chambers 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA AGENDA 2. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS: This portion of the agenda is reserved for persons desiring to address the Committee on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to 2 minutes. The law does not permit Committee action or extended discussion on any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Committee action is requested, the matter can be placed on the next agenda. All statements that require a response will be referred to staff for reply in writing. 3. ORDERS OF THE DAY CONSENT AGENDA 4. Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of July 19, 2016 REGULAR AGENDA 5. INFORMATION ITEM Receive reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff. 6. INFORMATION ITEM Presentation on of Public Private Partnership (P3) case studies and related information 7. INFORMATION ITEM Presentation on Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) formation 8. INFORMATION ITEM Presentation on Outreach Plan 9. ACTION ITEM Workplan Update/Next Steps 10. ADJOURN Next Mobility Partnership meeting will be on Wednesday, November 09, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.

2 Mobility Partnership July 19, 2016 If you have any questions about the Mobility Partnership, please contact VTA Community Outreach Department at (408) , TTY (408) , or e- mail In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), those requiring accommodations or accessible media for this meeting should notify the Board Secretary s Office 48 hours prior to the meeting at (408) or board.secretary@vta.org or TTY (408) VTA s Homepage is located on the web at: or visit us on Facebook Uhttp://

3 MOBILITY PARTNERSHIP Wednesday, July 19, 2016 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The Mobility Partnership Meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Chairperson Woodward in the Gilroy Police Department Community Room, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA ROLL CALL Attendee Name Title Representing Status Terri Aulman Member County of Santa Clara Absent Margie Barrios Member County of San Benito Present Larry Carr Member County of Santa Clara Present Jerry Muenzer Vice -Chairperson County of San Benito Present Perry Woodward Chairperson County of Santa Clara Present Ignacio Velazquez Member County of San Benito Absent A quorum was present. 2. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS There were no public presentations. 3. ORDERS OF THE DAY REGULAR AGENDA Member Barrios arrived at the meeting at 9:34 a.m. and took her seat. The Agenda was taken out of order. 6. REPORTS FROM VTA AND SBCOG STAFF John Ristow, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Director of Planning & Program Development, and Mary Gilbert, Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) Executive Director, provided updates on proposed sales tax measures for Santa Clara and San Benito counties, and other potential funding sources. Mobility Partnership Page 1 of 7 July 19, 2016

4 Discussions: 1. Ms. Gilbert provided an update on the results of the San Benito County sales tax measure, Measure P, on the June 7, 2016 primary ballot. Sales tax measure did not pass and failed to reach its two-thirds voter-approval threshold. Measure had 59.77% of the vote. 2. Mr. Ristow discussed VTA s proposed sales tax measure. VTA Board of Directors unanimously approved to include the sales tax measure on the November 2016 ballot. Sales tax measure needs two-thirds voter-approval threshold to pass. Highway category includes some funding for the US 101/SR 25 Interchange project and the environmental phase of SR 152 Trade Corridor project. 4. CONSENT AGENDA On General Consensus and there being no objection, Mobility Partnership Regular Meeting Minutes of May 11, 2016 were approved. REGULAR AGENDA (continued) 5. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE Members agreed that next meetings be scheduled for September 14, 2016 (Wednesday) and November 9, 2016 (Wednesday) at 9:30 in the City of Gilroy. Specific location to be determined. M/S/C (Muenzer/Barrios) to set the next meeting on September 14, 2016 and November 9, REPORTS FROM VTA AND SBCOG STAFF (continued) Discussions: 1. Mr. Ristow provided an update on requested meeting with Senator Beall and Assemblymember Frazier. Kurt Evans, VTA Government Affairs Manager State and Federal, recommended the proposed meeting be held on or after fall of 2016 and continue to work on the Mobility Partnership message. Ms. Gilbert mentioned that Central Coast Coalition on US 101 plans to meet with Assemblymember Frazier in the fall of Mr. Ristow stated that High Speed Rail (HSR) is proceeding with the environmental process. NOTE: M/S/C MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE NDICATED, THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY Mobility Partnership Page 2 of 7 July 19, 2016

5 Mr. Woodward overheard that HSR would have a preferred alternative by fall of Mr. Ristow said that HSR is on a fast schedule and Draft Environmental Document maybe out as early as the end of the year. 3. Mr. Ristow discussed repurposing or reallocating federal earmarks to other projects. VTA is attempting to reallocate an estimated $2.5 Million of unused funds from a federal earmark for the completed SR 152/156 Interchange Project to US 101/SR 25 Interchange Project. VTA is currently in the process of completing Right of Way (ROW) transfers for SR 152/156 Interchange Project. VTA is trying to repurpose the funds within the allowed timeframe. Mr. Carr asked what the $2.5 Million will accomplish for the US 101/SR 25 Interchange Project. Mr. Ristow stated that sales tax measure passage is still needed to secure full project funding. If sales tax measure does not pass, $2.5 Million will not accomplish that much. Project has CEQA (State) environmental clearance but will likely require NEPA (Federal) clearance. Following efforts would focus on ROW acquisition and Final Design. Project cost is $160 Million. 4. Mr. Nick Saleh, Caltrans District 4 Division Chief, noted that per Caltrans District 5, Highway 25 Route Adoption Final Environmental Impact Report has been completed. Document will be submitted to CTC in October PRESENTATION ON ALIGNMENT OPTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR SR 152 Mr. Metzger provided a presentation on alignment options under consideration for SR 152. Two (2) southerly alignments were presented that take into account getting access to General Plan development/commercial thoroughfare areas. Future efforts, if pursued, would assess impacts and refine the concepts into one Southern Alignment. 8. PRESENTATION ON PREVIOUS WORK PERFORMED ON FINANCING/TOLL OPTIONS, INCLUDING BRIEF OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERHIP (P3) PROJECT DELIVERY METHOD Mr. Metzger provided a presentation on previous work performed on financing/toll options, and overview of Public Private Partnership (P3) project delivery method. SR 152 Project (from US 101 to I-5) will cost $1.1 billion with potential local funding of approximately 10% (or a small percentage of total cost). State and federal funding are unlikely in near term. Discussions: 1. Mr. Woodward asked about P3 arrangement. Mobility Partnership Page 3 of 7 July 19, 2016

6 Mr. Metzger explained that P3 is a Public Private Partnership in which tolling revenue will be leveraged with the private sector to secure financing for project completion. 2. Ms. Barrios inquired on examples of a tolled facility that is similar to the proposed SR 152 project. Mr. Ristow provided Southern California/ Orange County as example of a toll facility that has similar arrangement and funded through toll revenues. 3. Ms. Barrios asked on the timeline process of the P3 arrangement. Mr. Ristow explained that different types of arrangements/franchise agreements are adopted all over the country. 4. Mr. Woodward proposed a case study on Southern California toll facilities at the next meeting that will look into the P3 details (what has been done, how much money raised and operational details). 5. Mr. Metzger discussed the existing legislation/bills for VTA/SBCOG to develop a toll road. Legislation will be required to enable toll facility development with P3 on this corridor. 6. Mr. Ristow discussed the issue of the toll facility as publicly operated or through a private concession. Under AB 194, a public agency (such as VTA) can operate a toll facility with CTC approval. Under Senate Bill Second Extraordinary Session 4 (SBX2 4) which will expire on January 1, 2017, a private concession can operate the tolling facility. 7. Ms. Barrios noted that with the expiration looming for SBX2 4, legislative pressure must be exerted to extend the deadline. Mr. Metzger explained that extending the deadline is a message that MP could develop and relay to proposed meetings with Senator Beall and Assemblymember Frazier. Ms. Barrios wanted to make sure that every option is available for this project. Ms. Barrios asked if there s any opposition to extend the legislation deadline. Mr. Ristow noted that offhand, Professional Engineers in California Government, is typically opposed to this legislation. 8. Mr. Carr asked if MP is currently formed as a JPA. Mr. Ristow explained that MP is not currently a JPA. JPA can be formed by VTA and SBCOG. Nick Saleh noted that State/Caltrans could also be a party to the JPA. Mr. Carr requested for more JPA information/discussion at future meetings. Mr. Ristow suggested inviting Mr. Kurt Evans to discuss toll road legislation and JPA. 9. Mr. Metzger discussed SR 152 tolling options developed in 2010 and two (2) alternatives analyzed in 2013 Mobility Partnership Page 4 of 7 July 19, 2016

7 Tolling Alternative 1 would toll on SR 152 east of Casa de Fruta. It would capture all east west traffic from I-5. This alternative would also capture all traffic on old and new SR 152 alignments as well as SR 156 that originates from or whose destination is the Central Valley. This alternative has potential to raise more revenue but will require legislation to toll existing SR 152. Tolling Alternative 2 will toll only the new facility between SR 25 and SR 156 and south of SR 25. It will capture all traffic on new facility. Existing SR 152 facility will not be tolled. This alternative produces much less revenue. Thus, requiring substantially more public funds. 9. Mr. Carr noted that Tolling Alternative 2 provided drivers the option to avoid a toll by utilizing the existing SR 152 facility. Mr. Metzger confirmed. Mr. Carr stated the theory of tolling is to provide better service. 10. Ms. Barrios asked if tolling between SR 25 and SR 156 would be more or less advantageous to local residents. Concerns and opposition had been raised more on tolling than location of the route and the MP must seek ways to minimize the expense to local traffic/residents. Mr. Metzger explained that in Tolling Alternative 2, there will be no toll for traffic on SR 25 since tolling will be on the ramps to or from the new facility. Traffic from San Benito County directly to Santa Clara County will not be tolled unless the driver chooses to use the new facility. Mr. Metzger discussed that both alternatives will require public funds for up front project development work (PA/ED) and a portion of ROW acquisition. Tolling Alternative 1 revenue could allow financing of estimated 90% of construction, and operation and maintenance costs for the project as defined in the Project Study Report (PSR). Tolling Alternative 2 revenue could allow financing of estimated 50% of construction, and operation and maintenance costs of the new facility between US 101 and SR 156 only (no eastbound climbing lanes nor any improvements on I-5). 11. Mr. Carr asked if tolling assumes an operator. Mr. Metzger noted that tolling scenarios discussed assume a private concession. Mr. Ristow mentioned that private concession tolling exists in Europe, Asia and in other parts of Americas, but that public tolling is also possible. 12. Mr. Carr inquired on changes in assumptions for public concession (no private entity). Mr. Ristow explained that the public entity or taxpayers in a public concession will assume the risks involved for the project. Financial profit aspect will also differ for a public concession versus a privately held concession. Ms. Goodwin discussed the potential schedule difference of a public and private concession. Private concession is capitalized which allow faster financing and construction of the project. Public concession needs to finance the project through raising bonds which will affect the project delivery schedule. Mobility Partnership Page 5 of 7 July 19, 2016

8 13. Mr. Carr asked if both alternatives toll revenues will provide only for road maintenance or would excess revenue be generated to allow for such projects as US 101 improvements or in any other areas. Mr. Ristow explained that based on the project s conservative financial work, and the amount of public funds needed to make the project financially feasible, it is not planned that surplus revenue would be generated beyond that needed to repay debt, and operate and maintain the facility. 14. Mr. Carr inquired if toll is set on 50 year life cycle. Mr. Ristow discussed that tolls can be adjusted by the controlling entity. Mr. Carr cited the Southern California s San Diego toll facility bankruptcy filing. Staff explained that timing of project delivery, recession, cost escalation and an alternative route contributed to the toll facility s declining usage/low traffic counts. 15. Ms. Veronica Lezama, Transportation Planner SBCOG, asked if there will be toll rate difference on trucks and regular automobiles. Mr. Ristow explained that controlling entity can set the toll rate. Mr. Saleh mentioned that there might be some rate restrictions. Mr. Metzger explained that rate increase will be market-based. The JPA would manage the concession, conduct due diligence of traffic and revenue study and be involved in establishing procedures for setting toll rates based on sound economic practice. 16. Ms. Lezama inquired if truck traffic will be diverted south to avoid the toll and the traffic estimate expected on the southern area. Mr. Metzger discussed that more detailed traffic and revenue analysis is required to assess the potential for traffic diversion through the existing roadway system. Ms. Goodwin discussed that based on outreach initiatives conducted to the producers and various growers who originated goods from the study area; truckers/growers are not particularly toll rate/price sensitive, but are more concerned with time. 17. Mr. Carr asked if Tolling Alternative 2 will create more traffic in Hollister due to commuters using the existing SR 152 facility to avoid tolling. Mr. Metzger explained that Tolling Alternative 2 will only siphon some traffic on the new facility. Existing facility can still be used without a toll. 9. NEXT STEPS AND ACTION ITEMS Discussions: 1. Ms. Barrios requested outreach to be conducted to the San Benito s Farm Bureau, Business Council, County Economic Development Corporation and other key individuals. Mobility Partnership Page 6 of 7 July 19, 2016

9 Mr. Woodward advised no immediate outreach initiative for Santa Clara County. 2. Mr. Muenzer also requested outreach to San Benito County s Board of Supervisor. 3. Mr. Carr raised the issue of traffic impacts on US 101 and requested for a message that will address concern on additional traffic on US ADJOURNMENT On order of Chairperson Woodward, and there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 10:29 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Rebecca de Leon VTA Highway Program Mobility Partnership Page 7 of 7 July 19, 2016

10 Memo on Agenda Item 5 Date: September 14, 2016 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mobility Partnership Carolyn Gonot, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Interim Director of Planning and Program Development; Mary Gilbert, Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) Executive Director Receive reports from VTA and SBCOG staff INFORMATION ITEM RECOMMENDATION: Receive report from VTA and SBCOG staff on items related to the Mobility Partnership. BACKGROUND: Staff from VTA and SBCOG to provide status update on the following: Staff changes at VTA State legislation update Proposed sales tax measure for Santa Clara County High Speed Rail update SR 156 (Monterey County) P3 Project Development update

11 Memo on Agenda Item 6 Date: September 14, 2016 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mobility Partnership Chris Metzger, Project Manager Presentation on Public Private Partnership (P3) case studies and related information INFORMATION ITEM RECOMMENDATION: Receive presentation on Public Private Partnership (P3) case studies and related information. BACKGROUND: See attached presentation.

12 Memo on Agenda Item 7 Date: September 14, 2016 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mobility Partnership Chris Metzger, Project Manager Presentation on Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) formation INFORMATION ITEM RECOMMENDATION: Receive a presentation on Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) formation. BACKGROUND: Oral report to be provided.

13 Memo on Agenda Item 8 Date: September 14, 2016 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mobility Partnership Eileen Goodwin, Project Consultant Presentation on outreach plan INFORMATION ITEM RECOMMENDATION: Receive a presentation on outreach plan. BACKGROUND: See attached document and presentation.

14 SR 152 Outreach Plan The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), in coordination with the Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG), has formed the Mobility Partnership and is studying the development of an east-west trade corridor on State Route (SR) 152 between US Route (US) 101 and Interstate 5 (I-5). The study area limits are generally defined by US 101 to the west and I-5 to the east a distance of 39 miles. It is likely that the development of the trade corridor will spark public interest, especially since tolling is being considered as a possible finance mechanism. Stakeholders along this corridor are generally not aware of the benefits that such facilities provide or the mitigations that can be realized by the local community. Essential to a successful public outreach process is dynamic two-way communication, which promotes public feedback, and uses this feedback to transform the development process and outcome. The Mobility Partnership, functions as the policy level entity and consists of six elected officials three from each county. There has been thought to move the Mobility Partnership into a more formal organization such as a joint powers authority. There are various technical benefits to having such a formal arrangement to lead the project. This project did an extensive round of outreach and planning during when the project was larger and scoped to go between Route 101 and State Route 99, a distance of 84 miles. Since that project is no longer being contemplated, a new round of outreach meetings to key stakeholders is warranted to update them on the current status of the project and gather their input. The Mobility Partnership has begun to look at some alignments further south to potentially take advantage of the planning done in the recently adopted San Benito County General Plan. Because these potential alignments have economic implications and cut through the farm lands differently, the Mobility Partnership will be focusing on those San Benito County stakeholder interests in this round of outreach meetings. Key Stakeholder Meetings Personal contact to property owners or key stakeholders such as those in agriculture as well as the business interest is the preferred approach to assure awareness of the proposed project alternatives and to assess project support and/or concerns. Additional or repeat outreach and coordination is recommended for the Fall 2016 timeframe now that the project has moved into a formalized and re-energized Mobility Partnership. It is anticipated that additional outreach will be conducted in phases with the following groups:

15 First Phase (as soon as possible): City staff in Hollister and San Juan Bautista; County Planning Department and Public Works Department staff in San Benito; Staff at Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) (by phone); Agriculture interests including San Benito County Farm Bureau; Business Interests - San Benito Business Council, San Benito County Economic Development and Hollister Downtown Association. Key individuals (Tony Ruiz, Greg Swett, SBCOG Route 25 stakeholder group) Metropolitan Transportation Commission Caltrans District 4 Management Second Phase CHP Gilroy District of the Golden Gate Division; Santa Clara County Stakeholders San Benito County Stakeholders Metropolitan Transportation Commission Caltrans District 4 Management Outreach Materials The Project Team will refresh the Frequently Asked Questions Document and keep the project website is current. Community Outreach Meetings and Media At this time there is no plan for a large community meeting or press releases since the project has not reached, nor is anticipated to reach, key milestones or decisions during the balance of 2016.

16 Memo on Agenda Item 9 Date: September 14, 2016 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mobility Partnership Chris Metzger, Project Manager Workplan Update/Next Steps RECOMMENDATION: ACTION ITEM Approve workplan updates, next steps, and action items per today s meeting. BACKGROUND: See attached workplan document, summarizing status of work plan adopted at the December 17, 2015 Mobility Partnership meeting, and presenting potential future activities/decisions. Based on this workplan and discussions held at the meeting, agree upon next steps.

17 Work Plan Status September 7, 2016 Original Work Plan Element Status Next Action 1. Review New Improvement Concepts Two Alternative Corridors defined: PSR corridor and Southern corridor per July 19,2016 meeting Refine Southern Corridor to define geometry and identify/assess impacts/cost 2. Assess Potential Near Term Funding Opportunities Potential Funding for US 101/SR 25 I/C from SCC Sales Tax Measure November, State transportation funding bill (Beall/Frazier) under discussion Contact Beall/Frazier to advocate for funding for 152 Corridor. 3. Workshop on Institutional/Governance Topics 4. Assess Opportunities to Coordinate with High Speed Rail Received report(s) at March 9, 2016 meeting and September 14, 2016 meeting Received report at May 11, 2016 meeting. Regular updates planned. HSR supportive of improving 152 to provide access to Gilroy Station, but does not see nexus to help fund from HSR funds Pending identification of funding Develop more formal support from HSRA for use in discussions with State Legislators. 5. Establish and implement Outreach Plan Draft Plan presented at September 14, Begin implementation of plan in Fall, Review and define actions in pursuing Funding Options for Improvements Project Goals approved at May 11, 2016 meeting. Funding possible for Goods Movement, Safety, Economic viability of area Refine message and meet with Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMBAG and Metropolitan Transportation Commission) and State Legislators 7. Assess Options for Delivering SR 152 Trade Corridor and SR 25 improvements Discussion held at July 19, 2016 MP meeting that full funding from public funds not likely. Presentation on P3 basics part of September 14, 2016 MP meeting. TBD In support of the above items discussed in the December 17, 2015 Mobility Partnership (MP) meeting, the following lays out the project development steps that would be required, approximate timelines, and major issues for which the MP would be requested to provide direction.

18 SCC/SBC Mobility Partnership Workplan Workflow Secure PA/ED Funding Alternative Development Screening Environmental Process - Technical Studies/Analysis (Note1) DED Circulation/ Comment Response Select Preferred Alternative FED/ROD JPA Formation Traffic and Revenue Analysis P3 Program Development (Note 2) Secure Public Portion of Project P3 Solicitation Process (see attached) Design/Build/Operate/Maintain NOTES: 1. Techical studies will address : 2. P3 Program Development to include - US 101 Impact Analysis - Facility Ownership - Coordination with HSR Alignment - Financing Plan Development - Access Point Decisions Option for Project Development Agreement (PDA) PDA Program Development JPA Formation PDA Solicitation Process Project Development Phase 1 Assessment of Viability Project Development Phases 2,3

19 P3 Solicitation Process Dated Timeline Generic vs Sample Actuals Generic PPP Procurement Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Quarter 5 Quarter 6 Quarter 7 Quarter 8 Quarter 9 Project Definition & Prestructuring Finalized Preliminary Definition of Project Scope and Contracting Method Industry Review Industry Forum and one-on-meetings RFQ/PIM and Shortlisting Issue Final RFQ Statements of Qualifications Submittal RFP Development Announce Proposer Shortlist Issue Final RFP Bid Preparation and Submission Detailed Proposals Due for Submittal Selection & Award Announce Best Value Proposer Award to Closing Financial Close Actual Progress on Florida I-595 Corridor Roadway Improvements 2007 Q Q Q Q Q2 Industry Forum Jul, 2007 First Full Draft RFP Released Dec 12, 2007 RFQ/PIM Released Oct 1, 2007 Announced Shortlist Dec 4, 2007 Actual Progress on Florida Port of Miami Tunnel 2008 Q Q Q Q2 Proposals Submitted Sep 5, 2008 BV Proposer Annouced Oct 24, 2008 Financial Close Mar Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q4 Industry Forum Dec 2005 Portions of Draft RFP Jun 2006 Proposals Submitted Mar 5, 2007 Issue RFQ/PIM Feb 17, 2006 Announced Shortlist Apr 28, 2006 First Full Draft RFP Released Nov 1, 2006 Apparent BV Proposer May 2, 2007

20 Mobility Partnership Briefing September 14,

21 Public Private Partnership (P3) Case Studies and Related Information Agenda Item 6 2

22 Agenda Item 6 SR 91 Express Lanes (SR 91) Orange County, CA 3

23 Agenda Item 6 South Bay Expressway (SR 125) San Diego, CA 4

24 Agenda Item 6 Presidio Parkway San Francisco, CA 5

25 Mobility Partnership Outreach Plan Agenda Item 8 6

26 Agenda Item 8 Outreach Plan Extensive round of outreach and planning during Different (smaller) project now Focus on San Benito County stakeholders Outreach Materials Frequently Asked Questions Document Project Website Community meetings, press releases and similar are deferred to a TBD future timeframe 7

27 Agenda Item 8 Stakeholders Phase One City staff in Hollister and San Juan Bautista County Planning Department and Public Works Department staff in San Benito Staff at Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) (by phone) Agriculture interests including San Benito County Farm Bureau Business Interests - San Benito Business Council, San Benito County Economic Development and Hollister Downtown Association Key individuals (Tony Ruiz, Greg Swett, SBCOG Route 25 stakeholder group) Metropolitan Transportation Commission Caltrans District 4 Management 8

28 Agenda Item 8 Stakeholders Phase Two CHP Gilroy District of the Golden Gate Division Santa Clara County Stakeholders San Benito County Stakeholders Metropolitan Transportation Commission Caltrans District 4 Management 9

29 Questions 10